[Senate Hearing 117-469]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                          S. Hrg. 117-469

                    PATHWAYS TO LOWER ENERGY PRICES
                          IN THE UNITED STATES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 13, 2022

                               __________
                               
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                               


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

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                              __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-127                  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
                                 ------                                

                         Subcommittee on Energy

                         MAZIE K. HIRONO, Chair

RON WYDEN                            JOHN HOEVEN
BERNARD SANDERS                      JAMES E. RISCH
MARTIN HEINRICH                      LISA MURKOWSKI
ANGUS S. KING, JR.                   JAMES LANKFORD
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO               BILL CASSIDY
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER                 CINDY HYDE-SMITH
                                     ROGER MARSHALL

                      Renae Black, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                 Brie Van Cleve, Senior Energy Advisor
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
      Justin Memmott, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Energy
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., Subcommittee Chair and a U.S. Senator from 
  Hawaii.........................................................     1
Hoeven, Hon. John, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator 
  from North Dakota..............................................     2

                               WITNESSES

Fedorchak, Julie, Chair, North Dakota Public Service Commission..     5
Bissell, David, President and Chief Executive Officer, Kauai 
  Island Utility Cooperative.....................................    55
Larsen, John, Partner, Rhodium Group.............................    61
Ness, Ron, President, North Dakota Petroleum Council.............    67

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

American Exploration and Production Council:
    Letter for the Record with attached document entitled 
      ``Unleashing American Energy Production, AXPC Policy 
      Recommendations''..........................................   102
Bissell, David:
    Opening Statement............................................    55
    Written Testimony............................................    57
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   100
Fedorchak, Julie:
    Opening Statement............................................     5
    Written Testimony............................................     7
Hickenlooper, Hon. John W.:
    Chart entitled ``Below-Market Returns on Oil and Gas Have 
      Slowed Investment (since 2013)''...........................    83
    Chart entitled ``Monthly U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil''    85
    Map entitled ``Bakken Shale Well Distribution and Peak 
      Productivity''.............................................    85
Hirono, Hon. Mazie K.:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Hoeven, Hon. John:
    Opening Statement............................................     2
Larsen, John:
    Opening Statement............................................    61
    Written Testimony............................................    63
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   101
National Farmers Union:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   105
Ness, Ron:
    Opening Statement............................................    67
    Written Testimony............................................    69

 
                    PATHWAYS TO LOWER ENERGY PRICES 
                          IN THE UNITED STATES

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2022

                               U.S. Senate,
                            Subcommittee on Energy,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:47 p.m. in 
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mazie K. 
Hirono, Chair of the Subcommittee, presiding.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

    Senator Hirono. The Energy Subcommittee will come to order, 
and I would like to join with Senator Hoeven, our Ranking 
Member, in welcoming our panel of witnesses and of course, my 
special shout-out aloha to Mr. Bissell, who came the farthest, 
I would say, to join us this afternoon.
    Today's hearing will examine pathways to lower energy 
prices in the United States. As we meet this afternoon, people 
across the United States and around the world are dealing with 
high energy prices. Many families are struggling to afford the 
groceries they need while paying the cost of driving to day 
care, to work, and everyplace else. Small businesses are trying 
to figure out if they can afford to expand given the rising 
cost of making deliveries and paying power bills. Rising oil 
and natural gas prices are driving inflation in the rest of the 
economy. Fortunately, average prices at the pump have fallen 39 
cents per gallon nationwide in the last month, but prices 
remain far too high in Hawaii and elsewhere
    In the past year, the American people have faced the 
disruptions from the pandemic recovery and the consequences of 
Putin's horrific war against Ukraine. In April, all 100 
Senators voted to end imports of Russian energy, even though it 
meant higher oil and gas prices. The President continues to 
engage with our allies and partners on how to move away from 
Russian oil and natural gas and stabilize global supplies. The 
United States is the largest producer of oil and gas in the 
world, and it was a net exporter of petroleum in 2020 and 2021. 
Our reliance on fossil fuels, even when we produce it here, 
means we will be stuck paying the prices set in the global 
market, subject to OPEC and affiliate producers like Russia. We 
are still going to be using fossil fuels in cars, power plants, 
and industrial plants, but there are cheaper and cleaner 
alternatives now and in our future. So frankly, this hearing is 
not about either/or fossil fuels reliance or alternatives. It 
is really about how can we altogether lower energy costs to our 
people.
    So we already know from the International Energy Agency 
that renewable energy sources like wind and solar are the 
cheapest sources of power available, and electric vehicles are 
already cheaper over their lifetime than comparable gasoline 
models, with more affordable hybrid and electric vehicle 
options on the way. The question for Congress is, how do we 
help states and individuals achieve the benefits of these 
cheaper and cleaner alternatives? Hawaii has charted an 
ambitious course. Because of Hawaii's unique geography, it is 
the most petroleum-dependent state in the country. Hawaii is 
not a producer of oil or natural gas. We have to import 
everything. So you can imagine what the costs were. Record oil 
prices in 2008 solidified Hawaii's commitment to stop being 
held hostage by global oil markets and move toward renewable 
power.
    The state established the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, 
with the help of the U.S. Department of Energy, eventually 
setting a goal of 100 percent renewable power by 2045. Hawaii 
now is at 40 percent renewable power statewide. But Hawaii's 
continued reliance on oil for the majority of its power is why 
electricity rates jumped 34 percent in April from a year 
earlier, and electricity costs are almost triple the U.S. 
average. Each island in Hawaii has its own electric grid, 
unconnected to the other islands. We are going to hear today 
from Mr. Bissell about how the electric cooperative on the 
island of Kauai reached 70 percent renewable power and avoided 
the worst impacts of the global oil shock. Hawaii is leading 
our nation's transition to clean energy and creating a 
blueprint that others can follow.
    Different states and regions all have different energy 
mixes, but Congress can and should provide individuals and 
businesses with long-term incentives to speed up the transition 
to cheaper, cleaner sources of power, higher energy efficiency, 
and more affordable transportation options. Congress should 
also support clean energy manufacturing and supply chains right 
here in the United States. As we deal with high oil and gas 
prices now, we need to keep our eye on how we can accelerate 
the transition to more affordable options while making our 
country much more energy self-reliant in the long term, like 
Hawaii is doing.
    I am looking forward to hearing from our panel this 
afternoon about the path forward for affordable, reliable, and 
increasingly clean sources of energy across the nation. And 
with that, I turn to Ranking Member Hoeven for his opening 
statement.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA

    Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Chair Hirono, I appreciate it. 
Thanks for holding today's Energy Subcommittee hearing, and I 
appreciate our witnesses for being here today as well. Thank 
you for coming.
    Today we are examining pathways to lower energy prices here 
in the United States. Over the last year, Americans have 
experienced skyrocketing inflation and energy costs. Inflation 
is currently 9.1 percent. You saw this morning, it came out at 
9.1 percent since a year ago in June, largely driven up, or 
certainly in substantial part by energy prices, which have 
increased 41.6 percent over the last 12 months. One year ago, a 
gallon of gas cost $3.14. Last month, it hit over $5 a gallon--
a nearly 60 percent increase. Also, electricity prices--13.7 
percent increase. Natural gas and fuel oil prices have 
ballooned by 38 percent and 98 percent respectively over the 
last year. So, you know, these are not just numbers on a page. 
I mean, this hits every American. It hits when they pull up to 
the gas pump, when they go to the grocery store, every product 
they buy, every service they buy, because every product or 
service has an energy component in it.
    My home State of North Dakota--I am pleased we have two 
individuals here from North Dakota--we are an energy 
powerhouse. We produce energy from almost every source you can 
think of. We do not have nuclear, or as one of my favorite 
Presidents used to say--``nuclar.'' But we have, you know, 
fossil fuels, traditional fuel sources which we produce 
significantly, but also renewables as well. We really are an 
energy powerhouse for this country. And our witnesses here 
today both have been a very big part of making that happen.
    And it is not just the higher prices, right? So in May, the 
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) warned 
that some parts of North America are at elevated risk of energy 
shortfalls due to generation retirement, loss of baseload, and 
so that parts of the country could be facing brownouts or even 
blackouts this summer. And obviously, that is not just an 
inconvenience, that can be a real risk to people's lives and 
well-being. And again, Americans are paying higher gas prices 
due to President Biden's Green New Deal policies that are 
preventing production of energy here at home, and we have seen 
that. For example, in taking the federal lands, you know, the 
moratorium--implementing the moratorium on leasing on federal 
lands, both onshore and off. The Administration came out and 
did agree to allow 20 percent of the federal lands onshore to 
be leased, but raised the royalty rate so it increases the cost 
of the energy, and that is still only 20 percent. But it is not 
just--we have had witnesses in here from the Administration who 
have said, well, no, we are allowing some leases, but also 
there are all these leases that energy companies have that they 
are not producing. The problem there is that the energy 
companies either cannot get the drilling permits to produce 
those leases or they are tied up in litigation in court.
    And so, this moratorium on leasing on federal lands both 
onshore and offshore really is an impediment to producing more 
energy here at home. And we know, because we, you know, in our 
state we produce so much energy. After Texas, and I know New 
Mexico has kind of crept in there, but you know, we produce 
more oil than any state in the Union. And at one time, we were 
as high as 1.5 million barrels a day. Now we are down closer to 
a million. We will hear from Mr. Ness on that and from Ms. 
Fedorchak on not only the coal-fired electric, but electricity 
production across the board, and again, North Dakota being a 
very big exporter. So these policies really matter in terms of 
not only bringing down the cost of energy across the board, but 
inflation, because the energy component is in every single 
product and service. So we need to look for solutions, and the 
biggest one is to empower our energy producers here at home, 
and we can do that. We can do that with the right kind of 
energy policy.
    Again, I want to thank Chairman Hirono for working today 
with me to hold this hearing, and I do look forward to hearing 
from our witnesses. And at this point, I would turn to the 
Chairman and say, how would you like to handle the 
introductions? Should I introduce our first witness? Do you 
have further comment first?
    Senator Hirono. I just have very short introductions for 
each of our witnesses, but if you would like to add to the 
witnesses from your state, that would be fine.
    Senator Hoeven. I have to embellish just a little bit.
    Senator Hirono. Of course.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Hirono. Okay, so let me turn to our panel of four 
witnesses. I thank each of you for being with us today, and we 
ask you to keep your statements to five minutes and your full 
statements will be entered into the record of this hearing.
    First, we have Commissioner Julie Fedorchak, who serves as 
Chair of the North Dakota Public Service Commission.
    Next, we have David Bissell, who is the President and Chief 
Executive Officer of the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative. 
Aloha to Mr. Bissell.
    We are also joined by Mr. John Larsen, a partner at the 
Rhodium Group, an independent research firm where he leads 
energy system and climate policy research.
    Finally, we have Ron Ness, the President of the North 
Dakota Petroleum Council.
    So before we start with Ms. Fedorchak, if you would like to 
add----
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, I would.
    Julie Fedorchak currently serves as Chair of the North 
Dakota Public Service Commission. She has been on the 
Commission since 2012. Before that, she was a very valued 
member of my staff, my state director, and did a phenomenal 
job. And so, we had to hire six or eight people to replace her.
    Senator Hirono. That happens with women a lot.
    Senator Hoeven. I know. She did a fabulous job. We miss her 
a lot.
    She is the Second Vice President on the Board of Directors 
for the National Association of Regulatory Utility 
Commissioners, past President of the organization of MISO 
States, and that is going to--at some point you can explain to 
me what, exactly, how MISO works. I am looking forward to that 
because it does seem like rocket science. And she has been 
involved in energy in North Dakota for a long time and does a 
great job.
    And also, should I make some comments on Ron or wait until 
it is his turn?
    Senator Hirono. No, go ahead.
    Senator Hoeven. I am also really pleased to have Ron Ness 
here today. He has served as President of the North Dakota 
Petroleum Council since 1999--getting long in the tooth, I 
guess--but has done a fabulous job. He represents 700 companies 
in the oil and gas industry, and he came on board in 1999. In 
the year 2000, North Dakota produced less than 100,000 barrels 
a day. So one year after he came on board, our state was 
producing less than 100,000 barrels a day and that number was 
going down. And he, through his work, along with others, took 
us up to 1.5 million barrels a day just about two years ago. We 
are at about a million now. Again, it goes back to some of 
these energy policies that are so important. So he is an expert 
on this issue. Obviously, that is hugely important for the 
country.
    So thanks to both of you for being here. And thank you, 
Madam Chairman.
    Senator Hirono. Glad to have all of you.
    So Ms. Fedorchak, please go ahead.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JULIE FEDORCHAK, CHAIR, 
             NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    Ms. Fedorchak. Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator Hirono, 
Senator Hoeven, and Committee members. I am really honored to 
be here to talk about this really important subject today.
    Energy is the foundation of our economy and our national 
security. And as Senator Hoeven said, these energy costs are 
baked into every product we buy, and they really punish people 
with low or fixed incomes the most. Customers constantly remind 
me of this, as does the AARP. They regularly intervene in our 
rate cases with one message--we cannot afford higher energy 
costs. North Dakota is an electricity exporting state, and our 
rates are among the lowest in the nation. Yet, even in my 
state, costs for energy are rising. Our natural gas bills have 
increased 30 percent since 2016 and transmission costs for 
electric customers have increased 388 percent since 2003, and 
promise to continue rising. These cost increases come while 35 
percent of the energy consumed by North Dakotans last year was 
from renewable sources. Quite honestly, our customers are 
starting to grow leery of the promises of low-cost renewable 
energy. Our utilities have aggressively pursued green energy, 
assuring customers it will save them money, and yet their bills 
are rising.
    So my first plea to you today is this--be honest with 
American citizens. Transitioning our grid to 100 percent 
renewable energy may be achievable and desirable, but it is not 
going to lower costs for many, especially in the next 25 years. 
I am Chair of the North Dakota Commission and soon to be 
President of NARUC, so I am intimately familiar with the 
challenges facing the electric and gas industries today. As 
important as affordability is, reliability trumps it, and the 
growing reliability challenges we see nationwide are a reality 
check on how the electric system works. Prior to 2016, MISO did 
not have any grid events that required them to use emergency 
procedures. Since 2016, MISO has had 41 Max Gen events 
triggering emergency procedures. These challenges are real and 
growing because integrating renewables is complicated. The 
physics of the electric grid are stubborn and do not bend to 
anyone's goals or deadlines. Rapid retirements of thermal 
units, and a transmission system congested with 17 gigawatts of 
new renewables since 2011, have contributed to a concerning 
trend in MISO. Total installed generating capacity is 
increasing, but the accredited capacity, that which you can 
count on to meet demand, is decreasing. I have included several 
charts that clearly and simply illustrate this in my testimony 
and I urge you to evaluate them.
    The current trend is not sustainable, and warning signs are 
numerous. When demand exceeds supply, people lose power. This 
is inconvenient, yes, but it is also a life-or-death matter. 
Remember, 210 people perished in the Texas Storm Uri power 
outages. So my second plea is that you listen to the grid 
operators. Ignoring their warnings will have serious 
consequences for our country.
    And this brings me to my final point, and that is timing. 
Let us consider what we are trying to accomplish. We are 
reinventing and rebuilding virtually the entire energy system 
that sustains all aspects of life in the United States. 
Considering the magnitude of this challenge and the warning 
signs we are seeing, the solution I suggest is quite simple. 
Most of this can be solved with one thing--patience--and that 
is my final plea to you. Clair Mohler, the Head of Operations 
for MISO, states it this way--Mind the Gap. Mind the gap 
between the megawatts being retired and being added. The most 
obvious way to bridge that gap is to extend the life of 
existing, already operating, and paid-for resources, yet new 
EPA regulations stand to exacerbate this crisis by forcing even 
more coal retirements early. I urge you to require the EPA to 
coordinate with utilities and grid operators on any new 
regulations that could hasten our growing capacity crisis. 
Another big gap exists between the reliability attributes of 
wind and solar megawatts versus thermal megawatts. Give 
researchers time to fix this gap and to perfect carbon capture 
and storage for coal and natural gas worldwide. We need to mind 
the enormous gap in critical minerals needed to support wind, 
solar, and battery production and the disturbing gap in 
environmental standards and worker, pay in countries producing 
them.
    The bottom line is this: permitting processes, supply 
chains, and construction timelines must be acknowledged in 
establishing our nation's energy policy, otherwise, we have 
what my friend and former FERC Commissioner Tony Clark calls 
regulation by wishful thinking, where lofty goals translate 
into policies that endanger the lives and livelihoods of our 
citizens. Americans are counting on us to figure this out. We 
must forge a thoughtful, prudent path through this energy 
transition that keeps the power on at all times, at prices 
people can afford.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Fedorchak follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Hirono. Thank you very much, Ms. Fedorchak.
    Before I call on Mr. Bissell, I want to say that I was 
Lieutenant Governor of the State of Hawaii when the Kauai Co-Op 
first began, and pretty much nobody gave the co-op a chance to 
succeed. It is a real success story that the users on Kauai are 
able to have reliable alternative energy sources. So it is, as 
I said, a real success story.
    So please, Mr. Bissell, go ahead.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF DAVID BISSELL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KAUAI ISLAND UTILITY COOPERATIVE

