[Senate Hearing 117-298]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 117-298

                   WAYS TO STRENGTHEN THE ENERGY AND 
                    MINERAL PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE 
                   U.S. AND CANADA TO ADDRESS ENERGY 
                    SECURITY AND CLIMATE OBJECTIVES 

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                              MAY 17, 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 

47-960                  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
                  C.J. Osman Professional Staff Member
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
                     Kate Farr, Republican Counsel 
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

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

                               WITNESSES

Kenney, Hon. Jason, Premier, Alberta, Canada.....................     5
Camden, Hon. Nathalie, Sous-ministre associee aux Mines 
  (Associate Deputy Minister of Mines), Ministere de l'Energie et 
  des Ressources naturelles (Ministry of Energy and Natural 
  Resources), Quebec, Canada.....................................    13
Bradley, Francis, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Electricity Canada.............................................    26
Wilkinson, Hon. Jonathan, Minister of Natural Resources, Natural 
  Resources Canada...............................................    38

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

(The) Aluminum Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................    94
Barrasso, Hon. John:
    Opening Statement............................................     3
Bradley, Francis:
    Opening Statement............................................    26
    Written Testimony............................................    28
Camden, Hon. Nathalie:
    Opening Statement............................................    13
    Written Testimony............................................    15
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    76
Kenney, Hon. Jason:
    Opening Statement............................................     5
    Written Testimony............................................     8
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    71
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Wilkinson, Hon. Jonathan:
    Opening Statement............................................    38
    Written Testimony............................................    40
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    88 
    
 
                   WAYS TO STRENGTHEN THE ENERGY AND  
                    MINERAL PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE 
                   U.S. AND CANADA TO ADDRESS ENERGY 
                    SECURITY AND CLIMATE OBJECTIVES 

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDSAY, MAY 17, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 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 meeting will come to order.
    Let me, first of all, welcome all of our guests. We are 
just so delighted to have you all and I want to thank you again 
for the gracious hospitality that was shown to me when I 
visited with you all. I really, really enjoyed it. And the 
weather was all Canadian.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. And I enjoyed that also. We will get started.
    Today, I want to welcome our friends from the North, from 
Canada, to continue the Committee's very important conversation 
about how we pursue two critical goals--ensuring energy 
security and addressing climate change. These two goals are not 
mutually exclusive, and it is imperative that we address both. 
We all agree that Putin has used Russia's oil and gas resources 
as a weapon to inflict terrible pain on the Ukrainian people 
and on Europe. And other energy-rich autocracies are taking 
note. We would be foolish to think that Xi Jinping would not 
consider using a similar playbook, leveraging China's control 
over global critical minerals supply chains. But Putin's 
aggression is bringing the free world closer together than 
ever, setting the stage for a new alliance around energy, 
minerals, and climate. Building this alliance should start here 
in North America, and that is why I am excited to hear today 
about how we can strengthen the energy and minerals partnership 
between the United States and Canada.
    Canada is our largest energy trading partner. They have 
strong climate goals and they share our democratic values. This 
is why I recently traveled to Alberta at the invitation of 
Premier Kenney. I spent two days getting a better understanding 
of our energy, minerals, and manufacturing partnership through 
meetings with representatives from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and 
in the Northwest Territories, the Federal Government, and 
tribal and industry partners. Canadians and Americans share a 
deep history and are natural partners, sharing the longest land 
border on earth. Our people fought side by side in two world 
wars. In fact, some of the uranium used by the Manhattan 
Project was mined in Canada's Northwest Territories and refined 
in Ontario. We have cultivated a strong manufacturing 
partnership, particularly in the automotive industry, with 
Canada today being our biggest export market for vehicles. Cars 
assembled in Canada contain, on average, more than 50 percent 
of U.S. value and parts. Today, we also trade over 58 terawatt-
hours of electricity, 2.4 billion barrels of petroleum 
products, and 3.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year. 
In fact, energy alone represents $120 billion of the annual 
trade between our countries. Across all sectors, the U.S. and 
Canada trade more than $2 billion daily. That is $2 billion 
daily. There is no better symbol of our energy relationship 
than our interconnected power grid, which is seamless and 
integral for the reliable and affordable electricity citizens 
and industries in both of our countries depend on.
    We are here for each other during these times of need. 
Electricity workers from both the U.S. and Canada regularly 
cross the border during extreme weather events to help get the 
power back on when Mother Nature calls. Canada has ramped up 
oil exports to the U.S. to offset Russian crude, and members of 
our Committee led legislation to cut off the energy purchases 
fueling Putin's war machine. We know that a number of U.S. 
refineries are configured to run on heavy crude. Canadian heavy 
crude provides an alternative to sources like Venezuela, which 
we have sanctioned due to Nicolas Maduro's anti-democratic 
actions. Canada is also a leading supplier of uranium and 
critical minerals to the U.S., including those used in advanced 
batteries, such as cobalt, graphite, and nickel.
    The U.S.-Canada energy partnership is strong, but also not 
without its challenges. I have not been shy in expressing my 
frustration when the Biden Administration canceled the Keystone 
XL Pipeline. In light of Putin's war in Ukraine and the global 
energy price surge, I think a lot of us wish that project had 
moved forward today. But to be clear, I am not holding this 
hearing to relitigate the past. We are here to advance a 
stronger and a cleaner U.S.-Canada energy partnership for the 
future. Our allies and trading partners in Europe are begging 
for North American oil and gas to offset the reliance on 
Russia. There is no reason whatsoever we should not be able to 
fill that void and do it cleaner than the alternatives. That is 
because American oil and gas is cleaner than what is produced 
in Russia and certainly in Iran and Venezuela. We can do better 
and learn from our Canadian neighbors and all of us working 
together.
    On average, Canada produces oil with 37 percent lower 
methane emissions than the U.S. That is technology we can use 
also. And the Canadian Federal Government has set even more 
aggressive methane reduction targets. That is what I mean by 
climate and security not being mutually exclusive. Replacing 
Russian product has added the benefit of reducing the emissions 
profile of the energy Europe needs today. I also strongly 
believe that we need to be taking security into account as we 
invest in climate solutions. According to the International 
Energy Agency, stationary and electric vehicle batteries will 
account for about half of the mineral demand growth from clean 
energy technologies over the next 20 years. Unfortunately, 
China controls 80 percent of the world's battery material 
processing, 60 percent of the world's cathode production, 80 
percent of the world's anode production, and 75 percent of the 
world's lithium-ion battery cell production. They have cornered 
the market, and we allowed it to happen.
    It makes no sense whatsoever for us to be so heavily 
invested in electric vehicles as a climate solution when that 
means increasing our reliance on China because, right now, we 
are not simultaneously increasing our mining, our processing, 
and recycling capacity at the same rate in the United States. 
The Canadians are ahead of us on critical mineral refining and 
processing, and we have much to learn from them about how they 
are able to responsibly permit these activities in times that 
blow our timetables out of the water. I believe there is much 
that we can collaborate on with Canada to create a powerful 
North American critical minerals supply chain instead of 
increasing China's geopolitical leverage. I am sure our 
Canadian friends are happy to export minerals to us, but let me 
be clear, the United States also needs to contribute our part 
to a North American minerals alliance. So I am very interested 
in discussing how we can create an integrated network for raw 
materials to move across our borders for processing and 
manufacturing in both of our countries.
    During this time, when the U.S. and Canada and our allies 
and friends are threatened, both by dictators weaponizing 
energy and by intense politicization over climate issues, we 
must work together to chart a responsible path forward that 
will ensure security and unlock prosperity for all of our 
nations. We are the superpower of the world, and are blessed 
with abundant energy and mineral resources. We cannot just sit 
back and let other countries fill the void and find ourselves 
in a more dire situation in the years ahead. We must be leaning 
into the responsible production of all the energy sources we 
are going to need, and strengthening strategic partnerships--
building a North American energy alliance is the right thing to 
do.
    With that, I am going to turn to Ranking Member Barrasso 
for his opening remarks.

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

    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, for 
holding this very important hearing. Thank you to the witnesses 
for being here. I especially want to recognize Premier Jason 
Kenney of Alberta for joining us. Thank you for being with us 
today, Mr. Premier. You know, Alberta has much in common with 
my home State of Wyoming. We have rolling prairies. We have 
stunning mountain ranges. And we both have an economy built on 
energy production. We both have an abundance of oil, of natural 
gas, of coal, and wind resources. We both appreciate the high 
paying jobs that come from energy development, and we are both 
hurt by President Biden's war on energy.
    In 2003, Canada's estimated recoverable reserves of oil 
jumped about 175 billion barrels thanks to Albertan oil sands. 
A few years later, in the United States, a similar bounty was 
discovered. The application of advanced technologies like 
hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling launched an energy 
revolution. It had profound and positive impacts on our 
nations' economies and standings in the world. These 
developments in the United States and Canada shifted the 
world's energy center of gravity from the Middle East and 
Russia to North America. It is important that we strengthen the 
energy and resource partnership between the United States and 
Canada, but Joe Biden's policies are placing it all at risk. 
The Biden Administration made the United States an unreliable 
partner to Canada by killing the Keystone XL Pipeline. Not 
satisfied with just harming Canadian energy, the President went 
on, and his appointees are doing everything possible to 
discourage American energy production. We are now less able to 
support our friends in North America and around the world. We 
are less able to provide for ourselves.
    Premier Kenney and I agree that this needs to change. We 
also need to expand our partnership with Canada beyond energy 
to critical minerals. This Committee has held several hearings 
this Congress on mining. Demand for minerals worldwide is 
skyrocketing. Some suggest we import minerals from Canada as an 
alternative to mining it here at home. I strongly disagree. 
There is simply no way to meet U.S. and global demand for 
minerals without opening new mines in the United States. Our 
nation's federal permitting process is the number one barrier 
to increased domestic production of minerals. It takes ten 
years on average to permit a mine in the United States. It took 
us less time to get to the moon. In Canada, it could take as 
little as two years for the similar permits. We should learn 
from Canada's best practices.
    Our electricity grids are physically tied with Canada's. 
There are dozens of interconnections. Electrons know no 
borders. Our countries face similar risks from blackouts, even 
as we help each other keep the lights on. Electricity must be 
reliable and affordable. People suffer and sometimes die 
otherwise. Electricity policy in both countries could use a 
dose of reality. The United States and Canada cannot rely on 
the sun, wind, and wishful thinking alone. Although Canada has 
a different energy mix for its electric grid, it makes the most 
of its affordable, reliable, and abundant natural resources. 
The United States must do the same. We should learn from 
Canada's permitting success with hydropower and nuclear energy. 
North American energy is a tremendous geopolitical asset. That 
means we need a strong energy and mineral partnership with 
Canada that requires being strong ourselves by ramping up 
energy and mineral production here in the United States.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
    Before we get started, I am going to have a little 
housekeeping measure here. I want to announce that the Greek 
Prime Minister will be addressing a joint meeting of Congress 
this morning at 10:35. I am going to be staying here for this 
hearing. So we are not going to be recessing, but any of the 
members who might have to leave or want to attend, it is 
understandable. I think this will be much more interesting 
though.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. So I am going to now turn to our witnesses. I 
am going to introduce them.
    We have Hon. Jason Kenney, Premier of Alberta, Canada.
    We have Hon. Nathalie Camden, Associate Deputy Minister of 
Mines at the Quebec Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources.
    We have Mr. Francis Bradley, President and Chief Executive 
Officer of Electricity Canada.
    We also have, joining us virtually, Hon. Jonathan 
Wilkinson. He is Canada's Minister of Natural Resources. I 
understand, Minister Wilkinson, that you have to leave at noon 
to attend a cabinet meeting, and we will be cognizant of your 
timing there. So hopefully, we will get our questions to you 
quickly.
    With that, we are going to open up with Premier Kenney with 
his opening remarks.