    Mr. Bissell. Thank you and Aloha, Chair Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Aloha.
    Mr. Bissell. Ranking Member Hoeven and members of the 
Energy Subcommittee, my name is David Bissell, and I am 
President and CEO of Kauai Island Utility Cooperative. KIUC, as 
we are known as, is located on Kauai and it is the smallest and 
least populated island of Hawaii's four major islands. We 
provide electricity to 70,000 residents, 20,000 visitors, and 
5,000 businesses on a fully isolated grid. Hawaii has 
established a rigorous Renewable Portfolio Standard, known as 
an RPS, and according to the RPS, by 2045, 100 percent of a 
utility's electric sales must be based on eligible renewable 
energy technologies. Kauai's utility was investor-owned until 
2002, when a group of local businessmen formed KIUC as a 
cooperative and acquired the utility. At that time, Kauai's 
electric rates were, by far, the highest in the state--more 
than 70 percent higher than the rates on Oahu, and were likely 
the highest electric rates in the nation. This was a function 
of having a grid more than 90 percent reliant on imported oil. 
KIUC's first elected Board of Directors immediately committed 
to transitioning as quickly as possible from oil to renewables. 
Back in the early 2000s, this was driven primarily by 
economics, although the environmental benefits were equally 
compelling.
    In 2008, the KIUC Board set a goal of reaching 50 percent 
renewable by 2023. At that time, viable renewable energy 
options were hydro, biomass, and waste energy. Solar was 
considered too expensive to pursue at the time. However, within 
six years, solar technology became much more affordable, with 
declining equipment pricing and the federal investment tax 
credit. By 2016, a biomass plant and several utility-scale 
solar projects had been commissioned, bringing us to 40 percent 
renewable. Since then, strategic partnerships with both Tesla 
and AES have resulted in the addition of three large-scale 
solar-plus-storage projects, the first of their kind anywhere 
in the world when they were commissioned. We reached our goal 
of 50 percent renewable four years early in 2019 and achieved 
70 percent renewable this year. It is notable that KIUC has led 
the State of Hawaii in both renewables and reliability for the 
past three years.
    The environmental benefits of our transition to 70 percent 
renewable are easy to measure, and significantly reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions. The transition has also greatly 
benefited our members financially. Since early 2021, when oil 
prices started spiking, rates for KIUC members have increased 
roughly 10 percent. This is primarily due to our bringing on 
renewables via competitive pricing, and it has compared us 
favorably to the other islands whose rates have gone up by 35 
to 50 percent in that same time period. And we are very proud 
to say for the past three months, we have reached a major 
milestone: for the first time in our history, KIUC posted the 
lowest electric rates in the State of Hawaii.
    I would like to emphasize how important federal incentives 
have been to our success. The investment tax credit has 
indirectly benefited our members through lower rates and 
purchase power agreements. With inflation and supply chain 
issues impacting renewable project costs throughout the 
country, we strongly encourage an extension of the credits at 
the original 30 percent and adding a direct-pay with a delay in 
further phaseout until at least 2030. Alternatively, extending 
the completion of the construction timeline required from the 
end of 2025 to 2030 could at least allow existing projects to 
receive the credits that were in place when the projects were 
started.
    As a not-for-profit cooperative, we also support the 
direct-pay option for not-for-profits to be able to receive the 
same level of tax incentive as for-profit, investor-owned 
utilities and developers. Currently, we have to use varied, 
complex project structures or have for-profit entities build 
and own our renewable projects to receive these essential tax 
credits and benefits. A direct-pay option for not-for-profit 
cooperatives would likely lower costs for our members from the 
same level of federal tax incentives.
    Cost of capital is another key cost item for a utility. We 
are able to borrow from RUS, but one problem from borrowing 
from RUS is it is prohibitively expensive to refinance with the 
RUS when interest rates decline. We support the Flexible 
Financing Rate for Rural America Act of 2021, which would allow 
us to take advantage of rates when they go down. Thank you to 
Senators Hirono, Hoeven, and other Senators serving on the 
Committee for co-sponsoring this measure.
    We believe KIUC has demonstrated that high-penetration 
renewables can be cost-effectively integrated into an electric 
grid without associated reliability issues. We have been 
fortunate to have many great partners on our renewable energy 
journey. We appreciate the federal incentives we received and 
hope we can continue to receive your support as we move toward 
100 percent renewable Kauai. Thank you again to Senator Hirono 
for making it possible for us to testify today. Thank you for 
your attention. I will be happy to answer questions afterwards.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bissell follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Hirono. Thank you very much, Mr. Bissell.
    Mr. Larsen.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF JOHN LARSEN, 
                     PARTNER, RHODIUM GROUP

    Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Chair Hirono, Ranking Member Hoeven, 
and members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to speak today. 
My name is John Larsen. I am a partner at Rhodium Group, an 
independent research firm whose research informs decision-
makers in the public, private, and philanthropic sectors. I 
lead Rhodium Group's U.S. energy systems research, where we 
focus on analyzing clean energy policy, emerging clean 
technologies, and market trends. I am also a non-resident 
senior associate in the Energy Security and Climate Change 
program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
    I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about 
options for lowering energy costs for consumers. Along with 
historically high inflation for most goods and services, 
household energy costs have risen substantially this year. 
Rhodium Group estimates national average household costs for 
both home energy and transportation, together, will be 
approximately $5,100 this year, on average, per household. That 
is a 23 percent increase compared to 2020 during the height of 
the pandemic, and it has been primarily caused by the rapid 
rise in fossil fuel prices over the past 6 to 12 months. That 
is especially the case for petroleum products such as gasoline, 
diesel fuel, and heating oil, which have seen monthly average 
year-on-year increases of 34, 48, and 60 percent, respectively, 
over the past 12 months.
    While total household energy costs are currently elevated, 
they are roughly in line with average costs over the last 40 
years. Why are households encountering historically average 
energy costs in the face of rapidly increasing fuel prices? It 
is actually a testament to American policy and market 
developments that have steadily reduced the exposure of 
households to energy price shocks, and made such shocks 
incrementally more manageable over time. These developments 
include the increasing efficiency of American vehicles, 
buildings, appliances and devices, electric power market 
competition, the shale boom, and relatively recently, the shift 
toward cheap renewable energy sources such as wind and solar 
that have no fuel costs, unlike fossil fuels. Looking back over 
the past 40 years, the proportion of household energy cost to 
disposable income, often referred to as energy burden, steadily 
has declined from eight percent in 1982 to three percent in 
2020. With recent price elevations, households, on average, are 
back to spending four percent of their disposable income on 
energy costs. Things would currently be much worse for 
consumers if homes, appliances, and vehicles had seen no energy 
efficiency improvements over the past 40 years and in turn, 
were even more exposed to volatile energy prices.
    Looking forward, new, forthcoming estimates from Rhodium 
Group, as part of our annual projections of U.S. energy and 
emissions trends, show that household energy costs will slowly 
decline back to near-2020 levels, but it will take at least 
seven years to do so. The trend reflects renewable energy 
deployment, increasing efficiency of energy consumption, 
increases in conventional energy production, and 
diversification away from the most volatile fossil fuels, such 
as a gasoline, towards alternative-fueled vehicles. While this 
is good news, it is not necessarily a cause for celebration. 
High energy cost on households adds to the massive financial 
burden and challenges that Americans are already facing due to 
inflation. The 50 million low-income households in the U.S. 
face energy burdens that are, on average, three times higher 
than that of non low-income households, and these same 
households are also more vulnerable to price spikes.
    Congress can do more now to accelerate energy cost 
reductions for American households above and beyond what 
current policy and markets will deliver, and they can do so 
while also contributing to tackling the challenge of climate 
change. The Clean Energy Tax Credit package and other clean 
energy investments outlined in Senate legislative text in 
December can serve as a strong foundation for cutting energy 
costs further and faster than market trends alone. Federal 
incentives and investments can cut energy waste from buildings, 
diversify energy demand from light duty vehicles, and will have 
a meaningfully positive impact on household finances. Clean 
electric tax credits can expand the amount of electricity that 
comes from fuel-free, zero-price-volatility resources like wind 
and solar. Carbon capture tax credits, and clean manufacturing 
investment programs can improve the environmental performance 
of energy producers in factories. Tax credits for clean fuels 
and clean hydrogen can diversify America's fuel mix beyond 
petroleum and build on the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act's historic investments in scaling up these new 
technologies.
    Previous Rhodium analysis found that legislation like that 
under consideration in the Senate, coupled with new policy 
actions taken by executive agencies and states, can cut 
household energy costs by 12 to 14 percent, on average, in 
2030, relative to a forecast where no new action happens, and 
all this while putting U.S. climate targets within reach. 
Importantly, most of these savings come from lower gasoline 
expenditures--a fuel with some of the highest price volatility 
and vulnerability to global supply disruptions. These benefits 
do not come at the expense of the oil and gas industry, as we 
found that petroleum production would be roughly unchanged 
compared to current policy in 2030, and natural gas would 
increase from today's levels, enhancing America's energy 
security. Families in the U.S are feeling the heat from 
elevated energy costs. Congress has concrete legislative 
options before it that can make a real difference in cutting 
these costs and reducing exposure to future price shocks.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I 
look forward to your questions about our research and our 
findings.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Larsen follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
    Mr. Ness.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF RON NESS, 
           PRESIDENT, NORTH DAKOTA PETROLEUM COUNCIL

    Mr. Ness. Chair Hirono, Ranking Member Hoeven, and members 
of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify 
today. As President of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, I am 
proud of the contribution our operators have made to our 
domestic energy industry, and I look forward to discussing how 
our full potential can be unleashed.
    As global demand for energy has returned post-COVID, 
worldwide oil production has failed to keep pace, leading to a 
substantial rise in energy costs, and severely impacting 
Americans as they fill their tanks. We, as an industry, want to 
work collaboratively with Congress and the Administration to 
address this current energy crisis. Together, we can focus on 
serious solutions that will increase American production and 
lower our energy prices. Increasing American oil and natural 
gas production will help reduce prices, but it does not occur 
with a flip of the switch. Industry faces numerous hurdles to 
increasing production, including access to new leases, permits, 
and easements on federal lands, burdensome regulations, 
difficulty in building infrastructure, finding workers, and 
access to new capital investment. In the past 15 months, we 
have seen an onslaught of new proposed regulations that will 
make it difficult and costly to grow production.
    But one of the biggest obstacles our industry faces is 
attracting capital investment to maintain, stimulate, and 
expand exploration and production. In the Bakken, we need $20 
million per day of investment to substantially grow production. 
Investor hesitancy is being driven by the rhetoric that it is 
time for our country to leave fossil fuels behind. The power of 
the bully pulpit is real and the words of our leaders matter. 
If government leaders say they are doing everything in their 
power to end an industry, a strong market signal is sent that 
that industry might not be a sound investment. This could all 
change tomorrow if the President and Congress change their 
message to the American people, bankers, investors, and workers 
that we need American oil and natural gas and that our industry 
has their support. They could instruct federal agencies to do 
everything within the law to encourage and facilitate 
production. Energy security is national security, and we must 
not lose sight of that. Russia has weaponized their position as 
one of the top oil and gas producers in the world, as they 
supply our enemies and hold our allies hostage. We must 
maximize our production, not only to supply our domestic needs, 
but also assist our allies.
    The perfection of horizontal drilling and hydraulic 
fracturing paved the way for the oil shale boom in the United 
States. The next step can be to support innovation and 
technology to reduce emissions from all energy sources. North 
Dakota Governor Doug Burgum and our legislature have been 
encouraging innovation, not regulation, as a pathway to cleaner 
energy, and we work in partnership with the state to achieve 
this goal. The State of North Dakota has also set up the Clean 
Sustainable Energy Authority to reinvest oil production tax 
revenues to achieve these goals. Our technology is constantly 
improving. Our horizontal wellbores are getting longer--now 
three miles instead of two--and our surface footprint and 
wellsite emissions continue to decrease. If we want to ramp-up 
production, looking at ways to streamline regulations and 
permitting is an important place to start.
    As Senator Hoeven mentioned, we were at about 1.5 million 
barrels a day in 2020. Today, we are a little over 1.1 million 
barrels a day. So that is 400,000 barrels a day of the gap 
alone that our country is missing. The American Petroleum 
Institute recently published a ten-point policy plan to restore 
U.S. energy leadership and fuel economic recovery. We urge 
lawmakers to seriously consider these policies they can act on 
now. To grow energy production and reduce energy supply 
disruptions, we need more pipeline and refining capacity across 
the country. It has become extremely difficult, costly, and 
time consuming to build pipelines, and almost impossible to 
build new refineries. This must change. We need our regulatory 
certainty to build the infrastructure necessary to transport 
and refine our products.
    If we want affordable and reliable energy, it is up to 
America to produce it. The good news is, we know we have 
significant resources left to extract, specifically in the 
Bakken in North Dakota, as well as the other unconventional 
shale plays across the country. With the right policies in 
place, our domestic oil and gas producers can increase 
production and contribute to lowering energy prices. We need 
energy champions. We need our leaders to stand up and say they 
are willing to partner with our industry to support our efforts 
in a clear path for us to do what we do best--produce American 
oil and natural gas. This is not a time to wind down or move 
away from our industry, it is a time to invest in it and build 
it up as an America-First solution. We stand ready to work with 
our Senators to move forward in solving these issues I outlined 
in lowering energy prices for everyone.
    I invite you to North Dakota to see firsthand how energy 
production can work in harmony with our shared environmental 
goals. Thank you, Chairman Hirono. I would be happy to answer 
any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ness follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
   