            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JASON KENNEY, 
                    PREMIER, ALBERTA, CANADA

    Mr. Kenney. Thank you so much, Chairman Manchin, and to you 
members of the Committee. Thank you especially for having 
visited us in Alberta. I am sorry we did not offer good 
weather, but come back in the summer.
    The Chairman. It was great. I thought it was all Canada.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Kenney. Senators, if you remember one thing from 
today's hearing, I hope it will be this--that the province of 
Alberta is, by far, the largest source of U.S. energy imports. 
U.S. energy security depends on Alberta. And Alberta can be a 
huge part of the solution to the problem of American energy 
inflation and the cost-of-living crisis. Senators, last year, 
over 60 percent of U.S. oil and gas imports came from Alberta--
that is 6-0, not 1-6--60 percent. The U.S. Energy Information 
Administration reports that last year, the United States 
imported 2.2 billion barrels of crude oil, 1.4 billion of 
which, or 62 percent, came from Canada and virtually all of 
that, from Alberta. Let us put that in perspective. Last year, 
13 percent of U.S. oil imports came from all OPEC countries 
combined and only six percent from Saudi Arabia. So Alberta 
supplies the U.S. with ten times more oil than Saudi Arabia and 
five times more than all of OPEC. The same is true for natural 
gas. Last year, my province shipped 4.8 billion cubic feet of 
gas per day to the U.S. That is 63 percent of your gas imports. 
And I am proud to say that Alberta is home to the world's third 
largest proven and probable oil reserves, about 180 billion 
barrels worth, and one of the world's largest reserves of 
natural gas. The province of Alberta owns those resources and 
has the exclusive constitutional jurisdiction to regulate their 
production.
    Now, after your country has spent hundreds of billions of 
dollars in recent decades defending security in the Persian 
Gulf area, it turns out that the solution to the challenges of 
energy security is your closest friend and ally. Vladmir 
Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine has proven the danger of 
allowing dictators to dominate global energy markets and 
weaponize oil wealth, using it to spread violence, instability, 
and terrorism around the world. And that is why we were, 
frankly, so taken aback when President Biden vetoed the 
Keystone XL Pipeline. It would have safely delivered 830,000 
barrels a day of responsibly produced Canadian energy to the 
U.S., more than displacing the 670,000 barrels a day that you 
all bought from Putin's Russia last year. We were also 
perplexed with the Administration's response to sky-high gas 
prices, which was to plead with OPEC to produce and sell more 
oil while working to lift sanctions on dictatorships like Iran 
and Venezuela. White House officials have reportedly discussed 
a Presidential visit to Saudi Arabia to press for more 
production of their oil and their exports to the U.S.--oil that 
is used to buy cluster bombs dropped on Yemeni civilians. Well, 
Senators, Calgary is a lot closer to Washington than Riyadh, 
and you do not need the U.S. Navy's fifth fleet to patrol the 
Great Lakes. To quote former Montana Governor, Brian 
Schweitzer, ``We do not have to send the National Guard into 
Alberta.''
    Chairman Manchin, we truly appreciated, as I said, your 
recent visit to Alberta to see firsthand the amazing progress 
that is being made to reduce emissions and improve the 
environmental performance of Canada's oil sands, but to see 
also the deep partnerships between our energy producers and our 
indigenous people and to discuss the development of a North 
American energy alliance. We invite other members of this 
Committee to visit Alberta and see for yourself, judge for 
yourself, draw your own conclusions about whether Alberta is a 
preferable solution--as a source of imports--to OPEC. Between 
current unused capacity in the North American pipeline system 
and the prospect of pipeline optimization, plus the scheduled 
completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion to Canada's 
West Coast next year, Alberta will be able to increase our 
crude exports to the U.S. by upwards of a million barrels a day 
over the next couple of years, helping to reduce prices at the 
pump. But with political will from Washington, we could also 
get another major pipeline built that would forever allow the 
United States to free itself from imports from hostile regimes.
    Mr. Chairman, where there is a will, there is a way. The 
government of Alberta is keen to work with you and friends in 
the United States to get another major pipeline built to 
achieve the dream of North American energy independence and 
security. At the same time, we must work together to maintain 
current supply, and that is why I call on the U.S. Government 
to join Canada in demanding that the Governor of Michigan 
respect the 1977 Canada-U.S. pipeline transit treaty by 
abandoning her efforts to decommission the Enbridge Line 5 
Pipeline that has safely delivered over 600,000 barrels of 
Canadian energy to the U.S. for six decades. Her plan to do 
this would only worsen the energy and cost-of-living crisis at 
the worst possible time. And we must work on both sides of the 
border to remove regulatory barriers to the production and 
shipment of energy.
    Senators, replacing conflict oil imports with Canadian 
energy is not a threat to the environment. We take seriously 
the need to cut emissions and to address climate change. 
Alberta's oil and gas producers and pipeline companies have 
some of the world's highest ESG rankings. Alberta was the first 
place in North America to implement carbon pricing. Through 
massive investments in clean tech, we have reduced the carbon 
footprint of an average barrel of Alberta oil by 36 percent 
since the year 2000 to below the global average for heavy oil. 
Our oil sands producers are committed to achieving net-zero 
greenhouse gas emissions in their operations by 2050, in part, 
through a big expansion of our world-leading carbon capture 
utilization and storage infrastructure. We are on track to 
reduce methane emissions by at least 45 percent. We are leading 
Canada right now in renewable energy investments and we are set 
to become a global hub in the production of net-zero and low-
emitting hydrogen.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions 
and ongoing collaboration on developing a North American energy 
alliance.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kenney follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Premier Kenney.
    Now, we are going to go to Nathalie Camden.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NATHALIE CAMDEN, SOUS-MINISTRE 
   ASSOCIEE AUX MINES (ASSOCIATE DEPUTY MINISTER OF MINES), 
 MINISTERE DE L'ENERGIE ET DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES (MINISTRY 
        OF ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES), QUEBEC, CANADA

    Ms. Camden. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and 
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for this 
opportunity to share Quebec's mining practices and present how 
we can grow our relationship. Canada and the U.S. are long-time 
friends, partners, and allies. During World War II, the U.S. 
built aluminum smelters for the allied war effort. Today, 
Quebec supplies around 60 percent of North American aluminum. 
And thanks to our energy, that is 99.8 percent renewable, it is 
the greenest in the world. This shared story is more important 
now than ever. New national security threats demand similar 
collaboration. For defense purposes, Canadian products are 
considered domestic and our trade is further deepened to the 
USMCA. Quebec stands ready to partner with the United States to 
address weaknesses in our supply chain.
    How can we help? First, we have the minerals the U.S. needs 
and we are business-ready. Quebec's subsoil contains 46 of the 
50 minerals deemed critical and strategic by the USGS, 
including lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite--all required 
for batteries. Our critical minerals action plan, the first in 
Canada, sets priorities from exploration to recycling. Quebec 
is recognized as the sixth most attractive mining jurisdiction 
in the world. We have 22 mines in operation, three in care and 
maintenance, and 33 mining projects. Second, the transition to 
EVs and renewable energy is increasing mineral demand. To meet 
this challenge, Quebec has developed a strategy to build a 
highly efficient and traceable North American battery supply 
chain from mine to wheel, and it is already taking shape. 
Recently, GM, POSCO, and BASF each announced a major CAM 
facility less than 100 miles from Vermont and Maine. The CAMs 
developed in Quebec will power GM's next factory in Michigan as 
well as facilities in Ohio and Tennessee. The GM/POSCO plan is 
proof that together, we can create jobs on both sides of the 
border. For EV manufacturing in North America to be globally 
competitive, it needs to be truly North American.
    Like in the U.S., mining projects in Quebec require 
numerous permits and authorizations. We have streamlined these 
processes while increasing social acceptability and 
transparency. Through government reforms and the new Permits 
Coordination Office, we cut administrative formalities by over 
30 percent. Cutting red tape generated substantial savings for 
industry without, of course, weakening our environmental 
stewardship. Industry knows that social acceptability and 
sustainable development are paramount in Quebec. Companies are 
adapting globally recognized sustainability certifications and 
standards. Sustainable development ensures sustainable economic 
returns. Quebec's hydropower provides stable electricity prices 
for consumers, be they mining in Quebec or a household in New 
England. Quebec is also home to many indigenous communities. We 
have concluded modern treaties with the Cree, the Inuit, and 
the Naskapi that offer companies predictability. In addition to 
our required consultation process, we promote dialogue among 
indigenous communities, mining companies, and government at the 
earliest stage.
    I want to close by stressing the urgent need to deepen and 
expand our collaboration. The situation in Ukraine shows energy 
and resource vulnerabilities of many allied countries. On 
battery, mineral, and energy issues, the message is the same. 
The U.S. must diversify its sources, and Quebec is here to 
help. Working together can ensure our competitiveness, 
security, and the environment for generations to come. Quebec 
is just an hour and a half flight from Washington. We invite 
you to come visit La belle province anytime and perhaps we will 
have nice weather, and merci beaucoup, and I look forward to 
hearing your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Camden follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  

    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Deputy Minister.
    Now we are going to go to Mr. Bradley.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF FRANCIS BRADLEY, PRESIDENT   
        AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ELECTRICITY CANADA 

    Mr. Bradley. Good morning, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, and members of the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about 
the mutually beneficial electricity relationship between Canada 
and the U.S. and how it bolsters shared goals for clean energy, 
energy security, reliability, affordability, and our economies. 
I am Francis Bradley with Electricity Canada. We are the voice 
of the Canadian electricity industry. Our members generate, 
transmit, distribute, and market electricity across Canada and 
the U.S. every day. The integrated U.S.-Canada electricity 
system is critical to the positive North American energy 
relationship. This relationship is recognized by the United 
States-Mexico-Canada agreement providing for tariff-free 
treatment of energy trade between our countries. As both 
countries seek to achieve clean energy goals and to ensure 
energy security, this partnership offers opportunities to 
increase the availability and development of reliable and 
affordable clean energy.
    Canadians and Americans share a highly integrated 
electricity grid connected by over 35 high voltage transmission 
lines. Some 30 states engage in electricity trade with Canada 
each year. Canadian and U.S. electricity companies own and 
invest in assets on both sides of the border. They work in 
unity of effort to keep the grid secure and reliable in the 
face of energy transformation, new security threats, and more 
extreme weather. Canada has a low-carbon electricity grid, an 
abundance of reliable, affordable, and dispatchable power, and 
further clean resource development opportunities. More than 80 
percent of electricity produced in Canada is non-emitting 
today--predominately dispatchable hydropower. And trade is not 
one-way. The U.S. exports electricity to Canada. Tangible 
benefits of electricity trade and to integration for Americans 
and Canadians include enhanced reliability and resilience 
through operational efficiencies and supply diversity, enhanced 
affordability through efficient price signals and larger 
markets, greater emissions reductions, and support for 
developing new renewables and clean energy technologies. 
Increased cross-border transmission infrastructure can enable 
further two-way trade and its benefits.
    The second installment of the Department of Energy's 
Quadrennial Energy Review stressed that, and I quote, 
``additional cross-border transmission infrastructure with 
Canada has been projected to lead to lower overall system costs 
in U.S. border regions, and it could enhance reliability, 
backstop variable renewable energy development, and enable 
lower overall emissions of U.S. power consumption.'' As such, 
predictable regulatory regimes for energy infrastructure 
development are important. As in Canada, the U.S. has ambitious 
clean energy and climate goals at the federal and state level. 
To transition to net zero, both countries will need every 
megawatt of non-emitting generation. As such, Canadian non-
emitting imports should constitute as clean energy under any 
climate or clean energy regime.
    Electricity trade and integration are important tools for 
bolstering reliable and affordable clean energy supply and 
development. For example, the Champlain Hudson Power Express 
will provide clean power from Canada to New York, building on 
benefits already existing from electricity trade. Canadian 
hydropower can help bring more U.S. intermittent resources 
online by serving as backstop energy to solar and wind. A 
recent example is the Great Northern Transmission Line 
connecting Manitoba hydropower with U.S. wind. Further, 
Canadian hydro can act as a battery to help reduce U.S. 
renewable curtailment. A recent MIT paper found that Canadian 
hydropower can be particularly effective as a complement, not a 
substitute, for deploying more wind and solar in the Northeast. 
There is also cooperation on electricity technology leadership. 
For example, Ontario Power Generation and the Tennessee Valley 
Authority announced plans to work together on advanced nuclear 
technology. Another one of my members, Capital Power, is 
working on carbon capture initiatives at its Genesee facility 
to support near zero emitting natural gas-powered generation, 
and to convert captured carbon into carbon nanotubes. The U.S.-
Canada electricity relationship extends to bolstering grid 
resilience. Canadians and Americans work together to address 
security risks and follow mandatory North American electricity 
standards. Canadian companies provide mutual assistance, 
crossing the border to help American electricity companies 
restore power to customers more quickly in the aftermath of 
major weather disasters.
    In conclusion, Canada is a reliable and trusted electricity 
partner. This partnership has served Canadians and Americans 
for over 100 years. In the context of climate change and 
growing cyber and physical threats to the grid, the U.S.-Canada 
relationship is more important than ever. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bradley follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    The Chairman. Now we will hear from Minister Wilkinson.
    Minister Wilkinson, it is your turn.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JONATHAN WILKINSON, MINISTER OF 
          NATURAL RESOURCES, NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA

    Mr. Wilkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
Ranking Member Barrasso for the opportunity to speak with the 
Committee about the interconnected double threat to the 
national security interests of both of our nations--energy 
security and climate change. I appear here to share Canada's 
perspective on these urgent matters with our neighbor, our 
closest ally, and our largest trading partner, in my role as my 
country's Minister of Natural Resources. I was, as well, until 
about six months ago, Canada's Minister of Environment and 
Climate Change.
    Let me begin just with a brief word about Ukraine. This 
brutal, illegal invasion launched by President Putin against 
the people of Ukraine represents a violation of international 
law and an unjustified attack on a peaceful people. Canada's 
support for the Ukrainian people is unshakeable. To date, we 
have provided Ukraine consequential, humanitarian, military, 
and other support, and we are committed to continuing to do so.
    The International Energy Agency defines energy security as 
the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an 
affordable price. There are some in both of our countries who 
suggest that given the current urgency of the energy security 
issue, we must set aside concerns and actions relating to 
climate change. This position is neither thoughtful nor 
tenable. Domestic energy security and climate action are 
increasingly and inextricably tied together. As Canada works to 
help our European allies at this time of crisis, we are 
concurrently cutting oil and gas emissions, including from 
methane regulations and establishing clean fuel and electricity 
standards to achieve our ambitious 2030 climate target. If we 
look to the present situation in Europe, western European 
countries are working vigorously to secure predictable energy 
supplies in the context of an increasingly belligerent and 
irrational Russia. Short-term, Europe is focused on replacing 
Russian energy imports with those from other countries, while 
aggressively accelerating a transition towards renewables and 
hydrogen in the medium term. As the President of the European 
Commission stated recently, and I quote, ``It is our switch to 
renewables and hydrogen that will make us truly independent.'' 
In this context, recent decisions by the United States and 
Canada to expand hydrocarbon exports to our European friends to 
displace Russian oil and gas for the short term are entirely 
appropriate, particularly since these actions are being taken 
very much within the context of our respective climate change 
plans.
    However, it is the shift to domestically produced renewable 
energy and the hydrogen supplied by stable countries like 
Canada that will provide true energy security and national 
security to Europe and to both of our countries. A clean energy 
transition will deliver energy security in a sustainable 
future, enabling democratic countries to wean themselves from 
petro-dictators who weaponize energy. It will strengthen 
economies and create jobs and it will respond to the urgent 
code-red for humanity, which is how the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change characterizes the climate crisis which 
presently confronts us. Given the challenging nature of current 
geopolitics, the need to be focused on energy security has 
never been greater, security that can be driven through a 
Canada-U.S. energy collaboration and through joint action on 
climate change.
    Let us commit our countries to the further development of a 
North American energy powerhouse, one that will facilitate 
energy security while helping to advance our shared journey 
down a path to net zero. Canada and the U.S. already have 
deeply interconnected energy systems. In fact, 60 percent of 
U.S. oil imports and 93 percent of American electricity imports 
come from Canada, and all of this flows through a network of 
existing pipelines, very much including Line 5 and cross-border 
electricity transmission lines. Going forward, there will be a 
continuing relationship between our countries in the areas of 
oil and gas. Even in the International Energy Agency's net-zero 
scenario, there will be a need, beyond 2050, for about a 
quarter of current oil production and half of current gas 
production for use in non-combustion applications, such as 
petrochemicals, lubricants, solvents, waxes, and hydrogen. And 
clearly, countries that focus on producing hydrocarbons with 
ultra-low production emissions are likely to be the last 
producers standing.
    In the context of the low-carbon energy transition, the 
opportunities for Canada-U.S. collaboration and mutual benefit 
are enormous. For example, critical minerals, all the way from 
mines to processing to manufacturing to recycling; hydrogen to 
fuel our trucks, planes, trains, industries, and even our 
homes; production of renewable energy and transmission of clean 
electricity across our borders; nuclear technology, including 
small modular reactors; carbon removal technologies; and in the 
research, development, and the scaling of a wide range of clean 
technologies. As we partner in these areas, we need to be 
clear-eyed, ensuring that in moving away from dependence on 
autocratic hydrocarbon producing countries, we do not 
inadvertently end up with similar dependence on other 
autocratic countries in areas such as critical minerals. I was 
in Washington last week to advance exactly these conversations 
because they are critical to the future of our economies and of 
our planet, and Canada is committed to working with you to 
enhance North American energy security, to fight climate 
change, and to create jobs and economic opportunity for the 
citizens of both of our great countries.
    Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkinson follows:]
   
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Minister.
    Before we start our questioning, I would be remiss if I did 
not ask all of you to introduce your staff that has traveled 
with you, and we want to welcome all of them, but if you want 
to take time, and Premier Kenney, if you want to start?
    Mr. Kenney. Sure. Thanks, Senator.
    So I am joined by Alberta's Minister of Energy, Sonya 
Savage.
    The Chairman. Stand up. Stand up.
    Mr. Kenney. Minister of the Environment and Parks, Jason 
Nixon and Alberta's Senior Representative in the United States, 
James Rajotte.
    The Chairman. Thank you all for being here.
    Honorable Ms. Camden.
    Ms. Camden. Yes, I am not traveling with people from 
Quebec.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Camden. But I am supported by Quebec's Office in 
Washington, DC, led by Mr. Jean-Francois Hould, Abigail Hunter, 
and Justin Margolis.
    The Chairman. Welcome to all of you.
    Mr. Bradley.
    Mr. Bradley. Yes, and my local support is Andrew Shaw. 
Andrew.
    The Chairman. Andrew.
    And Minister Wilkinson, do you have anyone here that you 
would want to introduce?
    Mr. Wilkinson. Yes, my Deputy Chief of Staff, Kyle 
Harrietha, I think is there and I am not sure if Ambassador 
Hillman is there as well, but she has certainly been supporting 
us through this exercise.
    The Chairman. Well, again, welcome to all of our neighbors. 
We appreciate very much you all making the effort to be here 
today.
    And with that, we will start with our questioning. And I 
want to start with both Premier Kenney and Minister Wilkinson, 
this is for both of you. We all know that the demand with 
COVID-19 and also with Putin's war on Ukraine, the strain that 
is put on all of us, North American energy is going to be 
needed for years to come in order to offset that. We understand 
that. So I would ask either one of you, and both of you, to 
answer this. Have you been in contact with our Administration 
here or your counterpart, Minister Wilkinson, or Premier 
Kenney--any other than us speaking to you from the legislative 
branch? From the executive branch, is anybody speaking to you 
all concerning increasing oil and natural gas, the things that 
we are going to need in order to help our allies?
    You can start with yourself and then I will go to----
    Mr. Kenney. Thank you, Senator.
    The answer, well, I do not have a counterpart in the U.S. 
Government, as I am the leader of a subnational government, but 
yesterday I did have meetings with officials at the U.S. State 
Department that we initiated. I will say, we found it passing 
strange that following the invasion of Ukraine there were clear 
efforts by the Administration to reach out to OPEC, Saudi 
Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran, but we have no record of any 
effort by the Administration to reach out to Alberta, which, as 
I have said, provides 62 percent of U.S. oil imports.
    The Chairman. Minister Wilkinson, did you all have any 
conversations or anyone reach out to your counterparts from the 
U.S.?
    Mr. Wilkinson. Yes, thank you, Senator. Yes, we have had 
ongoing conversations with the Administration. Certainly, I 
have spoken with Secretary Granholm many, many times since the 
invasion of Ukraine and I was at the White House last week 
having similar conversations. As you know, we have had a number 
of in-person meetings to discuss how to address this. I think 
you and I actually met in Paris.
    The Chairman. Right.
    Mr. Wilkinson. At the International Energy Agency, when 
Secretary Granholm was there, and the focus, very much, in 
terms of increasing production, was our announcement of 300,000 
additional barrels a day, which we worked with Premier Kenney 
and the industry on, was partly the product of those 
conversations because, of course, the offtake to get it to the 
Gulf has to come from the United States. And we continue to 
talk about issues like LNG exports, for example.
    The Chairman. Have you all increased your production?
    Mr. Kenney. Well, yes.
    The Chairman. For the U.S., for us to be able to help our 
allies around the world?
    Mr. Kenney. I will say yes. Last year was a record year for 
production and exports. We had, I think in December, 4.1 
million barrels a day, but Senator, we believe, and we frankly 
do not agree with the 200,000-barrel estimate just offered by 
Minister Wilkinson. We have about 300,000 barrels of daily 
unused capacity in the North American pipeline system, which we 
expect to fill this year through increased production. Once 
that is filled, the economics will probably work for additional 
shipment by rail, which could be upwards of an additional 
200,000 barrels a day.
    In addition, if midstream companies get serious about it 
and if regulators approve, we could see a series of technical 
improvements through pipeline optimization and line reversals 
over the next year or so that could add upwards of another 
400,000 barrels a day of potential capacity. And then finally, 
in Q4 2023 and Q1----
    The Chairman. This would also reduce the American--the 
United States' reliance on OPEC or Saudi or----
    Mr. Kenney. Well, I think American refineries, I know, 
would prefer to buy locally, partly because they get our energy 
on a discount since we are currently, largely landlocked and 
so, we are price takers. And I do know that Gulf refineries are 
very keen to get more access to our heavy supply.
    The Chairman. Let me, Minister, do you have anything to say 
on that, Mr. Wilkinson?
    Mr. Wilkinson. No, I think, as Premier Kenney said, the 
focus in the short term has been on looking at ways to 
essentially utilize existing pipeline capacity. That is where 
the 300,000 barrel equivalence comes from and it was the 
product, obviously, of work that we did with the pipeline 
companies and the oil sector. And certainly, that is part of 
the contribution that Canada makes, in the same way that the 
Americans have made a contribution, the Brazilians have, to try 
to actually ensure that we are addressing the concerns 
associated with displacing Russian oil and gas----
    The Chairman. Let me go to the Enbridge 5 Pipeline that we 
talked about, and you know, going under the Great Lakes. With 
that, we are concerned--and I am sure you would understand--we 
are concerned about the safety of that. We have had no 
problems, but you know, with the line's age and all that. Do 
you all have recommendations of how you could secure that and 
make it safer, and that way, less of a danger that people might 
be concerned about? From both of you.
    Yes, Mr. Kenney.
    Mr. Kenney. Okay, thank you, Senator.
    Well, first of all, Enbridge has proposed spending upwards 
of $750 million on this new, high-tech, extremely safe, 
subterranean pipeline, and this is to replace the pipeline that 
has operated safely across the Straits of Mackinac now for six 
decades, delivering about 530,000 barrels a day of light sweet 
to refineries in Ohio and Pennsylvania as well as Ontario and 
Quebec, and what the Governor is trying to do is decommission 
the current pipeline without the replacement. So that would 
strangle much of the energy source for the upper Midwest. We 
appreciate that the Government of Canada has filed a complaint 
under the 1977 pipeline transit treaty, and I will hand it over 
to Minister Wilkinson to talk about that.
    The Chairman. Minister.
    Mr. Wilkinson. Yes, and I would say the proponent has 
indicated a willingness to do whatever needs to be done to 
address the environmental concerns, and certainly, the pipe 
under the Straits of Mackinac is a key element of that. We 
think the company has gone above and beyond what is required 
here, but we are obviously looking to find a resolution that is 
going to work for all sides. And certainly, we have invoked the 
treaty, which is a treaty between Canada and the United States, 
which relates to the free flow of pipelines and the products 
within pipelines. And we are looking to try to find a way to 
resolve this.
    This is an important pipeline, not just for Canada, but I 
mean, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania get products from this 
pipeline.
    The Chairman. Has that pipeline ever had--have we ever had 
a leak or a problem with that pipeline that you----
    Mr. Wilkinson. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Not to your knowledge.
    Mr. Wilkinson. Not anything significant.
    The Chairman. For six decades, correct? And they are 
willing to basically--I am understanding, encapsulate that in a 
tunnel type so it would prevent it from ever being a danger to 
the Great Lakes?
    Mr. Kenney. That is right, Senator. And I believe what 
Enbridge needs to proceed more quickly, which is what Michigan 
would like to see is an acceleration of the federal regulatory 
approvals of that. But to stop the current operation would 
jeopardize energy security for the upper Midwest, there is no 
doubt about that.
    The Chairman. With that, we will go to Senator Barrasso for 
his questions.
    Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Premier Kenney, a couple things, and time is limited, so I 
hope you would answer yes or no on some of these things.
    Did killing the Keystone XL Pipeline make it more difficult 
and expensive to move Canadian oil to U.S. refineries?
    Mr. Kenney. Yes.
    Senator Barrasso. So now, Canadian oil which would have 
traveled by pipe will have to be moved by train or truck. Is 
this more or less environmentally friendly?
    Mr. Kenney. Less.
    Senator Barrasso. Has killing the pipeline further 
exacerbated the supply chain issues between our two countries?
    Mr. Kenney. Yes.
    Senator Barrasso. And so, is it fair to say that President 
Biden's decision to kill the Keystone Pipeline increased cost, 
harmed the environment, and added to our supply chain troubles?
    Mr. Kenney. I think that is a reasonable conclusion.
    Senator Barrasso. So you noted in your testimony that 
Keystone would have been able to move 830,000 barrels a day of 
Canadian oil, significantly more than the 670,000 barrels a day 
of oil we imported from Russia in 2021. So if Keystone had been 
built, would Canada have been able to replace that Russian oil?
    Mr. Kenney. Oh, yes and in fact, the operator, TC Energy, 
had contracts to move that 800,000 barrels-plus per day.
    Senator Barrasso. In your testimony, you note that 
President Biden has pleaded with OPEC and Russia to increase 
oil output and has worked to remove sanctions on oil exports 
from Venezuela and Iran. At the same time, the Administration 
continues to block access to energy resources and the 
infrastructure needed to move them in Alberta and across the 
U.S., including in my home State of Wyoming. So I was just 
going to point out, in today's Wall Street Journal, today, 
Tuesday, May 17th, ``Biden's Dance with the Dictator.'' It 
states ``the Biden Administration's sanctions dance with the 
dictator''--and they are talking, of course here, about 
Venezuelan strongman, Maduro--``Dance with the dictator is 
taking place even as it acts at every turn to restrict U.S. oil 
and production.''
    So does Biden's policy make any sense for the people of the 
United States or of Canada?
    Mr. Kenney. Well, it is for you to figure out what works 
for the people of the United States, Senator, but I will just 
say this, we find it inexplicable that the Government of the 
United States has been more focused on encouraging additional 
OPEC production than Canadian production.
    Senator Barrasso. So, you know, I understand the provinces, 
rather than the Federal Canadian Government, take the lead on 
permitting many energy projects. So there are some differences 
in how we do things. Provinces largely own and have the 
authority to manage the natural resources within their borders. 
Your staff behind are shaking their head yes across the board. 
Provinces largely own and have the authority. So in Wyoming and 
other western states, the Federal Government owns and manages 
nearly 70 percent of the minerals within our state borders. 
This makes for a very inefficient system.
    So, could you explain to all of us how provinces, rather 
than the Federal Government, make better managers of natural 
resources?
    Mr. Kenney. That is a great question because, Senator, we 
have found we have developed over, really since 1947 when the 
first major oil discovery was found in Alberta, we have 
developed huge expertise--technical expertise, regulatory 
expertise, policy expertise--in oil and gas production. And so, 
I think it is fitting that our constitution gives exclusive 
authority to the provinces over the regulation of the 
production of natural resources. And I want to thank the 
government of Canada for having recognized that in having 
signed what we call equivalency agreements with Alberta over 
issues like the regulation of major greenhouse gas emissions, 
industrial emissions, as well as methane, because frankly, we 
are on the ground. We have the technical expertise much more so 
than, frankly, bureaucrats in Ottawa would have.
    Senator Barrasso. When you were here, I texted with the 
former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and he responds back--I 
told him you were here--he said, Kenney is very strong. He was 
one of my best ministers. So thank you very much for being 
here.
    Mr. Bradley, roughly 60 percent of Canada's electricity 
comes from hydropower, another 20 percent from nuclear power. 
Canada appears to be making the most of its God-given natural 
energy resources. The United States is blessed with major 
natural gas amounts, coal, and renewable sources as well. Do 
you believe in an all-of-the-above energy strategy that 
capitalizes on abundant, reliable, and affordable natural 
resources to keep the lights on?
    Mr. Bradley. Senator, thank you for that question.
    Yes, at Electricity Canada, particularly in the context of 
our expectations with respect to reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions, we have continued to advocate for an all-of-the-
above approach for all types of non-emitting electricity in the 
future.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Now we have Senator King.
    Senator King. Thank you very much for being here. Canada, 
of course, is a neighbor. Maine is the only state in the United 
States that borders only one other State, but we border two 
provinces. And I have always considered my foreign policy 
experience based upon the fact that I can see Canada from 
Maine, so.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator King. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
    Premier Kenney, picking up on some questions from Senator 
Barrasso, methane is the low-hanging fruit of climate change. 
It is the most potent greenhouse gas, 80 times more than 
CO2. I note that in your testimony you have lowered 
it significantly. How did you do that? Was it regulatory? Was 
it a fee? Was it a carbon fee? What brought that about, because 
this is an important topic for our discussion here in the 
States.
    Mr. Kenney. Yes. Through a regulatory approach, really, 
with the application of technology that has been developed in 
the Alberta industry. Over years, we have committed--we are the 
first subnational jurisdiction in North America to commit to 
methane reduction targets to reduce methane by 45 percent below 
the 2014 baseline and to do that by 2025.
    Senator King. Did you tell industry you cannot emit more 
than X, and you have a vigorous inspection regime?
    Mr. Kenney. Well, yes, there is a target and there is a 
rigorous inspection regime. We have seen some incredibly 
innovative technology developed in our province, which has made 
a big difference. And a lot of that is now being marketed in 
the United States and we would be happy to share that 
expertise.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    And I would appreciate it if you could follow up, perhaps 
have your staff give us a monograph on your methane policies 
because this is something that is very important to us.
    Minister Wilkinson, again not for today, because we have 
such limited time, but perhaps you could have your staff give 
us some background on how you streamlined the permitting 
process. My position has always been that I want the most 
timely, streamlined, and effective environmental process with 
the strongest environmental safeguards. And I think that is 
your standard. How do you do it in Canada and what lessons can 
we take here for our permitting process so it does not take, as 
Senator Barrasso pointed out, ten years to permit a mining 
operation that we need.
    So you do not have to answer now, but perhaps you could 
have your staff supply us with some thoughts on how your 
permitting process works and if they could compare it with 
ours, which is quite Rube Goldberg-ish, that would be very 
helpful.
    Ms. Camden, Hydro-Quebec, of course, we went through the 
difficult New England connect process in Maine with the 
connection from Hydro-Quebec to Boston. What tripped that up, 
more than anything else, was a section of 56 miles through 