    Senator Hirono. Thank you very much. I am going to start 
the five minutes of questioning.
    So the purpose of this hearing is really to focus on 
affordable and reliable energy, and in that, I do have a 
question for Mr. Bissell of KIUC. Solar energy costs have 
fallen by over 80 percent in the last decade. In 2020, the 
International Energy Agency described solar energy as, and I 
quote them, ``the cheapest electricity in history.'' That 
description does not even cover the public health benefits from 
reducing air pollution or reducing the costly impacts of 
climate change. At the same time, investing in the clean energy 
transition does have upfront costs. So what would you say to 
members who are worried that their energy bills could go up as 
we invest in new clean sources of energy, probably in the short 
term? And the second thing, the second question I have for you, 
how did KIUC deal with the reliability of reliance on 
intermittent power?
    Mr. Bissell. Thank you, Senator. The cost of solar, 
particularly large-scale solar, throughout the country now is 
at or below any other cost of producing electricity. It has 
reached parity. Prices at large scale seemed to be going 
steadily downward until the recent inflation pushing all the 
costs up, but we have seen on Kauai, from the time we started, 
prices are about a third of what they were initially, and we 
have been able to really help stabilize our electric bills 
because of it. We have about 45 percent of our island's energy 
coming from solar, and we have also been able to do it 
reliably. We use a combination of, interestingly, our legacy 
fossil fuel units to support our grid, but also, more 
importantly, batteries. We have invested extensively in battery 
storage. We have been at the forefront of it. And the batteries 
have actually substantially increased the reliability of our 
grid. If we had one of our conventional units trip offline now, 
instead of potentially losing the entire island, oftentimes it 
happens and our members do not even know that it occurred 
because the batteries respond instantaneously.
    So it is a mix of taking advantage of the low cost of 
solar, but also a proper amount of batteries to provide firm 
and stable renewable energy.
    Senator Hirono. And I think, KIUC, you have also gone into 
the community to encourage them to use energy-efficient 
refrigerators, et cetera and to enable them to understand how 
much energy they are actually using by--I think you passed out 
ways that they could measure their at-home energy use. So it is 
a combination of initiatives that KIUC has really pushed that 
has led to where you are now.
    For Mr. Larsen, a study by the National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory found that drivers can save as much as $14,500 on 
fuel costs over 15 years by driving an electric vehicle instead 
of a gasoline-fueled vehicle. But EVs, currently, tend to have 
a higher sticker price than gasoline models. Manufacturers like 
GM tell us that more affordable EV options are on their way. Do 
tax credits work to support the purchase of electric vehicles, 
and how can they help an average household?
    Mr. Larsen. Thank you for the question.
    EV prices have, like a lot of other products, have been 
actually, you know, going up for the most part due to inflation 
recently, but the cost savings from that National Renewable 
Energy Lab study are certainly, probably, amplified by also the 
recent gasoline price increases, so you are avoiding more cost. 
And I think what we should be expecting with electric vehicles 
is something very akin to what we have seen with solar 
technology, where, as production ramps up, innovation continues 
apace. Costs should come down, not just operating costs, but 
for sticker prices of these vehicles throughout the decade. Tax 
credits have been an important tool already in starting that 
electric vehicle transition.
    Tax credits, going forward, can incentivize deployment of 
an array of technologies for diversifying the light duty fleet, 
so electricity, fuel cells, other things could be very 
important to making those vehicles more accessible to lower 
income households and for the types of households that actually 
do the most driving. And so, I think that is one tool that 
could be quite important along with other investments around 
charging infrastructure and all the other associated technology 
you are going to need to really support a ramp-up in 
deployment.
    Senator Hirono. Before I turn to Senator Hoeven, I want to 
note that General Motors, Ford, Toyota, and Stellantis, which 
is the owner of Chrysler, are planning to invest $20 billion to 
manufacture electric vehicles and batteries in the United 
States.
    Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Madam Chair, I am going to defer to Senator 
Cassidy, from the great State of Louisiana, because he has to 
be somewhere at 3:30, if that is all right?
    Senator Hirono. Please.
    Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. Thank you, 
Madam Chair.
    Mr. Ness, it was recently widely publicized that oil being 
released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was going 
overseas. And so I inquired with industry, and they tell me 
they are at 95 percent capacity. So when the Administration 
decided to release more oil, for whatever reason, they did not 
think about the need to process that oil into gasoline. Now, we 
inquired further and we found that due to a variety of 
reasons--demand destruction, policy, regulatory pressures 
associated with a desire to move away from petroleum-derived 
fuels--that is not the driver, that is the Administration's 
policy--there has been a closure or repurposing of seven 
petroleum refineries since the start of 2020. There has been 
two additional refineries with total capacity of 400,000 
barrels per day announced that they will close or repurpose by 
the end of 2023. Now, is it at all possible to lower the price, 
beyond demand destruction, is there any reasonable way to lower 
the price at the pump if we have lower and lower refinery 
capacity as we go forward, no matter what our oil supply is?
    Mr. Ness. Chair Hirono, Senator Cassidy, I think those 
numbers are astounding, and I urge this Committee to look into 
some of the demand destruction on the refining side and 
certainly releasing barrels from----
    Senator Cassidy. Well, let me ask you, specifically, what 
about the regulatory process? You mentioned regulatory. If the 
regulators are making it hard to keep it open, and therefore, 
they are closing because the cost of compliance is so 
expensive. Any thoughts on that?
    Mr. Ness. There are serious concerns throughout industry 
when you look at the RIN credits on the conversion of these 
fuels now at biofuel facilities, which are taking, basically, 
oil and gas refining supply off the market, and a conversion of 
those because of the value of these credits. And a lot of 
that----
    Senator Cassidy. So just for people who may not be familiar 
with this. There are tax credits encouraging the manufacture of 
biodiesel that make it more profitable to make biodiesel--kind 
of a niche product, but that takes refining capacity off to 
produce gasoline, which Americans are paying so much for. And 
some of this is ethanol, which means that corn, which could be 
used to lower the price in the grocery store or to feed people 
in Ethiopia, is being used to make biofuel as a, you know, we 
all know the reasons why we do it, but nonetheless, we are 
diverting foodstock, when there is inflation in the grocery 
market, to make biofuel. And RINs is how you encourage people, 
the refineries to use it, but the RINs have become more 
expensive.
    Mr. Ness. The RIN costs are punishing to American small 
refiners, in particular, punishing the larger refiners as well.
    Senator Cassidy. But under the previous Administration, the 
small refiners were not required to buy RINs, as I recall. I am 
told that this Administration is requiring the small refiners 
to buy these RINs, which increases their cost to production, 
which is putting them out of business. Is that a correct 
assessment?
    Mr. Ness. You are correct. They are transitioning those 
refineries to biofuel refineries, which we have one in our own 
state, about 20,000 barrels a day, a diesel refinery using 
Bakken oil--now it is a good project for North Dakota overall--
but the overall assessment of demand daily and production and 
supply of oil and gasoline should be looked at in this 
discussion.
    Senator Cassidy. So the person who is watching this from 
home on C-SPAN or may see or watch it on YouTube or whatever, 
when the Administration says they are doing everything possible 
to lower the price of gasoline, they have actually got a set of 
policies which are putting refineries out of business, which 
makes it absolutely impossible to lower the price at the pump, 
no matter how much oil we release from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve or beg the leader of Saudi Arabia to release.
    Mr. Ness. Senator, I would say we need to look at American 
oil and gas production opportunities and support that 
production. That will hopefully also drive the price of crude 
oil lower, which is the feedstock for all of these facilities.
    Senator Cassidy. I get that, but on the other hand, if we 
don't have refinery capacity, we could produce all the oil in 
the world, and we are not going to get there. Correct?
    Mr. Ness. You are correct. Our consumption is not going 
down. It is going to go up.
    Senator Cassidy. I have been calling for an operation warp-
speed, in which instead of just looking at one part of the 
supply in isolation without considering, my gosh, we have to be 
able to refine it, that we look at everything as a continuum, 
work out the regulatory policies in a coherent fashion, so when 
the President gets up and says he is doing everything possible, 
we can actually take him at his word, except then reading about 
how refinery capacity is being destroyed because of regulations 
and being frustrated because we are paying so much at the pump.
    Madam Chair, I yield. Thank you.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you.
    Senator Hickenlooper.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank all of 
you for your service and your time here, your testimony.
    Let me start with Mr. Larsen. Our economy has experienced a 
number of big supply shocks, and I think that they, in some 
ways--and this is somewhat similar to what we were just 
discussing--they amass the preexisting fundamentals also 
driving today's high prices. The plot here, courtesy of the 
Payne Institute at the Colorado School of Mines--I realize 
there are several schools of mines that are envisioned--shows 
three quantities. In orange, it is the return on capital for 
the oil sector, and blue, the same quantity for the S&P, and 
gray is the price of oil. Since 2013, when prices fell below 
$70 a barrel, oil has been a difficult investment, at best. At 
times, outright losing money and certainly consistently 
underperforming the market. In short, the geology itself seems 
to be, well, be part of the problem in terms of simultaneously 
having both cheap oil and expanding the oil sector.
    [The chart referred to follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Hickenlooper. So Mr. Larsen, I was going ask if you 
could comment on the implications of the past ten years for oil 
and gas production in this country. What lessons do you think 
we should learn from that, and would investing in clean energy 
help us avoid the sharpness of these situations in the future?
    Mr. Larsen. Thanks for the question, Senator. It is an 
important question.
    I mean, I think, for any major economy, diversity of fuel 
supply is important, and in particular, when you have 
concentration on one particular fuel source for a major part of 
your energy systems, say, for transportation, having diversity 
is a good thing to have both for long-term affordability, but 
also to avoid or at least shield exposure to volatility. Clean 
energy investments are one way to do that, and I do think that, 
you know, the reason elevated prices would probably show a 
different bar in 2021 or 2022 here, but you know, as the trend 
shows, things go up and down a lot in the oil and gas sector, 
and I think you would see a different view looking at other 
types of fueled energy supplies.
    Senator Hickenlooper. All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Ness, we talked a little bit before this, before this 
hearing started, a little bit about the issues around oil 
production and declining oil production and some of the trends 
that create an appearance but are not always true, as you were 
describing to me. And as a recovering geologist myself, I 
thought we had a map they showed me yesterday on these shale 
plays, like the Bakken in North Dakota. And as someone who was 
there when they began using directional drilling and combining 
that with increasingly sophisticated and focused forms of 
fracking that heightened returns, I think it is interesting to 
look at. Here, if you look at the map, the way it lays out, red 
wells are highly productive, the blue and black ones, much less 
so. And many of those wells, in terms of offsets, are closer 
than 500 feet even though we know they interfere with each 
other at 2,000-foot spacings.
    [The map referred to follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Hickenlooper. I thought it would be interesting to 
hear you explain again to all of us why you are optimistic 