virgin forest in Northern Maine and that was the focus of a lot 
of the controversy. Could Hydro-Quebec and the proponents of 
that proposal think about burying that section of line rather 
than a strip of clear cutting through the forest? And is that 
something that is under examination? Because that might relieve 
a lot of the controversy surrounding that project.
    Ms. Camden. Thank you, Senator, for your question, but this 
is not in my area of expertise in my portfolio, but I will make 
sure that the Quebec office in DC follows up with your staff 
with an answer on this question.
    However, if you want, I could share with you the practices 
that we had put in place in Quebec regarding the streamlining 
of our processes regarding the issue permitting----
    Senator King. I would very much like to see that. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Camden. Thank you.
    So there is a strong commitment from our government to 
reduce the administrative burden, and each department within 
the government has to provide a three-year plan with different 
measures, being regulatory measure or legal measures.
    Senator King. I do not want to cut you off, but I have a 
little clock in front of me that says I only have 36 seconds 
left.
    Ms. Camden. Okay.
    Senator King. I wanted to get one question to Mr. Bradley 
before I leave.
    Ms. Camden. Great.
    Senator King. I have always been fascinated by the concept 
that you articulated and I think needs to be further developed, 
and that is Hydro-Quebec being, or Canadian hydro being the 
battery for New England. Norway is the battery for Denmark 
right now. And as we move in to offshore wind, we could have an 
excess of energy during certain periods of the day which we 
could send north. You could store the water during those 
periods and then send us the dispatchable hydro. You mentioned 
this. Do you see this as something that is a feasible option 
for us?
    Mr. Bradley. Yes, thank you. Thank you for the question, 
Senator.
    Indeed, not only do I see it as a feasible option, I think 
this is going to be how we optimize the system in the future, 
and it would not just be in the northwest. It will be inter-
regionally, all across North America. We do it at a smaller 
scale already today. I mentioned that the electricity flow is 
two-way between Canada and the United States. Often, that flow 
from the United States into Canada is--must run facilities in 
the United States that overnight are looking for markets and 
are essentially, today, being stored in reservoirs as giant 
batteries.
    Senator King. The big constraint on the development of 
renewables, of course, is intermittency, and intermittency is 
solved by some kind of baseload response. We are all talking 
about batteries and mining and lithium and cobalt and nickel, 
when we have a gigantic battery already in place in Canada. And 
I have always, for 20 years, thought that this was a way to 
offset the intermittency. So I hope that that is something we 
can work on, and to the extent you are aware of data on that 
concept and how it could be implemented, please let me know.
    Mr. Bradley. Indeed, we sure will, and we have always 
thought of our reservoirs as giant batteries.
    Senator King. And Denmark and Norway are doing this right 
as we speak. So this is not an unprecedented idea. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Premier Kenney, it is great to have you with us. Over the 
last few years environmental social governance, or ESG, has 
gone from being something that almost no one knew about, no one 
had ever even heard of just a couple of years ago, to something 
that has imposed a sweeping set of obligations imposed on 
companies, but imposed, at this point, not by government, but 
by financial regulators, by markets, and by institutions around 
the world with some government regulators stepping in and 
starting to embrace these and make them part of their 
regulatory portfolio. The number one goal of the ESG movement, 
or at least a primary motivating goal, seems to be to ensure 
divestment from fossil fuels in any and every way possible.
    Now, I would imagine that the ESG insanity that we are 
seeing has made energy development riskier and more expensive 
in Canada as it has in the United States. What impacts are you 
seeing from ESG specifically on Alberta's energy sector?
    Mr. Kenney. Very significant impacts, Senator. It is one of 
our primary concerns because there has been, I think, 
particularly a prejudicial and inaccurate application of ESG 
principles against investment and financial services to the 
Canadian oil sands, in particular, with, as I say, nearly 180 
billion barrels of proven and probable reserves. So our 
companies report difficulty accessing reinsurance, there is, 
you know, credit and equity investment, a lot of this emanating 
from European financial institutions, a lot of it based on a 
misconception about the emissions profile of Canadian heavy 
oil, the Bitumen. And here is the peculiar thing--of the top 
ten reserves in the world, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Canada, 
Iran, Iraq, Russia, Kuwait, UAE, the U.S., and Libya--apart 
from the United States and Canada, the other eight top-ten 
reserves are in countries where energy is developed largely by 
state-owned enterprises or quasi-state-owned enterprises who 
are not subject to ESG criteria.
    So if financial markets strangle the publicly traded, 
transparent companies in North America, all this will do is 
shift production to some of these world's worst regimes and 
their state-owned enterprises that are not subject to market 
conditions.
    Senator Lee. So could that mean, sir, that they can be 
producing oil with really shoddy environmental standards?
    Mr. Kenney. Well, they are, and I think the invasion of 
Ukraine highlights the need for at least a second ``S'' in 
ESG--security. It is bizarre to us that, you know, we had 
European banks say they were going to pull out of the Canadian 
oil sands while they participated in the IPO for Saudi Aramco 
and continued to finance Gazprom and Lukoil in Vladimir Putin's 
Russia and they are not held to account for financing dictator 
oil that fuels violence around the world.
    Senator Lee. Yes, funny how that works.
    Now, I assume these things have translated also to higher 
gasoline prices for consumers in Canada?
    Mr. Kenney. Yes, sir.
    Senator Lee. Now, the Biden Administration has been calling 
in the United States on U.S. oil and gas companies, calling on 
them to boost production. But he is doing that while 
simultaneously stalling--or in some cases, killing--energy 
infrastructure projects, pressuring companies to divest from 
fossil fuels and setting impossible-to-meet, never-to-be-
satisfied emission standards to power companies. So have 
Canadian energy companies been hesitant or unable to deploy 
capital as a result of some of these American energy policies 
imposed by the Biden Administration?
    Mr. Kenney. Well, I would say yes, because the cancellation 
of Keystone XL, for example, has--look, there were Canadian 
upstream producers that had committed to 800,000 barrels per 
day. They were prepared to make the big investments to produce 
that and sell it to you. And obviously, they have taken that 
out of their capital plans.
    Senator Lee. Now, on his very first day of office, 
President Biden began his war on North American energy. He 
began it by killing the Keystone XL Pipeline. His response to 
record high gasoline prices that are really causing American 
consumers to suffer has been to beg Venezuela and beg Saudi 
Arabia to ramp up their production. What message do those 
actions send to our Canadian allies, including to Alberta?
    Mr. Kenney. The message, we find it just, all I can say is 
inexplicable. I was in Houston at CERAWeek talking about how we 
could get--look, if we really worked together, we could get you 
a couple billion more barrels a day of Canadian energy. When I 
was in Houston, I read that the President's advisors were 
suggesting he should go to Riyadh to ask the Saudis to generate 
more. And I just--we have a hard time understanding that.
    Senator Lee. As do we. Thank you for helping us understand 
that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Just like that.
    The Chairman. You almost missed it.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
    First, thank you all for being here. I am looking up at the 
screen as well. I appreciate you coming down. I was the Mayor 
of Denver, which is as close to a cousin of Calgary as we 
probably can get, and have had several trips to Alberta and 
actually, all across Canada. I am probably the loudest 
supporter you will get from what should be the brotherhood and 
sisterhood of Canadians and Americans. One of my best 
experiences growing up was taking the cross Canada train with 
two puppies that were in baggage. So we would have to get off 
at each stop and walk the puppies through all these beautiful 
little towns across western Montana. It was an experience of a 
lifetime.
    Let me ask you each a question to start. Ultimately, if the 
world is going to meet its climate targets, we have to figure 
out how to decouple the cost of producing energy from the cost 
of emitting. And I know you all talked about this a little bit. 
Canada is, as you have demonstrated, one of the most ambitious 
nations on carbon pricing. Your price to set, if I remember 
right, was get to $170 by 2030, which is very aggressive in 
starting. I think it is $150 now.
    Can you explain for us that pricing of carbon, how that 
enables your goals for both energy production and reducing 
emissions? Do you follow what I am asking?
    Mr. Kenney. Yes, Senator, I think that is probably better 
directed to Minister Wilkinson in Ottawa as that is federal 
policy.
    Mr. Wilkinson. Sure, I am happy to talk about that.
    Putting a price on carbon pollution--and let's be clear, 
carbon is pollution, it is the cause of climate change--is an 
important part of actually ensuring that that is taken into 
account in the context of everything that businesses and 
individuals do in terms of choices. It drives choices that are 
lower carbon and it incents innovation on a go-forward basis. 
It is one part of a much broader climate plan. I would tell you 
that Canada has, perhaps, the most detailed climate plan that 
exists anywhere on the planet in terms of how we will actually 
go about achieving our targets, but an important part of that 
is pricing of carbon pollution. And I will tell you, 99 and a 
half economists out of a hundred will tell you it is the most 
efficient and effective way to do it.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you.
    Mr. Bradley, let me ask. China is building a, I would say, 
almost an energy empire built on cheap renewable resources 
enabled by their build-out of interregional transmission, 
building a really massive grid. Since 2014, they have added 260 
gigawatts of inter-regional transmission capacity, while we, in 
the United States, have added three gigawatts. Can you speak to 
how better integrating our grids via transmission could enable 
the U.S. and Canada to leverage our complementary resource 
strengths to compete with China's clean energy growth strategy? 
And I heard the earlier discussions about the cross-border 
transmission, which I think is very, very important, but just 
within that sense of, you know, you look at China's coal 
consumption--it has been flat since 2010. They built more 
plants, but they are just not using it. They are continuing to 
do more wind or solar and part of it is this grid.
    Mr. Bradley. Yes, thank you. Thank you for the question, 
Senator.
    But yes, and our trajectory has been very different in 
Canada than in China. We are not building coal. We are phasing 
coal out. But yes, transmission plays an absolutely critical 
role to be able to enable more intermittent sources of 
electricity both within Canada, within the United States, and 
cross-border. And it is going to be a critical component for us 
to be able to further expand that non-emitting power. We are 
going to need more transmission if we are going to bring more 
intermittent power online.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Okay. Thank you.
    Ms. Camden, the hydrogen production goals, again, 
ambitious, admirable--I think something we in the United States 
are equally enthusiastic about. Most of Canada's hydrogen is 
currently produced via steam methane reforming without the 
accessory carbon capture. One of the main challenges we face 
here is that makes clean hydrogen much more expensive to 
produce, at least for now. How do you plan to ensure that as 
you scale up hydrogen production, that it moves toward clean 
hydrogen in an affordable manner?
    Ms. Camden. Thank you for your question, Senator.
    Hydropower enables green hydrogen and we are working right 
now in Quebec on the strategy for hydrogen. Unfortunately, it 
will be released in a few weeks, so I cannot talk about it and 
it is not even in my portfolio. So we will make sure that you 
get the answer from our Quebec office in DC.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great. All right, thank you.
    I will restrain myself on the questions on cobalt and 
lithium. I will put those in writing to you so that we can get 
the answers in the future.
    I yield back my time, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Marshall.
    Senator Marshall. Thank you again, Chairman. You know, 
sometimes, the solutions to our problems are in our back yard. 
Thank you folks, all of you, and your staff, for making the 
trip down here in person as well as appearing online. I am, of 
course, from Kansas, and very much have a little oil patch 
there. Even some of the oil that was supposed to be coming down 
the Keystone Pipeline, our refineries had prepared some special 
instrumentation to accept that oil. So these types of decisions 
continue to impact all of us in many, many, many ways.
    I think I want to start just a second with Premier Kenney, 
if you don't mind. You mentioned about just the improved carbon 
footprint, the decreased 36 percent per barrel of Alberta oil 
and methane emissions down by 45 percent. We admire that. What 
are you all doing that makes this work?
    Mr. Kenney. Technology. And as Senator Manchin has said, we 
are only going to get as far as tech will take us in reducing 
emissions. With respect to reducing the emissions intensity for 
a barrel of Bitumen, it is true that extracting Bitumen is 
energy intensive. It requires huge amounts of steam to separate 
the oil from the sand. Increasingly, the companies are shifting 
to things like solvents instead of steam and also, changing 
their energy source, in one case from using petcoke to natural 
gas and other efficiencies right across the board. They are 
exploring with us the possibility of small-modular reactors as 
the future zero-emitting source of energy for extraction. And 
as I say, a lot of locally developed technology has helped us, 
actually, exceed our goals in methane reduction.
    Senator Marshall. Okay, yes, thanks for sharing that. I 
have always said that innovation will solve the problem, not 
Federal Government, not taxation as well.
    I want to talk to Minister Camden, just for a second, about 
potash. A large amount of the world's potash is made in Belarus 
and Russia. Probably some 20 to 40 percent of the world's 
exports of those fertilizers go through the Black Sea. The 
United States, on the other hand, depends very much on potash 
from Canada, for a lot of reasons. Evidently, we cannot mine it 
here. I don't know what is different, but it seems like our 
American companies have given up on mining. And right now, of 
course, the Chinese are buying lots of your potash as well and 
my American farmers are short-changed. Are there any solutions 
out there? What are you doing to gear up potash? What does the 
timetable look like? Is there any way we can prioritize 
American farmers--your good ally--over this potash?
    Ms. Camden. Thank you, Senator, for your question. 
Unfortunately, we do not have potash in Quebec, not at all. So 
if I may defer this question for the Premier.
    Senator Marshall. Because it said Alberta, here I was 
trying to--I will spread the questions out.
    Mr. Wilkinson. I am happy to take it.
    Senator Marshall. Okay.
    Mr. Wilkinson. I am happy to take it.
    Senator Marshall. Sure.
    Mr. Kenney. Go ahead, Jon.
    Mr. Wilkinson. Okay, so potash is certainly one, and I 
think this relates to the broader issue around critical 
minerals, it is uranium and it is nickel and it is cobalt, 
neither of which the United States has in abundance. So we are 
certainly focused, as we have discussed from an energy security 
perspective and a broader food security perspective, as it 
relates to potash, to try to ensure that we are going to be 
able to respond to the needs that the United States and Western 
Europe are going to have as we look to displace sources from 
Russia. And there is a process going on. Most of the potash is 
in a province called Saskatchewan, which is where I grew up. 
And we are looking to augment the production. And there is 
actually a large new mine coming onstream in the next few 
years. So that is a conversation that is ongoing.
    Senator Marshall. Okay. Premier, anything to add?
    Mr. Kenney. Just my neighboring province, Saskatchewan, 
they have the second largest potash reserves in the world. So, 
and I should add, they also have the second largest uranium 
reserves.
    Senator Marshall. But I guess I just want to make a point 
here though that you do not flip a switch and double your 
production. Is it going to take months or a year or two to kind 
of make that happen?
    Mr. Kenney. Jonathan.
    Mr. Wilkinson. So the initial augmentation is actually 
ongoing right now. It will be done, I think, within certainly a 
year, but the new mine that is coming onstream, it is probably 
two to three years out. But certainly, we are going to see 
significant increases over the next little while which will 
help to ensure that we can wean ourselves off of Russian 
sources.
    Senator Marshall. Thank you so much, everybody.
    Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Welcome to all of our witnesses today. Let me just talk a 
little bit about the environmental review processes. At a 
recent hearing this Committee had on critical mineral security, 
I discussed with a witness what we can be doing to improve our 
environmental review processes and identify conflicts earlier 
in the process, including ways to avoid litigation or other 
opposition before a project invests resources and money. The 
witnesses raised Canada's use of an environmental and social 
impact assessment. The social being the optimal component that 
helps identify and resolves social license-to-operate issues 
and other potential conflicts much earlier in the process when 
compared to our own environmental impact statement processes. 
And by the way, I am from Nevada, where over 80 percent of the 
land is owned by the Federal Government, so we have an 
important relationship that we have to constantly engage at the 
federal level.
    But I guess my question to the panelists--and maybe, 
Minister Wilkinson or Deputy Minister Camden, we will start 
with you--can anyone on the panel elaborate on any differences 
between our permitting systems and where Canada may have more 
success siting and permitting projects on your public lands? 
And Minister Wilkinson, maybe we will start with you.
    Mr. Wilkinson. Sure. So, a couple things. I mean, for 
mining, in particular, some of the permitting and regulatory 
processes are at the provincial level and some of them are at 
the federal. Most of the crown land in Canada is actually the 
responsibility of the provinces. But I absolutely agree with 
you that--and what we have tried to focus on with respect to 
environmental assessment--is having those conversations very 
early, identifying the critical issues that are going to have 
to be addressed, whether that is impacts on water, impacts on 
species at risk, or indigenous concerns, which are a very, very 
important part of our process in Canada. Trying to ensure that 
we are isolating the big issues early on and working to try to 
address those so that you are not five years into a process 
when you run into the wall where there are significant concerns 
that have not been addressed. Those are things that, you know, 
that while there are different views on environmental 
assessment processes, even within the Canadian federation, I 
think we would all agree that having those conversations very 
early on is extremely important to expediting the process.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Anyone else?
    Ms. Camden. Yes, I would add that, like Minister Wilkinson 
said, we do have environmental, robust assessment review. We 
have an independent review board and usually, I would say that, 
when the environmental studies are submitted to the government 
or the board for analysis, it takes between 48 to 60 months 
before getting the authorization from the government. And 
during those times we have public hearings and all these 
studies are made public as well as all the questions sent to 
the mining companies and the answer given by the companies. 
They are all made public so it helps people and local 
communities and indigenous communities to learn more about what 
are the issues and concerns and, in that way, it helps for 
social acceptability too.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Has the analysis of the environmental 
and social impact assessment added to the timeframe it takes to 
get permitting?
    Ms. Camden. No. It is the 48 to 60 months. It is, at the 
moment you submit your environmental study.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
    Ms. Camden. And then we have the analysis phase, then we 
have public hearings, then after the public hearings, 
sometimes, often, the recommendation will change a project to 
improve the project and then the government will approve the 
project.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And at that time, you have all the 
stakeholders weigh in as well, correct?
    Ms. Camden. Yes, but all that information is public all 
that time.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Right, right. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, I yield the remainder of my time.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Now we have Senator Lankford.
    Senator Lankford. Thanks, Senator Manchin.
    So let me continue on that same conversation Senator Cortez 
Masto was talking about, and that is the permitting process. 
The 48 to 60 months there, so you are talking four or five 
years to be able to go through that process. We have multiple 
of our mining projects that may take 10 to 15 years to be able 
to go through the permitting. The question that comes up with 
all of our mining projects is, is there a deadline where a 
decision has to be made and the decision is done, because in 
the United States, you may go through the permitting process 
and at the end of it, there is a lawsuit by some outside group 
that then, they file suit and then there is the lawsuit process 
and then it goes through NEPA evaluation again because the NEPA 
is expired. And so that is the continual process.
    One of the things that seems to be missing on our process 
is there is not a deadline where a decision has to be made and 
the decision is done. Do you have a point when you get to that 
48 to 60 months that you have mentioned before where the 
decision is made, everyone has been heard, and it is done, 
whether it is going to happen or not happen?
    Ms. Camden. There is no timeline. But there is a strong 
commitment by all stakeholders to let people know what kind of 
information is required in their application. So we have many 
guidelines. We help mining companies to prepare their studies 
and there is no real litigation matter in Quebec after 
approving mining projects.
    Senator Lankford. So it is not allowed at that point?
    Ms. Camden. It is not allowed? Would you precise your 
question?
    Senator Lankford. So that the litigation is not allowed, 
once the province has made the decision then the decision is 
made?
    Ms. Camden. It is possible, but it is just not happening. 
It is just not happening.
    Senator Lankford. Okay. Minister Wilkinson, do you want to 
comment on that at all?
    Mr. Wilkinson. Yes, I mean, look, the idea of certainty 
around timelines is really important, and to be honest with 
you, we also need to ensure that we are better aligning state 
level, provincial level, and federal systems. And we are 
actually in the process of launching a process to try to align 
permitting and regulatory processes more effectively because we 
actually have to get mines built more quickly, as we think 
forward of the challenges of critical minerals. But in terms of 
the process, there is a deadline. And once the decision is 
taken, yes, you could launch a lawsuit around issues around 
procedural fairness, for example, but by and large, you are at 
a point where projects will simply move ahead.
    Senator Lankford. Okay. Well, we do not have that advantage 
at this point. We stretch things out for decades in the process 
and we need to build more mines here as well, but we cannot 
seem to be able to get through the permitting process to be 
able to get it done.
    Premier Kenney, thanks for being here as well.
    For all of you, President Biden's first foreign policy 
decision that he made, January the 20th of 2021, was to say the 
United States is not going to purchase more oil from Canada, we 
are going to purchase more oil from Russia. And then he then 
pressed on that to say actually, we are not going to purchase 
more oil from Canada, we are going to purchase more from Russia 
and OPEC. And that has proven to be a problem, obviously, for 
the United States. We need to purchase more from Canada in the 
days ahead and have the consistency of that.
    You outlined that there is a process that you are currently 
walking through to be able to increase the capacity for 
existing pipelines and then to increase the capacity, you are 
saying, up to a million barrels a day of increase that could 
come from Canada based on what is happening right now. Walk me 
through that process now.
    Mr. Kenney. Sure. Right now, in the North American pipeline 
network, there is about 300,000 barrels of unused capacity that 
we could fill. And we anticipate that most of that will be 
filled.
    Senator Lankford. What is preventing you from filling that 
now?
    Mr. Kenney. Nothing is happening. Secondly, there would 
need to be a bunch of technical changes in the network to 
increase our export capacity through what the midstream 
companies call pipeline optimization--some line reversals, an 
introduction of drag reduction agents, and other technical 
changes. And they estimate, collectively, the mid-streamers, 
that this could add up to 400,000 additional barrels of egress. 
And then finally, by Q1 of 2024, the Trans Mountain Pipeline 
Expansion, which is owned by the government of Canada, should 
be operational, adding upwards of 600,000 barrels that will 
largely be taken by tanker from Vancouver to West Coast U.S. 
refineries in Washington and California.
    Senator Lankford. Okay. That's because we didn't put a 
pipeline through the middle of the country, we are having to 
drive tankers around the edge.
    Mr. Kenney. Well, both of those projects could have gone 
ahead. It is not an either/or. But the veto of KXL reduces our 
ability to ship 830,000 barrels a day.
    Senator Lankford. Okay. Can I ask one more follow-up 
question on this? I am about to bump against time.
    Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Go right ahead.
    Senator Lankford. The price of a gallon, or a liter, 
however you all are going to determine it from province to 
province, the price of a gallon of gasoline in Canada is more 
than it is in the United States. What is the difference there? 
Why is the price higher in Canada?
    Mr. Kenney. Well, we nominate it in liters, so I am not 
quite sure how to do the conversion, but generally, higher 
taxes on the Canadian side.
    Senator Lankford. Okay. Where does that break down? Is that 
the provincial, federal and then----
    Mr. Kenney. It is both.
    Senator Lankford. And then you have the carbon tax mixed in 
there as well.
    Mr. Kenney. There are fuel excise taxes. There is a federal 
consumption tax and then there are carbon taxes. In Alberta, we 
have suspended the collection of our fuel tax because of 
inflation.
    Senator Lankford. All right. What is the carbon tax level 
there per liter?
    Mr. Kenney. $50 a ton, which comes out to, I think right 
now, about 13 cents a liter.
    Senator Lankford. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, thank you for having this hearing. Thank you for 
inviting our friends and neighbors from Canada. I absolutely 
concur with Senator Marshall when he says sometimes our 
solutions are right in our back yard. Look to your neighbors 
first and for some strange reason, we have not done that as we 
have looked to our energy needs with this Administration. And 
Premier Kenney, you said you are having a hard time 
understanding the Biden Administration's approach on this. Know 
that there are many of us who are also having a hard time 
understanding where and why the Administration has taken the 
approach that they have. There is a lot of kinship between 
Alaska and Canada right now. We feel like we have been shunted 
off to the corner as well, and our opportunity to provide for 
America's domestic production has been effectively derailed by 
this Administration, whether it is the actions within the NPRA, 
the recent actions with regards to lease sales in Cook Inlet, 
or the opportunity that we have within our coastal plain area. 
So we are also having a hard time understanding the direction 
from this Administration.
    But I have to ask the question, because we saw the response 
from President Biden after Russia took that first step into 
Ukraine, and the effort was not to come to Canada as our 
partner, but to call on Venezuela, to call on Iran for 
increased production, to turn to OPEC. Is there something 
different in the product--in the oil itself, in the crude 
itself--something in Venezuelan or Iranian oil that American or 
Canadian oil does not have? Is it cleaner? What would give them 
that advantage over what we might be able to do here in the 
United States or in Canada? Is there anything?
    Mr. Kenney. Thank you, Senator.
    I think the best comparator between our oil would be with 
Venezuela because both are largely heavy oil reservoirs and we 
are now at or below the carbon footprint for a barrel of 
Alberta heavy versus Venezuelan heavy. So there is no 
environmental advantage. I would add that, you know, the 
Venezuelans, that this is a state-owned enterprise in a 
kleptocracy with zero transparency and zero real commitment to 
North American styled energy standards. Whereas we are dealing 
with world-class, publicly traded companies that rank in the 
top decile of ESG performance for energy producers in Canada 
with incredibly ambitious environmental and emissions targets. 
So I think we probably end up, in a comparable sense, 
penalizing ourselves because we are so self-critical, we are so 
transparent, I do not think we really know what the emissions 
profile is of energy being produced in Venezuela and Iran, is 
my point.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, I would agree, and again, Alaska 
shares many of those same attributes in terms of how we are 
able to produce in a way that not only minimizes footprint, but 
in terms of reduced emissions, methane emissions, we are heads 
and shoulders above not only other countries, but many states 
as well. But again, it is absolutely incomprehensible why we 
would not seek those options and avenues that are cleaner, help 
not only our respective states, but again, this North American 
energy alliance which, to me, is just common sense.
    You have highlighted two things that the Administration has 
taken that have harmed the ability of Canadian crude to reach 
our refineries, clearly Keystone, and you also have mentioned 
this Enbridge Line 5, which I hope the Administration is paying 
heed to your words here. You have talked about optimization. 
What more can this Administration do? We already know what they 
have done to limit our ability to have better relationships, 
better partnerships on this energy alliance, but what could 
they do today? What could this Administration do today to help 
improve this energy relationship between our two nations?
    Mr. Kenney. Well, one would be to join Canada in opposing 
the Governor's effort to decommission Line 5. Second, working 
with midstream companies on accelerating approval for the 
pipeline optimization projects that are likely coming forward. 
Third, apply the principle we heard earlier from Quebec about 
the application of Title III of the Defense Production Act to 
the development of critical minerals in Canada. Why not treat 
Canadian oil and gas the same way?
    Senator Murkowski. Those are good recommendations. Canada 
is one of the few countries that is considered a domestic 
source under our Defense Production Act, under Title III. So 
that is something that is an area of opportunity that I think 
we need to push this Administration to look to.
    Mr. Bradley, nobody has really asked you many questions 
this morning, but as I was listening to your testimony about 
this great opportunity for electricity and sharing, I was 
reminded of the discussion that we had many years ago about 
this green pipeline that would run from Alaska islanded 
communities with our hydropower connecting with BC's wind and 
moving it down to California. It was a pipe dream at the time. 
People told us we were crazy. Obviously, it has not happened, 
but I think about the great opportunities that we have between 
our two countries for these shared resources.
    And Mr. Chairman, I do not think there has been a more 
important and more timely hearing about what we can be doing 
right now from an energy security perspective than this 