about increased and consistent, and indeed expanding Bakken 
production.
    Mr. Ness. Thank you, Senator Hickenlooper and you certainly 
know, as a former Governor of Colorado, many of our producers 
were located in those great mines, those great geologists, 
those great engineers were located in Denver and your 
surrounding area there. We drilled about 17,000 wells in the 
Bakken over the past 15 years. Our production, as Senator 
Hoeven had mentioned, grew from about 90,000 barrels a day to, 
we were on our way to about 1.8 million barrels a day and we 
got stuck at about 1.15, 51, 55, and then COVID hit and then we 
have seen a downturn in price and it was economically 
devastating to our industry.
    But really, the prize of the Bakken and the prize of the 
shale plays across this country is here. What I am here to 
encourage the Senate to look at, out of every 100 barrels of 
oil in the Bakken, with the best technology in the world, we 
leave 85 of those behind. As a geologist, you know, that those 
great oil resources of the top ten oil fields in the world, the 
resource is there. The technology will come, the encouragement, 
the policies have to be there and you are going to go back in. 
You are not going to leave that much oil in the ground. We see 
that in New Mexico. We see that in Texas. We see that in 
Wyoming now, certainly in your State of Colorado, Oklahoma. 
That is just on the oil shale side.
    So the opportunity is there. The resource is there. It now 
takes the technology credits, like utilization of carbon 
dioxide to make sure that credit synchs up with the storage 
credit. We are going to produce more out of the Bakken, but we 
have to recharge that either with gas and/or carbon dioxide. We 
need to continue to keep that pressure up in that tremendous 
reservoir that has billions and billions of barrels in it, but 
we need the right price to go get it and the right investment 
climate to encourage. Your chart is telling in terms of why 
investors get shy and they back off. Along with that, with the 
ESG policies, the bank policies, and then really, the sentiment 
against investing in oil has been harmful, frankly, to the 
Bakken.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Got it. Thank you.
    And I have additional questions for Mr. Bissell. I think 
the work that you guys have done in Hawaii is remarkable, but I 
will have to submit those in writing, and same for you, Ms. 
Fedorchak.
    Senator Heinrich [presiding]. Actually, I am going to 
recognize Senator King.
    Senator King. Go ahead.
    Senator Heinrich. You sure? I will recognize myself for a 
moment then.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Heinrich. Mr. Larsen, could you just, in a relative 
way, not in any sort of fine-grained way, walk us through what 
energy sources have experienced the highest levels of 
volatility in the current market and what have been the most 
stable.
    Mr. Larsen. Happy to. Petroleum products, in particular, 
have seen the highest price volatility--gasoline, diesel, 
heating oil, and I mean, that should not surprise anybody 
because you see it when you drive by the gas station. In the 
meantime, delivered electricity is relatively stable, and I 
should say, this is national average numbers I am talking about 
here. You asked me to stay high-level, and electricity is 
relatively stable, though, in some states we are seeing 
elevation due to natural gas prices, and delivered natural gas 
prices, at least to residential consumers, have not seen the 
same kind of magnitude of spikes as we have seen for petroleum.
    Senator Heinrich. They have seen increases, but it is----
    Mr. Larsen. Yes, but not a spike.
    Senator Heinrich. I noticed it most particularly in 
comparing a few different things, and one is the cost of, you 
know, running my truck for a month, if it is driven regularly, 
could be 400 bucks. My electric vehicle in the same month, 
which is much smaller, but probably $63. And according to the 
app that tracks the equivalent that I would have spent at the 
gas pump if my car had not been powered by electrons, would be 
like $257 a month. So you really see a much more dramatic 
impact on people's pocketbooks in those places where petroleum 
is squarely at the center of their energy budget.
    Walk us through, a little bit through, just on the electric 
side now, Mr. Larsen, the relative, the different sources of 
electricity on the grid and what is cheapest today and what is 
most expensive. And I don't care if you want to do it on 
wholesale or retail or levelized, the relative costs are all 
the same. So just walk us through most expensive to cheapest.
    Mr. Larsen. Thanks. Maybe I will talk about, you know, 
levelized cost today of any of these, you know, generation 
options, and to Mr. Bissell's earlier point, solar is certainly 
the cheapest. Wind is not far behind. From there, at least with 
elevated gas prices, I would say, you are probably neck and 
neck between existing nuclear plants and a large natural gas 
combined cycle plant, and then coal, depending on the region 
and the fuel source, you know, where you are getting that coal, 
it could be a little different, but you know, coal and gas are 
probably in the same ballpark, let's put it that way.
    Senator Heinrich. So that is a big change, right?
    Mr. Larsen. Yes.
    Senator Heinrich. Coal being the most expensive and solar 
being the cheapest. That would not have been true ten years ago 
by any stretch of the imagination, right?
    Mr. Larsen. No, I mean when--I have been at this for nearly 
20 years now, and everybody said coal was the price to beat.
    Senator Heinrich. Right.
    Mr. Larsen. But with renewables, and then it was gas is the 
price to beat and now, solar is the price to beat.
    Senator Heinrich. Yes.
    Mr. Larsen. That is where we are at.
    Senator Heinrich. What is a new project coming online in 
price, in cents per kilowatt-hour, like what are we talking 
about on the grid today?
    Mr. Larsen. I mean----
    Senator Heinrich. Less than two cents, I believe, or 
wholesale.
    Mr. Larsen. Wholesale, yes, that sounds about right. I 
mean, Mr. Bissell would know better than I. He is the 
practitioner. But yes, I think, I mean, that seems like the 
right neighborhood.
    Senator Heinrich. Gasoline prices are driving a 40-year 
record high. We are all feeling that. Certainly, my 
constituents are feeling it at the pump. But for the last 
decade we were told that if we just drilled more, we would get 
lower prices. New Mexico certainly stepped up. The country is 
producing a lot more oil and gas than we ever have as a nation. 
New Mexico produces six times the crude that we used to. But 
that never showed up in the price at the pump. I never saw a 
direct impact, positive impact for the consumers in my state.
    So explain to us why domestic production numbers are so 
disconnected from the price at the pump because there is this 
mythology that if we just increase production, all of this 
inflationary pressure is going to go away.
    Mr. Larsen. Petroleum product prices, like gasoline, are 
largely driven by global oil prices, which is, you know, 
independent of any one production action anywhere in the world, 
and are a function of global supply and demand, right? Now, 
that is why you have not seen this translate. You know, as oil 
prices have gone up, we have seen gasoline prices go up, 
exactly as one would expect. I do think a near-term increase in 
production here, if it was, you know, could have sufficient 
influence on global markets in the near-term to put downward 
pressure on those oil prices, at the same time, you know, that 
is a near-term measure compared to additional investments that 
would diversify, you know, fuel supply over time and, you know, 
shield the United States from the next shock.
    Senator Heinrich. Got you. Thank you very much.
    Senator Hyde-Smith, you are next.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you. Like many of my colleagues 
have stated, the United States is experiencing record level 
energy prices that are hurting every American family, and we 
are going to have to have some real solutions and we are going 
to have to get some relief pretty quickly as we well know, and 
everything on the table considered, in my opinion.
    Mr. Ness, as we have seen in this year and last year, the 
United States' fossil fuel industry has been under attack by 
adversarial energy policies, executive orders, and federal 
regulations intended to cripple these industries. How do these 
actions contribute to the instability and unpredictability of 
the energy market as a whole?
    Mr. Ness. Senator Hyde-Smith, U.S. oil production today is 
a little less than two million barrels a day less than what it 
was in 2020, 2019. So we do need to increase our oil and gas 
production. That will have a direct impact. As the world's 
largest producer on the world supply of oil and decrease, 
ultimately increase, gasoline prices at the pump, as the 
previous speaker mentioned. What we have seen on the oil and 
gas industry, coming off of a very rough period through COVID, 
we have just seen an onslaught beginning with cancellation of 
the Keystone XL Pipeline, then the cancellation of federally 
mandated leasing requirements on federal lands. Everything has 
been slow-walked, and we see now the creep of climate 
requirements into permits, leases, all of the provisions that 
operators need to do to get those permits out and put together 
a development plan that they can then bring to Wall Street to 
attract the type of capital they need to drill and expand and 
grow oil production in our country.
    So we see this throughout our office and in North Dakota on 
a regular basis. We are commenting against federal rules and 
doing whatever we can, but again, back to those financial 
markets--it could start today with a message to the financial 
sector to investors, to workers, to everybody that we need 
American energy, of all sources. We certainly lead that effort 
in North Dakota. We think it is possible. Our energy sectors 
can work together quite well in our state, grow the production 
of all, Senators. Certainly, Senator Hoeven has been a huge 
champion of that. So we can do this, but we need to get away 
from the transition, away from, to a transition to cleaner 
energy of all sources and we think the Bakken is the cleanest 
barrel in the world and certainly American barrels are much 
cleaner than the barrels that we are seeking from other 
countries to send our way. So we hope it starts here and 
produce more American energy of all types because we are going 
to need it.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. I totally agree, and it could not start 
soon enough.
    How would energy prices, as well as prices at the pump, be 
affected if the Department of the Interior were to swiftly 
finalize the five-year plan, the leasing program, for the Outer 
Continental Shelf and conduct quarterly onshore oil and gas 
lease sales with, of course, equitable terms?
    Mr. Ness. Ranking Member Hyde-Smith, some of those plans, 
of course, are long range plans, but the message to the market 
in the world is immediate. And when you begin to do that, as I 
mentioned in my comments, the bully pulpit has power, and that 
message to investors and to the investment community and to the 
markets is strong that America is going to stand up, produce 
more American oil and natural gas. The Russian equation must be 
factored into this. It is a geopolitical issue at this point, 
not just the pain that all of our constituents and your 
constituents are feeling when they pull up to the pump.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Yes, you are exactly right to hurt 
Putin's ability to weaponize Russian energy against us and our 
allies.
    Okay, one other thing while I have about a minute left, and 
to you again, Mr. Ness. I want to look at the necessity of 
natural gas pipeline infrastructure. Americans are obviously 
seeing and feeling the effects of the cancellation of the 
Keystone Pipeline. Will you expand on the importance of the 
natural gas pipeline infrastructure and while also looking at a 
streamlined permitting process, and should Congress authorize 
critical energy infrastructure projects to support the 
production, processing, and the delivery of energy?
    Mr. Ness. Senator Hyde-Smith, infrastructure is key to not 
only energy development, but to lowering energy prices, because 
of the movement from the production areas to the consuming 
areas to the refining areas and certainly the Marcellus Shale 
is not in my backyard, but I know that the ability of that 
shale play is incredible to produce more natural gas. We cannot 
only supply our own citizens, but we can supply our friends and 
allies, and we have certainly seen that in the Bakken, as we 
have, we are now moving 700,000 barrels a day from the Bakken 
to our largest refining center in Louisiana Gulf Coast every 
single day, responsibly, reliably, quietly, environmentally 
soundly, through the Dakota Access Pipeline. It is an 
incredible asset to our nation to be able to supply our own 
refineries in America with homemade American Bakken oil versus 
Libyan oil, Venezuelan oil, OPEC oil.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Yes, it just makes sense. Thank you 
guys, for coming and being willing to testify today. And I 
certainly appreciate it and my time is out.
    Senator Hirono [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith.
    Senator King.
    Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Ness, do you think some of the record profits from the 