cooperation and a true North American energy alliance. So my 
suggestion would be that we have an opportunity to take this 
Committee to Alberta for a little bit of a field hearing and 
see for ourself, because I think we could learn a lot.
    The Chairman. Senator Murkowski, you and I went to visit. 
You and I went up to Alaska and when I left you, I went right 
down to Alberta and talked to all of our friends there. I was, 
in a bipartisan way, we were both very embarrassed that our 
country did not turn to ourselves. Alaska was not asked. Our 
producers in America were not asked. Our friends in Canada were 
not asked to step up production to help us. Let us help the 
rest of the world, keep ourselves independent. All we are 
trying to do is use a common-sense approach. West Virginia is 
asking the same questions that you are asking in Alberta and 
all over Canada and the same as you are asking in Alaska. That 
was the reason I thought it was imperative that we invite our 
friends down to show the interconnections--that we each depend 
on each other. And we can basically do an awful lot and make 
North America not only energy independent, but we can help our 
allies around the world, the G7, all of them. We can bring all 
of our friendly countries in.
    That is what we are trying to do and use all the best 
technologies. You all do some things that we think are very, 
very good and we do some things that we think that we can be 
helpful with. And together, we could truly, truly move forward. 
But I am happy about this too.
    With that, we are going to go to Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. All right.
    The Chairman. Give me about five minutes--I am so sorry, 
Senator Hoeven, you made it before 11:30 and I was so proud of 
you. But Senator Daines beat you. That is a little inside joke 
here that we have.
    Senator Hoeven. He is a neighbor state.
    The Chairman. That is okay. You are late and you are okay.
    Senator Daines. We love North Dakota. We love Alberta too. 
They are great neighbors. And Premier Kenney, it is good to see 
you here again.
    As you know, Montana and Alberta have long worked together. 
They have strong economic ties. We share firefighting 
resources. Our electric grids our intertwined. Two of our 
national parks connect to form the Crown of the Continent. The 
partnership between Montana and Alberta, as well as the United 
States and Canada creates jobs, it provides energy and food 
security, and increases the economic prosperity of both of our 
countries.
    Unfortunately, in one stroke of a pen, President Biden, 
hours after being sworn in, hours after talking about uniting 
America, then divided it when he damaged and undermined that 
partnership we had when he canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline. 
Premier, you know better than most what the Keystone XL 
Pipeline meant for jobs, revenues, and energy security. I have 
been spending time with leaders in Eastern Europe. Vladimir 
Putin has Eastern Europe and Europe over a barrel right now 
because of dependencies on Russian oil and gas. And that is why 
Alberta filed a suit against the United States seeking $1.3 
billion in damages.
    Let me just read a line from that filing. The Biden 
Administration's decision to revoke the Keystone XL Pipeline, 
and I quote, ``resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs, 
caused systemic harm to the American, Canadian, and Albertan 
economies, and diminished the highly integrated North American 
energy system upon which future North American prosperity will 
continue to rely.'' We just saw the gas price hit an all-time 
record. My Montana farmers and ranchers are driving up now and 
seeing diesel at nearly six bucks a gallon. That line from that 
lawsuit, I think, sums it all up.
    As you point out in your testimony, when gas and energy 
prices hit record heights and families are struggling, instead 
of calling on U.S. and Canadian producers, President Biden went 
to OPEC, Venezuela, and Iran. It is like a Babylon Bee parody, 
but it was reality from this Administration. Energy security is 
national security and we should be increasing North American 
production, not going to foreign adversaries.
    Premier Kenney, do you worry that the Biden 
Administration's arbitrary decision to kill the Keystone XL 
Pipeline--and I say, arbitrary because I do not see any sense 
from an environmental viewpoint, economic viewpoint. It is the 
most carbon friendly way to transport a liquid. Kills thousands 
of jobs. Could that possibly lead to further decisions to kill 
transport of power because, by the way, there are 70 operating 
oil and gas pipelines in the United States, again, as we wake 
up here today, 31 transfer oil, 39 natural gas. Could this lead 
to further decisions that connect Alberta and Canada to the 
United States, and what can we do to continue to strengthen the 
Montana-Alberta energy partnership?
    Mr. Kenney. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator. Good 
to see you again. And the answer is yes. I am concerned it 
creates a very problematic precedent to retroactively veto a 
project that has been approved. The borderline--the border 
crossing of the KXL had been built between Saskatchewan and 
Montana with the Government of Alberta as a co-owner. So you 
have a foreign government investing in a project, making an 
investment predicated on the certainty of the U.S. regulatory 
process, clearly in the mutual economic interests of both 
countries, being retroactively vetoed. And frankly, I then 
looked at the political pressure coming from Governor Whitmer 
to shut down Line 5, which her state depends on as a major 
energy source, wondering is it possible a U.S. administration, 
with the flick of a pen, will shut down a six-decade-old, 
safely operating pipeline? It has created a serious problem of 
investor confidence.
    You are right, the U.S. State Department, under former 
Secretary Clinton, concluded not once, but twice, through 
exhaustive studies that KXL would have had a lower emissions 
profile than the alternative, which is increasingly shipping by 
rail. And I would point out that most of the major U.S. unions 
supported this--steelworkers, teamsters, building trades, and 
others. Now, it is done and dusted. KXL is behind us, but I 
hope that the invasion of Ukraine and the imperative of energy 
security causes a fundamental re-think about these issues in 
Washington.
    Senator Daines. Well, I hope it wakes up the woke because 
it is a dangerous ideology and people are suffering because of 
what this Administration is doing--this keep it in the ground, 
shut off fossil fuels. And it is a huge concern, as you have 
heard today from many on this Committee.
    Premier Kenney, by failing to mirror the aggressive steps 
that Alberta has taken to increase and streamline timber 
harvest, the Biden Administration has also failed to be a 
partner to Alberta in pursuing climate objectives. Over the 
past two decades, forests in Montana have actually become a 
carbon source instead of a carbon sink. A healthy forest 
absorbs carbon, a burning forest emits carbon. For years, lack 
of management has had negative impacts on wildlife habitat, 
ecosystems, watersheds, rural economies, and public safety, but 
now, we are seeing even broader impacts on the housing market 
with the price of lumber. During the heights of the pandemic, 
the price of lumber more than tripled, and even now, the vol to 
lumber market has increased the average single family home 
price by nearly $20,000. Despite this, Montana lumber 
production has actually decreased by 11 percent and we just had 
another mill close last December. When I was growing up in 
Montana, we had over 30 active sawmills. We are down now to 
what I can count on one hand and one finger. This is not for 
lack of supply. Montana has over nine million acres in need of 
treatment and our annual timber harvest is half of what the 
allowable sale quantity studied and approved in our forest 
plan.
    Let me cut to the question here, Mr. Premier. How does this 
compare to the forestry permitting process in Alberta? And 
would you agree commercial timber harvest is often the best 
tool to accomplish our environmental objectives?
    Mr. Kenney. Yes.
    Senator Daines. Because we are going to see it takes over 
five years to complete an EIS.
    Mr. Kenney. Yes.
    Senator Daines. And initiate forest management projects 
here in the United States.
    Mr. Kenney. One hundred percent. Fortunately, under our 
constitution, provinces also regulate forestry production, and 
we have seen actually the exact opposite of your experience--a 
30 percent increase in harvesting since 2011 and a $6 billion 
increase in investment in our forestry industry. Last year was 
the best year in terms of volume of fiber and revenue for the 
industry. And you know, I am glad the province regulates this 
because we have, within our province, a large federal park 
called Jasper, where the forests have been absolutely destroyed 
by pine beetle because there is no responsible harvesting 
policy. So I think this vindicates local regulation of 
forestry.
    Senator Daines. And we are seeing that in Montana. I will 
close here, Mr. Chairman, but our state lands--we are seeing 
those, you know, under the leadership of our Governor Gianforte 
of Montana--we are seeing increased harvests. Our federal 
lands, that is the problem. It sounds like it is a similar 
problem in Canada.
    Mr. Premier, thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much.
    And now, Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And in 2015, the Chairman and I actually co-sponsored 
legislation. It was Senate bill 1, to approve the Keystone XL 
Pipeline. It passed the Senate, passed the House. It was vetoed 
by President Obama. Had it not been, it would today be bringing 
830,000 barrels a day from Canada to the United States, which, 
obviously, would be of great help, and the likelihood is it 
would have been expanded and it would be, probably, well over a 
million barrels a day versus trying to get it from some 
adversary, be that somebody in OPEC or Venezuela or somewhere 
else.
    So how do we go forward now as partners? And I am going to 
talk about another fantastic partnership we have. The Dakota 
Gasification Company in North Dakota takes lignite coal 
converts it to synthetic natural gas, captures the 
CO2 and sends it to the Weyburn oil fields in 
Saskatchewan, and there it is put down a hole for tertiary oil 
recovery. And that has been operating successfully for well 
over a decade. What a great partnership. How do we go forward, 
Premier, and build on these partnerships? I will give you an 
example of one that, obviously, should be in place--Keystone 
XL--and another one that is in place and operating very 
effectively, providing coal-fired, in this case, electricity, 
but also synthetic natural gas, and then also producing more 
oil through the tertiary oil recovery--a great partnership 
between our two nations. Together, we have incredible 
resources. How do we cut through some of these regulatory 
decisions that have impeded our ability to produce more energy 
with the greatest technology and the best environmental 
stewardship? How do we cut through and get that message to 
people in both countries so we can get more of these things 
done?
    Mr. Kenney. Thank you, Senator, great question. I will not 
pretend that Canada or Alberta has an optimal system for 
regulation and regulatory certainty. To the contrary, we have 
had huge regulatory delays and uncertainty, particularly around 
pipelines. But with respect to production and permitting, that 
is primarily controlled by the provincial governments on oil 
and gas in Canada, and we have reduced by 20 percent the 
regulatory burden for permitting and we have accelerated by 
about 60 percent the speed of permitting for a conventional oil 
and gas project.
    So I would just add, in Canada, one aspect of regulatory 
delays is often associated with the need of the government--the 
crown--to consult adequately with indigenous people, with what 
we call our First Nations. And a key part of that is involving 
them in a beneficial way in the industry, in resource 
development. I think we are developing a very good model in 
Alberta of indigenous participation including equity co-
ownership of major resource projects so that they feel fully 
like they are participants in resource development.
    Senator Hoeven. So what do you see in Canada today in terms 
of your resource development and working with the United 
States? Are you still committed to producing energy, not only 
for your own country, but you know, bringing it to the United 
States so that together, you know, as North America, we are 
truly energy sufficient, or are you dissuaded from doing that? 
What kind of things should we in Congress do to try to build 
that relationship and promote more partnering in energy 
development for the good of both nations?
    Mr. Kenney. Thank you, Senator. I think the predicate of 
your question is this concept of a North American energy 
alliance. I think it is manifestly in the interest of both the 
American and the Canadian people to develop that policy 
framework. As I mentioned earlier, the Administration regards 
the production of Canadian critical minerals as, for all 
intents and purposes, American critical minerals, under Title 
III of the Defense Production Act. I think a similar policy 
approach should be taken to Canadian oil and gas and other 
energy resources. You know, for starters, stop efforts to shut 
down current infrastructure, like Line 5 going through 
Michigan. Secondly, accelerate regulatory approval of pipeline 
optimization projects so that we can ship you more. Thirdly, 
let's work together to see if we can we bring back something 
like another major pipeline between Alberta and the United 
States. It may require governments participating in de-risking 
that, because capital markets have been, you know, the private 
sector has been spooked by that veto and I do not think you are 
going to have a pipeline company coming to market with a $10 
billion-plus project with so much political and regulatory 
uncertainty.
    I think we, as governments, need to be more forward-leaning 
to de-risk projects like that.
    Senator Hoeven. Right, which takes both the provincial or 
the state government and our respective Federal Governments to 
work with us to do it, right?
    Mr. Kenney. Yes, sir.
    Senator Hoeven. Yes.
    Thanks to all of you, I appreciate it very much.
    Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding the hearing.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    And we are going to do a second round. I am going to go 
right to Minister Wilkinson, if I may. Sir, I understand a 
little bit of what is going on, and I want all of you to 
understand. I want my Administration, I want my government to 
understand how important it is for this relationship and how 
much more we can both do. We all have a responsibility to the 
climate. We have a responsibility to the energy that we need 
and understanding what the world appetite is so that we can do 
it better and cleaner than anyplace in the world. Hydrogen, I 
know, Mr. Wilkinson, you come from a hydrogen background and 
you understand it. I am very, very much interested in hydrogen 
and how we promote more of it in America.
    We have been promoting EVs, and I think at the detriment of 
basically making ourselves totally reliant and being held 
hostage by foreign supply chains. That is why I think our 
relationship in energy and critical minerals is so important. I 
also believe that as we move forward in America, we are going 
to start requiring that all the pipelines that we do are dual-
purposed, that they are properly coated to be able to carry 
both gas and hydrogen, as we transition. So if you can tell me 
what you all are doing in your government and how you are 
looking at hydrogen, and let's say that an area such as 
Alberta, Saskatchewan, some of your larger, energy-producing 
areas of your country, how can that be supportive and how can 
it be helpful?
    Mr. Wilkinson. Thank you, Senator. And I agree with 
everything that you said. Hydrogen, I think, is going to be 
extremely important as an energy carrier as we move forward in 
a whole range of different applications.
    The Chairman. And we can do it, we don't have to rely on 
any supply chains, any foreign supply chains. We can do it.
    Mr. Wilkinson. Absolutely, absolutely. And both Canada and 
the United States are well placed to actually be producers of 
large quantities of hydrogen. In Canada, we can go both 
directions, one is producing using electricity, which is what 
Quebec would normally do. The other is producing ultra-low 
carbon hydrogen from natural gas, capturing the CO2, 
which is Alberta/Saskatchewan. We see Canada as an emerging 
hydrogen vehicle for the world, certainly for Western Europe. 
We see working with the United States on ensuring that we are 
building up transportation corridors and linking up hydrogen 
hubs that we are both developing as a way for us to accelerate 
progress on this.