oil companies might have been invested in production instead of 
stock buybacks and dividends? The top three oil companies made 
$35 billion in profits in the last three months. You are 
talking about a lack of capital. That sounds like a big pile of 
capital to me.
    Mr. Ness. Senator King, as I mentioned in my remarks, our 
investors and our owners of companies who are investors in 
banks and others had an extremely rough period through COVID 
and the economic devastation of our industry, and I think the 
hesitancy and the rhetoric that is coming out of the agencies, 
the Administration, makes it hesitant for those investors to 
want to put money back in at big numbers in order to----
    Senator King. I am not talking about investors. I am 
talking about your companies. I am talking about your companies 
that have cash in the bank--$35 billion in the last three 
months. That is money that is available for investment. You are 
not making that investment. You are turning it back to your 
stockholders.
    Mr. Ness. Senator King, I think all industries should be 
looked at in terms of their profits and records, but certainly 
our companies are trying to economically recover, make plans 
for the future, and that is why these permits, these plans, are 
incredibly important as we want to invest.
    Senator King. Do stock buybacks help?
    Mr. Ness. Stock buybacks, I think, are the investors in 
these companies make determinations on how they should best 
suit their investors and certainly that is a decision that each 
board makes----
    Senator King. The decision made is to give the money to the 
stockholders, not to put it into increased production. That is 
a decision. That is a policy decision that the companies made. 
I am not talking about you, personally, but the industry, 
generally, made a decision over the last 12 months to invest 
record profits in stock buybacks and extraordinary dividends 
rather than the typical pattern, which is when the prices go up 
and there is an increase of demand, which there was as we came 
out of the COVID pandemic, to make investments in production to 
meet demand. That did not happen because of deliberate 
decisions about where to put that money.
    Mr. Ness. Senator King, I think with the right policies and 
right investment climate, you are going to see the American 
shale producers----
    Senator King. Is your industry really that afraid of Joe 
Biden? I mean, seriously, you are talking like rhetoric and 
comments is going to drive your entire industry. I have never 
known of that before. We have been trying to get off of fossil 
fuel for some time. All of a sudden, you are saying that the 
cancellation of the Keystone Pipeline, which wouldn't have come 
online for years and years, is somehow sending shockwaves 
through the industry. Are you seriously----
    Mr. Ness. Those messages do send shockwaves through the 
industry, and more specifically, through the financers and the 
banks and Wall Street, and that is what supplies. And in the 
Bakken, as I mentioned, we need $20 million a day of investment 
capital to grow and expand the Bakken. And certainly, to that--
--
    Senator King. Well, divide $20 million a day into $35 
billion and----
    Mr. Ness. On a magnitude applied in New Mexico, in Texas, 
and other places. So the policies of banks and of financial 
pressures, the inclusion of climate into permits into the 
investment policies, they are having a significant impact. And 
certainly, we are very proud of the reductions that we are 
seeing in emissions----
    Senator King. I think what is having a significant impact 
is the desire to give money back to your stockholders.
    Mr. Bissell, I am fascinated by your project because you 
responded directly to our friend from North Dakota, you have a 
stable grid with, what is it? 70 percent renewables? Based upon 
storage. Storage is the key, is it not, Mr. Bissell?
    Mr. Bissell. Yes, storage is essential to stabilizing a 
grid, and on Kauai, it is really fascinating because we are a 
stand-alone grid. So we are kind of a test case for what the 
industry can do, that you can produce affordable, stable, and 
reliable energy from the sun and from other renewable sources 
without a significant impact on reliability--if anything, a 
positive reliability in our case.
    Senator King. But generally, more nationally and 
internationally, to me, storage is the real secret to the 
transition away from fossil fuels because as we have already 
learned, solar and wind are the cheapest forms of energy today. 
The problem is intermittency and the stability of the grid. If 
we can deal with the storage issue, either through batteries or 
more traditional technologies, like pumped storage, and there 
is a lot of other research going on, that is what is going to 
get us there, it seems to me. And you are a good test case for 
that.
    Mr. Bissell. Yes, I am glad you mentioned pumped storage 
technology. We are actively developing a pumped storage project 
on Kauai because, really, that is the next frontier. You go 
from relatively short-term storage of four to five hours, but 
to get to 100 percent or way out there on the renewable side, 
you have to have longer-term storage, and you can go back to 
some old technology. Pumped storage is old, but it works.
    Senator King. I think one of the important points that 
needs to be made about this transition is that the cost of 
solar and wind and pumped storage and battery storage is 
capital. There is no fuel cost. So once you have that system in 
place, you are buffered, you are free from the vagaries of the 
fossil fuel market because your capital cost is fixed the day 
you install the entity and so, that is a way of getting away 
from these swings that we have seen that are so damaging to 
consumers.
    Well, I appreciate it, and thank you for coming all the way 
from Hawaii to share that with us.
    Mr. Bissell. You are welcome. Thank you.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Senator King.
    Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Mr. Bissell, didn't you say that still 40 percent of your 
energy is from oil?
    Mr. Bissell. Thirty percent, currently, yes.
    Senator Hoeven. So you still are 30 percent dependent on 
oil.
    Mr. Ness, so those policies that you were talking about 
with Senator King, formerly Governor King. He and I worked 
together as Governors too, and he's been out to North Dakota. 
So, he is, you know, he is good at advocating his point, but he 
is also open minded when you work with him on things, and that 
is much appreciated.
    So those policies though, again, even in Kauai, they are 30 
percent still dependent on oil, all the way out there in 
beautiful Hawaii. We were at 13 million barrels a day. Now, we 
are down to about 11 and a half million barrels a day. In North 
Dakota, we were at 1.5 million barrels a day. Now, we are 1.1 
million. That is 400,000 of that 1.5 million we are down right 
now. And it is those policies that are preventing us from 
sustaining and growing energy production in--first question--in 
places like North Dakota, isn't that correct?
    Second, don't those policies hit your smaller companies 
even harder than the bigger companies?
    Mr. Ness. Senator Hoeven, and your point is well taken, and 
certainly in the Bakken, you know, we have a large mix of oil 
and gas producers. Many of them are small, regional, 
independent oil and gas producers who completely rely on 
investment capital. They do not have the reserves. They do not 
have the type of production that warrants the revenue 
generation. They need to go out to the street. They need to 
find that money and they need to, you know, find a positive 
reaction in their response to their solicitations, essentially, 
to grow production, grow Bakken production. And what they are 
seeing from the banks, what they are seeing from investors, is 
hesitancy.
    I directly attribute that back to something that is 
fixable. There is a fix to this. And we need the all-of-the-
above energy policy, grow all production of all resources.
    Senator Hoeven. And that is really what you are saying is, 
it is about all-of-the-above to truly make us energy secure, 
energy independent, and that that baseload is a vital part of 
it as well, right?
    Mr. Ness. One hundred percent. We completely rely on 
reliable, affordable electricity in our state for, not only to 
run our oil and gas operations, but certainly, as a state, we 
have a, you know, we are growing all types of production, but 
we are going to need it in this country. We need to grow 
production.
    Senator Hoeven. And you work hard on the environmental 
stewardship. As a matter of fact, you would say your industry 
is really a leader, globally, in terms of environmental 
stewardship, wouldn't you?
    Mr. Ness. The advancements that we have made in just the 
last three to five years are simply amazing on the emission 
reductions, our gas capture technologies. I was sharing with 
Senator Hickenlooper earlier, a Denver company has come up with 
an incredible--we are powering the cloud now. Making Bitcoin 
off of some of the remote well locations. Incredible strides on 
the advancement--three-mile laterals, versus two-mile laterals, 
and yes, so the reductions in emissions that we have seen, 
making that Bakken barrel, I think, the cleanest barrel in the 
world.
    Senator Hoeven. And when we talk about production on 
federal lands, you do need access to those leases because even 
if, you know, even if companies have some leases, if they are 
held up because they cannot get drilling permits or they are 
held up in litigation, they cannot produce those leases, 
correct? So they need to be able to bid for more of those 
leases. And in fact, when those leases have been offered, 
haven't the companies gone out and aggressively bid for more of 
those leases?
    Mr. Ness. Senator Hoeven, yes. We saw the lease hold this 
last cycle, about 80 percent of that was taken off the market, 
but 20 percent of the leases, despite paying, you know, a 50 
percent higher royalty, we saw a lot of interest in those 
leases, but the uniqueness in North Dakota, and pursuant to 
your bill, Senate bill 4227, we have a lot of private land with 
a very small, de minimis federal lease under it. If you do not 
have that federal lease, despite whether the Federal Government 
doesn't own any of the surface, may own a very small percentage 
of the mineral interest, you cannot continue to move forward 
with that lease and drill that prospect until you have that 
federal lease.
    Senator Hoeven. So it would be kind of like Mr. Bissell 
owning some property in Kauai that he could not develop, even 
though he owned all of the surface rights and the majority of 
the mineral rights, but the Federal Government owned the 
minority of mineral rights and no surface rights. They could 
hold them up, whether he liked electricity or anything else, 
right?
    Mr. Ness. And Senator, that hurts the surface owner, that 
hurts the mineral owner, that hurts the royalty owner, that 
hurts the state, the county, the townships, but primarily, I 
think, these are significant world-class oil wells that could 
immediately bring oil production online and grow our production 
and lower the price of energy----
    Senator Hoeven. And a fundamental question of private 
property rights, right?
    Mr. Ness. Correct.
    Senator Hoeven. Madam Chair, I have some more questions, 
but I will defer back to you at this point.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Let me follow up on Senator King's line of discussion, and 
just some clarification here, maybe, Mr. Larsen, you can help 
me. Besides the profits that he was talking about, the $35 
billion in profits that oil and gas have made over the last few 
months, it is true they also received subsidies from the 
Federal Government. My understanding is there are direct 
subsidies to fossil fuel, about $20 billion annually, about 80 
percent of that also goes to oil and gas. Is that about right?
    Mr. Larsen. Yes, that sounds about right.
    Senator Cortez Masto. So not only did they keep the 
profits, but they also get direct subsidies from the Federal 
Government. So it seems to me those are opportunities for 
access to capital they need to continue the drilling that they 
need to do to add to the supply chain and address and help us 
lower costs globally. So I am open to more facts about that, 
but just, I am very concerned that at the end of the day, 
instead of trying to solve this problem, people are profiting 
on the backs of the very people in my state, in Nevada, where 
the fuel prices are high.
    And let's talk about refining, because my understanding, 
also, is that these refining companies that have shut down or 
decided to take an opportunity during COVID to shut down or 
retool, but I am curious, how many of the refineries here in 
the state actually refine the oil and gas that is produced in 
the United States? Or are they prepared to refine the oil and 
gas that comes out that is imported into the United States? I 
am curious. Do you know that?
    Mr. Larsen. I actually do not know that information.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Does anybody on the panel? I am 
curious.
    Mr. Ness, yes.
    Mr. Ness. Senator Cortez Masto, certainly I, you know there 
are several types of crude oil and different refiners have a 
different mix. In North Dakota, our single refinery now refines 
all Bakken, high quality, sweet crude oil. So Louisiana Gulf 
Coast, 70 percent of our nation's refining capacity needs high 
quality, Bakken type crude oil, Permian Basin, New Mexico. So 
other refineries across the country had converted to a heavier 
crude oil, Canadian crude oil, Venezuelan-type crude oil. So 
there is a mix. The world is a----
    Senator Cortez Masto. So there is--so I guess that is my 
point is, I heard the conversation earlier with Senator Cassidy 
talking about refineries and trying to blame the 
Administration, and actually, I do not think people realize 
that based on the crude oil, depends on the type of refining 
that is happening here in this country and a lot of our 
refineries are refining the crude oil that comes and that is 
imported to the United States, not necessarily the crude oil 
that is here in the United States. Is that correct?
    Mr. Ness. Senator, you are correct to some extent.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
    Mr. Ness. However, our imported crude oil has gone from 
what was almost 63 percent in 2007, 2008, pre-Bakken, by the 
way, now down to a very de minimis part of around 18 to 20 
percent, I believe. And so, you are correct in that regard.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Mr. Ness. And I would just say that I would be happy to 
have someone identify a list for me of subsidies the American 
oil and gas industry gets because our subsidies are just 
regular tax incentives to expense--show your expenses off 
anything. So I would be more than happy to see a chart 
showing--I am not aware of any subsidies that a Bakken producer 
gets in North Dakota.
    Senator Cortez Masto. You are not aware of any direct 
subsidies that you get other than tax subsidies?
    Mr. Ness. That is correct.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. And thank you for that because 
I will look to the study that shows that there is $20 billion 
annually coming in direct subsidies. And I would be curious, 
Mr. Larsen, if you know where that--if you have a response to 
that?
    Mr. Larsen. I, you know, I know a few sources where you 
could go. I know the Energy Information Administration tracks 
subsidies for all technologies and fuels, as well as there is 
always the Joint Committee on Taxation that knows where tax----
    Senator Cortez Masto. But to the extent that you have tax 
subsidies, that is less revenue coming into the Federal 
Government, but that is more benefits to the oil and gas 
company, is that correct?
    Mr. Ness. Senator Cortez Masto, again, I am not aware of 
any direct subsidies that----
    Senator Cortez Masto. But you get tax credit subsidies?
    Mr. Ness. We get the same incentives that any manufacturer 
would get to expense, you know, show, write off your expenses.
    Senator Cortez Masto. So it is a similar type of revenue 
that you get to keep if you get a tax credit.
    I appreciate that. We can talk over and over this.
    Mr. Ness. Yes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Let's get to the facts.
    Mr. Ness. The facts are, we do not receive direct subsidies 
on oil and gas.
    Senator Cortez Masto. So let me ask you this, because I 
know that in my state--the clean energy economy is growing 
across the country, and that has benefited so much in Nevada. 
We have talked about the cost of solar coming down and we have 
seen that in the State of Nevada. I also know that this clean 
energy economy employs thousands of workers in my state, 
statewide. It offers great paying jobs, union jobs in my state, 
and those jobs range from power generation to energy 
efficiency. I do believe that, for the very reason that we are 
here today and talking about high fuel prices, we need to be 
energy independent. That is what this means. And to get there, 
yes, we need a bridge of some sort. We need everybody on the 
all-of-the-above approach, everybody working to lower costs, 
including oil and gas and not profiting off of it. There needs 
to be this concerted effort of everybody working together to 
make us energy independent for the very reasons we are here 
today and the reasons that people are suffering at the gas tank 
right now, at the pump.
    But let me ask you, Mr. Larsen or Mr. Bissell, can you 
speak to some of the economic and job benefits that come from 
investments in clean energy? Is that our future? Is that going 
to benefit us moving forward as we make these investments and 
try to get energy independent?
    Mr. Larsen. I can quickly give a high-level, national take 
on that. We looked at the employment implications of the kind 
of long-term tax credit package that looked similar to the 
Finance Committee's Clean Energy for America Act, and that, on 
average, over the next ten years, would generate up to 600,000 
new jobs in wind, solar, and you know, maintaining jobs in the 
nuclear industry, and that is just electric power. So, you 
know, there are other employment benefits that go into other 
sectors. So that just gives you a rough sense of the magnitude 
of the opportunity here. That is 600,000 jobs annually.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I know my time is up. 
Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Senator.
    Before I close the hearing, I want to note that oil and gas 
companies hold 9,000 drilling permits and over 12,000 leases on 
public lands they are not using. This amounts to more than 20.6 
million acres of federal land under lease in which they are not 
producing oil and gas, and the fossil fuel industry has had 
subsidies by law, it is actually written in the statutes, 
billions of dollars in subsidies for decades and decades, 
whereas on the alternative and renewable side, we have had to 
continue to renew the kinds of tax breaks, et cetera. So, you 
know, I think that is the direction we are going into, and as 
long as we continue to rely on oil and gas, and I realize the 
oil and gas producing states, it is really hard to get away 
from reliance on the very thing that you all produce. But at 
the same time, that kind of reliance when the price is set in 
the global market, we are going to continue to not become 
energy self-sufficient because we cannot get away from the 
global prices. And that is why there really is, for the long 
term, I would say, a need to move us toward alternative and 
renewables.
    And again, I thank Mr. Bissell from Kauai and congratulate 
KIUC for its very forward-thinking, risk-taking behavior, which 
is resulting in positive energy prices for the people of Kauai.
    So with that, I want to thank all my members for being 
here.
    Senator Hoeven. Madam Chair, I do have some questions----
    Senator Hirono. I'm sorry.
    Senator Hoeven. I do have some questions for my other 
witness.
    Senator Hirono. Oh, I am sorry.
    Senator Hoeven. If that would be all right?
    Senator Hirono. Sure, I thought you were done.
    Senator Hoeven. No.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Hoeven. I said I had some more questions, but I 
deferred.
    Senator Hirono. Oh, all right, please. I apologize.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Hirono. Okay.
    Senator Hoeven. So Ms. Fedorchak, obviously, the country's 
needs for electricity are going to continue to grow, whether it 
is computers or cars or anything else. Where is that 
electricity going to come from, and where is it going to come 
from on a reliable basis, if we do not maintain our baseload 
from all sources, including coal-fired electricity?
    Ms. Fedorchak. Absolutely, thank you, Senator Hoeven, for 
that question. I thought I was going to get off really easy.
    Senator Hoeven. Nope. Nope. I knew the Chairman would come 
back, but she had a few things to do.
    Ms. Fedorchak. All right. You raise a very good point, and 
I think that several members have mentioned the need for the 
all-of-the-above strategy, and that really is very extremely 
important. The most important thing to remember, you can 
compare electricity on price all day long, but every megawatt 
is not created equal, and you have to have dispatchable power 
unless you just want the power when the sun is shining or the 
wind is blowing. And nobody wants that. So Senator King hit it 
right, we need battery storage. We do not have that yet. And 
you cannot compare a place like Hawaii to a place like North 
Dakota. Hawaii has about a maximum, I think, I looked it up, 
2,000 heating degree days. North Dakota has 8,000 to 10,000 
heating degree days.
    So I think even Mr. Bissell would agree that what is needed 
and possible in the electric grid in Hawaii is very different 
from what is capable in the State of North Dakota, where we get 
temperature swings from minus 20 to minus 30 degrees in the 
winter to 115 degrees in the summer. So, you know, the electric 
grid has to adapt to that. It has to adapt every second, with 
the exact amount of electricity that is needed, and the 
technology simply does not exist today to make that possible 
with 100 percent renewables. We have to have dispatchable 
resources fueled by our fossil fuels for the indefinite future 
until technology allows us to wean off from those.
    Senator Hoeven. So, you know, one of the things we are 
working on very aggressively, and not only in North Dakota, but 
other states as well, is things like carbon capture and storage 
and working on that both for geologic storage, but also for 
tertiary oil recovery. Again, leading the world in good 
environmental stewardship while producing more energy, more 
cost effectively, and more dependably. You pointed out that a 
federal one-size-fits-all does not work. I think you make that 
very clear when you talked about North Dakota and Hawaii both 
doing some really great things. What are some of the keys that, 
in terms of federal policy, that will really help advance 
carbon capture and storage?
    Ms. Fedorchak. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
    Well, first of all, there has to be a commitment by the 
Administration and other federal agencies that coal is the 
future, coal is a fuel that we are going to invest in for the 
future. It is important not just for America, it is important 
for the world. So we should be leading the efforts to develop 
that technology here, perfect it, use it in places like North 
Dakota, apply it in places like India, China, other countries 
of the world, because this is a global problem.
    So the 45Q tax credit that the Senate, and was included 
recently last fall, passed by all of you and supported, that is 
huge to support those investments. There are some really big 
projects occurring in North Dakota. Project Tundra is one that 
is going to be a commercial-scale, hopefully coal-fired 
facility with 100 percent carbon capture and storage. That is 
really exciting. There are other big coal plants in North 
Dakota pursuing the same technology. So I believe that 
technology can be proven in North Dakota, and those massive 
generating units--1,100 megawatts, 600, 700 megawatts of 
dispatchable power that is invaluable in the winter throughout 
the country, throughout the MISO region--those will be 
sustainable long-term with that new technology.
    Senator Hoeven. So these things really can fit together 
when you look at solar or wind and its intermittent nature, 
then producing oil and gas, Kauai still has 30 percent oil 
reliance, combining these things with carbon capture 
technologies. All these things can come together in a way that 
makes us stronger if we do not get stuck on this one-size-fits-
all from a federal perspective, right? And that we provide the 
flexibility and the opportunity for traditional sources of 
energy as well as some of the renewables, right, on a fair 
basis?
    Ms. Fedorchak. Absolutely. That is the main thing I think 
we are hearing from the grid operators is that we have to have 
them all.
    Senator Hoeven. Right.
    A final question for Mr. Ness. Isn't it the case that now 
if we are not producing that oil and gas here at home, we end 
up getting it from our adversaries, places like--and the world, 
not just us, but the world, whether it is Russia or Venezuela 
or even the Middle East, OPEC? Isn't that the case?
    Mr. Ness. Senator Hoeven, our world needs energy every 
single day and the world is going to supply that oil and we 
absolutely are advocating for and supporting our enemies and 
others by not producing American energy.
    Senator Hoeven. So this is a national security issue as 
well as an economic issue for our country.
    Mr. Ness. This is 100 percent a national, geopolitical 
issue, and the ability to supply our friends and allies in 
Europe and across the country with energy is the single 
greatest opportunity we have to ensure that we have national 
security and some opportunities going forward in those nations.
    Senator Hoeven. Yes.
    I would also, along with the Chairman, like to thank all of 
our witnesses for being here today. I appreciate it.
    Senator Hirono. I feel as though I have to say one more 
thing, so I am going to say it. I am glad you mentioned that 
energy is a national security issue and a global security 
issue. Yes, it is, and so is global warming and the military 
has said global warming is a national security and global 
security issue because it is going to impact the ability of 
many countries to grow food, and all the attendant issues that 
will arise with starvation and everything else. So global 
warming is very much an issue we all need to face also.
    Thank you very much, Senator Hoeven, and to each of you.
    The members will have until close of business tomorrow to 
submit additional questions for the record.
    So the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                                   [all]