    I totally agree with you that any infrastructure that we 
are thinking about putting into place going forward needs to be 
hydrogen-capable. We are looking right now at trying to enable 
liquid natural gas exports from eastern Canada to Europe, but 
it will need to be in the context of it being hydrogen-capable 
so that we can actually ensure that we are moving through this 
transition and we are not ending up with stranded assets. So I 
absolutely agree with you. This is an enormous opportunity for 
North America and it is something that we need to work on 
together.
    The Chairman. And if I may ask, Premier Kenney and all 
three of you, what is the thing that we need to do most with 
the cooperation of our two countries? Any impediments that you 
are running into? We understand that your permitting process is 
about two years. Ours could go as long as ten, twelve, because 
of our court actions. We are trying to get that down to make 
sure that we can compete and do it in a timely fashion. But if 
you can give the greatest obstacle, any, all four of you, that 
might see that we could work on, the critical factor that you 
want us in the United States to give attention to that would be 
helpful for this relationship to continue to flourish because 
we need each other very badly.
    Mr. Kenney. Senator, I don't have enough familiarity with 
the U.S. permitting process to offer useful advice. I will just 
say that in our own back yard, in Alberta, as I mentioned, we 
have cut red tape by 20 percent on permitting.
    The Chairman. The greatest obstacle you have, Premier, as 
far as working with the U.S. Government or coming into our 
markets or us going into your markets or the transfer--is there 
any impediment there in the trade that you think that we have?
    Mr. Kenney. Well, I mean, look, I hate to come back to it 
yet again, but----
    The Chairman. Well, philosophically, we know the 
difference----
    Mr. Kenney [continuing]. The veto of KXL sent a message 
that the government of the United States does not want 
substantially more Canadian energy. So this has, I think, 
impeded investor confidence. As I just said, you are not going 
to have a midstream company come into the market to risk that 
again, that kind of capital again. So I think we need a message 
from the Administration about regulatory certainty.
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Ms. Camden. Thank you, Chairman.
    I would add to that that for the mining sector, we are 
already having discussions with people from the Administration 
from the United States. A month ago, I was in Washington with 
colleagues from Quebec, and we had meetings with the DOE, DOD, 
the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce. 
And we are looking at different ways of having greater 
collaboration, and it could be co-investing, it could be 
offtake agreements, but we need to have a transparent dialogue 
with all the stakeholders.
    Mr. Bradley. Thank you, Senator. I am going to go in a bit 
of a different direction with this. From an electricity 
perspective, I think the greatest challenge that we face both 
in Canada and the United States is that our government and your 
Administration have both committed to a net-zero electricity 
grid by 2035. To be able to achieve that is going to take a 
significant effort, certainly in Canada. We are now getting a 
better sense of what the government's vision is for the pathway 
to 2035, but it needs to be done in a manner that is 
coordinated between Canada and the United States.
    The Chairman. The largest world polluters are looking at 
2050. They have moved it out 15 years, or 2050 is what they 
thought, and even then, they do not think they can make it at 
2050.
    You are accelerating at 2035 because you think that is 
achievable? Or it is a lofty goal for us to shoot for?
    Mr. Bradley. Well, we are committed to a net-zero economy 
by 2050.
    The Chairman. Got you.
    Mr. Bradley. A net-zero electricity grid is a commitment 
that both President Biden and our Prime Minister have made for 
2035. So from an electricity sector perspective, our focus is 
very much is on the immediacy of 2035 first, and we want to 
ensure that that is done in a coordinated fashion, given the 
interconnected nature of our electricity systems. And then, 
looking out at 2050, the 2050 target is one that is going to 
require, at least in Canada, two to three times more non-
emitting electricity than we produce today. And so, that is a 
very significant lift and it will only be achieved if we do it 
in a coordinated and a collaborative fashion between Canada and 
the U.S.
    Mr. Wilkinson. And Senator, maybe I could just say a word. 
I mean, I completely agree that there needs to be a much more 
strategic approach to North American energy. And that certainly 
very much includes the energy sources and the associated 
materials that are going to be really required in the future. 
That includes hydrogen. It includes critical minerals. It 
certainly includes technologies around carbon capture and 
nuclear technologies, including small modular reactors. I think 
one of the things that we have to do--and I think there is 
complete alignment between the Biden Administration and what we 
are aiming to do in that regard--but I think one of the things 
that we have to collectively do is ensure that we do not allow 
irritants to get in the way of the kind of cooperation that we 
need to be having.
    So this EV tax credit, for example, which would have had 
huge implications for the Canadian auto manufacturing industry 
because of the way it was structured. Line 5, which, you know, 
there is no point in going backwards here in terms of energy 
security. That would be a step backward. The same thing with, 
you know, American tariffs on solar panels that are 
manufactured in Canada. It was intended to go against China. It 
ended up boomeranging on Canada.
    So we need to actually be strategic and thoughtful about 
how we partner in a way that is going to be good for both 
countries and allow us to advance to address climate change and 
energy security concurrently.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    I wanted to follow up, Premier Kenney, on something that 
Mr. Bradley just talked about. He talked about this commitment 
by President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau with what I view 
as extremely aggressive goals for electric grids in North 
America, because by the year 2035--now we are in 2022, you are 
talking 13 years from now--the two leaders want to eliminate 
all natural gas and all coal as sources of electricity. In the 
United States, 61 percent of our electricity comes from natural 
gas and coal.
    So Premier Kenney, are you concerned that such aggressive 
goals are going to create reliability problems at the border 
and for people in your----
    Mr. Kenney. Yes, frankly, yes, Senator, we agree about the 
urgency of reducing emissions and that is why, in fact, Alberta 
will have completely shifted away from thermal coal, which was, 
five years ago, our major source of electricity generation. So 
there are huge investments in coal-to-gas conversions, but we 
do not have hydro in Alberta. We do not have nuclear and 
obviously, it takes a long time-horizon to develop nuclear. And 
so, if the Federal Government requires us to move away from 
natural gas without a reliable baseload alternative, we will 
not have a reliable electricity grid, which would obviously be 
devastating to our economy.
    So we want to have ambitious emissions reduction goals, but 
they have to be realistic. And natural gas is going to be part 
of our future. I agree completely with Minister Wilkinson. 
Alberta is going to be a key global hub, for example, in 
producing low-emitting hydrogen products, but that requires 
natural gas feedstock.
    Senator Barrasso. So on the first day of office, President 
Biden killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, linking Canada and the 
United States. In May, he then lifted sanctions that allowed 
Nord Stream 2, linking Russia to Germany. I have been outspoken 
on my opposition to that. Nord Stream 2 ended up getting built. 
Keystone was not. Did the President oppose the wrong pipeline?
    Mr. Kenney. I would argue yes, Senator.
    Senator Barrasso. And then, you know, we talked about, a 
little earlier, the joint partnership between President Biden 
and Prime Minister Trudeau when they came out with their 
roadmap last year. And together they stated that it is a shared 
interest of the United States and Canada to revitalize and 
expand our historic alliance and steadfast friendship. They 
also pledged to recognize the important economic and energy 
security benefits of the bilateral energy relationship and its 
highly integrated infrastructure. I believe that since 
President Biden took office, he has not been a good energy 
partner or a good partner to Canada.
    What is your assessment of that and would you--how can we 
improve this partnership?
    Mr. Kenney. Well, I have mentioned some ideas, for 
starters. First, do no harm. And I do not understand why the 
Administration of the United States, which is pleading with 
OPEC to ship more, is taking a neutral position about an effort 
to shut down the shipment of over half a million barrels a day 
of light sweet Canadian energy to the upper Midwest through 
Governor Whitmer's effort to decommission Line 5. Now, we 
appreciate that we are--the government of Canada and the 
Government of the United States--are currently in negotiations 
about resolving this as a treaty dispute, but I do not think 
there should have to be negotiations. I think the Government of 
the United States should make it clear that it is contrary to 
the national interests of this country to shut down that 
project, for starters. I think a strategic decision to treat 
Canadian energy as though it were American energy, really enter 
into a true alliance, would send a hugely important signal to 
our companies, our upstream companies and our midstream 
companies, that there will be a future market here, that you 
are not hostile to Canadian energy.
    As I said, look, if we were serious about this, we could 
achieve, within five years, a complete elimination of North 
American imports of OPEC energy. That would be demonstrably 
good for the world environment and global peace and security.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Hickenlooper.
    Senator Hickenlooper. You know, I would just would like to 
add, again, my appreciation for your attendance and 
participation today, but also how much I support this, the 
vision of the greater North American energy all-of-the-above, 
and recognizing that our guiding light does have to be that the 
climate is changing much more rapidly than any of us would 
want. We are seeing an increase--there is a larger percent of 
our landscape that is increasingly hostile to habitation and 
the production of food. And it is going to take a long time 
to--we have to find effective ways and efficient ways to get 
carbon out of the air. But I think some of the benefits that we 
could have by working together--and you have all pointed this 
out today--we are just stepping on our own greatest 
opportunity. I think the import of solar panels from Canada, 
was that Minister Wilkinson that mentioned that? We are going 
through that issue right now. The Commerce Department, again, 
is looking at the provenance of solar panels that could put our 
solar industry on its back for an extended period of time. For 
what real point?
    I mean, I understand the arguments on both sides. I am not 
saying that--I should not say for what real point--but I 
understand the point. I do not think it is relevant in terms of 
trying to deal with a massive problem like climate, which is 
what all of you are clearly doing. So hopefully this hearing is 
a foundation that allows us to go forward and really begin 
looking at what an alliance would look like in a more pragmatic 
way. And I agree with all of you that that has to work on the 
state level and the local level as well, but it will never 
succeed without the cooperation and orchestration of the 
Federal Governments involved.
    And I would hope that we could all work with Mexico as 
well. I think that they could be a very active and powerful 
partner in a lot of these issues, solar panels included.
    Anyway, I have no further questions, just admiration and 
appreciation.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Let me say to all of you, I appreciate it so much. We have 
been looking forward to this for quite some time and it has 
been very, very helpful. What I will say is that I think the 
world is looking to North America right now, and that includes 
all of us working together.
    What I do see as the problem, and I have said this, my 
Administration, with all the goodwill and intent that they 
have, and all of our concerns that we have responsibility to 
this beautiful planet that we have been able to occupy, we have 
to do the best we can, but with that, I have said this is 
called global climate. It is not called Canadian climate. It is 
not called United States climate. It is called global. And we 
have done more in the last two decades probably to clean up, 
using the fossils that we use in the cleaner fashion, which the 
world is depending upon.
    And when I watch China--they keep talking about China and 
renewables, China and renewables. China has 3,000 coal-fired 
plants and they are building 400 more. They are not taking 
their foot off the pedal at all. India had 500 to up to 800 and 
they want to build 100 more. The United States is going down. 
You all have basically gone down. Everybody has tried to be 
responsible. You take the developing nations of the world and 
the leaders of the world such as us and you, and you take us 
out of the fossil industry before we have the replacement that 
the rest of the world could move into--God help us. God help 
the climate because the rest of them will not do what we are 
going to do. They will not do what we have done in this free 
democracy that we all live in and the freedoms that we all 
enjoy. We have done it because it was the right thing to do. 
But taking us out of that industry before we have a 
replacement--and all I have said is the United States of 
America should go down our true path. We should basically make 
sure that we have reliable, secured energy for a period of time 
going through this transition as we are investing in the 
technology. You cannot eliminate your way to a cleaner climate. 
You can innovate your way to it. And when those criss-cross, 
and you give me as much out of what I am getting out of the 
fossil now--dependable, reliable and affordable--and when you 
can give me that, based on dispatchable, reliable power, 
whenever I want it, from the new technologies that are coming, 
and we will be designing and developing, that is when the 
market takes over. It is not us making government decisions. It 
will be the market that makes those decisions.
    But we have everybody afraid. Well, if we do this and we 
build this great alliance in North America, we will become so 
good and so efficient at what we are doing, it will just be, 
basically, prolonging us using fossil when people want us not 
to. And I only said--I can speak from just my position and one 
vote as a Senator--that I will not vote to support the European 
model of what they are dealing with today. I think we can do it 
better. And that is why I came to Canada to see if you all 
would join us in a North American alliance and maybe we can get 
Mexico, Senator Hickenlooper. We want do that. But we have the 
ability, and I am scared to death that what Xi Jinping is 
watching what Putin did with energy is what he would do with 
the critical minerals for our computer chips, for basically the 
cathodes and anodes and the processing. And right now, I think 
both of our countries are dependent on what is coming from 
Russia in the technology end of it for us to be able to 
transition. I do not want to transition and be totally reliant 
on foreign supply chains. That is just me.
    And Minister Wilkinson, that is why I said hydrogen is 
something I know we can do. So I have looked at that very 
astutely, and basically it is very encouraging, but there is so 
much more that needs to be done. But again, I can say, I do not 
think we can do it without each other. And I think we need each 
other. I appreciate it very much. We want to break down these 
barriers. We want to make common-sense decisions. We do not 
want to take away and shoot ourselves any more than we already 
have. And I think we can heal the wounds that we have. And I 
just appreciate and I hope you have a safe journey back home. I 
look forward to visiting you soon.
    With that, let me just say, members will have until close 
of business tomorrow to submit additional questions for the 
record if they were not able to submit today.
    I appreciate this climate partnership that we have been 
able to speak about. And also, I want to thank you again. This 
Committee will stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                                   [all]