[Senate Hearing 117-473]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-473

                          PENDING LEGISLATION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                   ON


		     S. 3145                 S. 3856
		     S. 3543                 S. 4038
		     S. 3719                 S. 4061
		     S. 3740                 S. 4066
		     S. 3769                 S. 4280
                                __________

                             JULY 28, 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
                    
48-298                     WASHINGTON : 2024           


               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                      Renae Black, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                 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
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico............     1
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from 
  Wyoming........................................................     6

                               WITNESSES

Huff, Hon. Kathryn, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, U.S. 
  Department of Energy...........................................     8
Speakes-Backman, Kelly, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
  Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. 
  Department of Energy...........................................     9
Wech, Mike, Administrator and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Southwestern Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy...    19
Navin, Jeff, Director of External Affairs, TerraPower............    22
Leuck, Matt, Technical Services Manager, Neste, U.S..............    36

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    55
Alpha Tech Research Corp. et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    60
American Association for Laboratory Accreditation:
    Letter for the Record........................................    89
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers:
    Letter for the Record........................................    91
American Nuclear Society:
    Letter for the Record........................................    62
American Public Power Association and National Rural Electric 
  Cooperative Association:
    Statement for the Record.....................................    96
American Trucking Associations et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    93
Barrasso, Hon. John:
    Opening Statement............................................     6
Bradley, David:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   101
California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission:
    Letter for the Record........................................    47
Centrus Energy:
    Letter for the Record........................................    64
Clean Fuels Alliance America:
    Letter for the Record........................................    99
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne:
    Statement for the Record.....................................     2
Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Huff, Hon. Kathryn:
    Opening Statement............................................     8
    Written Testimony............................................    11
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    81
Leuck, Matt:
    Opening Statement............................................    36
    Written Testimony............................................    38
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    88
Navin, Jeff:
    Opening Statement............................................    22
    Written Testimony............................................    24
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    87
Nuclear Energy Institute:
    Letter for the Record........................................    65
Nuclear Innovation Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................    67
Orano USA LLC:
    Letter for the Record........................................    69
Speakes-Backman, Kelly:
    Opening Statement............................................     9
    Written Testimony............................................    11
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    85
TerraPower:
    Letter for the Record........................................    71
Uranium Producers of America:
    Letter for the Record........................................    73
Wech, Mike:
    Opening Statement............................................    19
    Written Testimony............................................    20
Western States Petroleum Association and Oregon Fuels 
  Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   106
X-energy
    Letter for the Record........................................    75

----------
The text for each of the bills that were addressed in this hearing can 
be found at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2022/7/full-
committee-hearing-to-consider-pending-legislation

 
                          PENDING LEGISLATION

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in 
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Martin 
Heinrich, presiding.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Heinrich. The Committee will come to order. Today, 
our Committee will hear testimony on ten bills. The bills on 
the agenda today address a range of topics of concern to this 
Committee, including energy efficiency, advancing alternative 
fuel vehicles and renewable fuels, exports of LNG and imports 
of Russian uranium, and research and development at the 
Department of Energy into carbon dioxide removal, 
microelectronics, and fuel for advanced nuclear reactors.
    I have a statement of support from Senator Feinstein for 
the bill that she has co-sponsored with Senator Barrasso, the 
Renewable Diesel and Sustainable Aviation Fuel Parity Act, that 
she would like entered into the record, assuming there are no 
objections.
    [Letter of support from Senator Feinstein follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Heinrich. I would like to highlight two bills in 
particular that will create new opportunities for families to 
save substantial money on their household heating and cooling 
bills, in addition to making a small technical change to the 
definition of water heaters. S. 4061, introduced by Senators 
Stabenow, Blackburn, and Hirono, authorizes the Department of 
Energy to consider doing a rulemaking to set a demand response 
capability standard for residential electric resistance and 
heat pump water heaters at the point of manufacture. Demand 
response is a great tool to enable grid operators and utilities 
to manage loads to enhance grid security and reliability during 
high demand periods. According to a recent DOE study on load 
shifting and the energy efficiency potential of heat pump water 
heaters in residential buildings, grid-connected heat pumps can 
reduce evening peak load by as much as 90 percent, relative to 
electric resistance. This translates to dollars saved for 
consumers. In fact, converting all electric resistance water 
heaters to heat pump water heaters would save American 
consumers $7.8 billion annually, or about $182 per household in 
water heating bills.
    The second bill, the Weatherization Assistance Program 
Improvements Act of 2022, introduced by Senators Reed, Collins, 
Coons, and Shaheen would authorize funding to ensure that 
people have the resources they need to make their homes 
weatherization-ready. As successful as the Weatherization 
Assistance Program has been, there are significant challenges 
preventing many households from receiving the weatherization 
assistance they need, including things like unremediated mold 
and structural deficiencies. I think it is also worth 
highlighting the increase in the per-dwelling unit cap from 
$6,500 to $12,000 per household. The higher limit would make it 
so that homeowners are able to fully weatherize rather than 
having to pick and choose upgrades. It could also make it 
easier for people to get their homes ready for things like 
electrification. I think these reforms have real potential to 
save families money by lowering their home heating and energy 
bills, and I look forward to learning more about them from our 
witnesses today.
    With that, I will turn things over to our Ranking Member, 
Senator Barrasso, for his opening remarks.

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

    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. Thanks for holding today's legislative hearing. I am 
going to limit my comments to the three bills which I have 
introduced.
    The first is S. 3856, a bill to ban imports of Russian 
uranium. Earlier this year, Congress signaled its support for 
banning imports of Russian energy fuels. Our efforts 
effectively forced President Biden's hand. In March, the 
President announced that he would ban imports of Russian oil, 
natural gas, and coal. But President Biden chose not to ban 
imports of Russian uranium. Russia is currently our fourth 
largest uranium supplier. Russia's sole nuclear company also 
accounts for about half of the world's uranium enrichment, and 
it was founded by President Vladimir Putin. So let's be clear 
about what this means. By purchasing Russian uranium, we 
continue to fund Russia's war in Ukraine. If we are serious 
about choking off funds to the Russian state and helping the 
people of Ukraine, then we need to ban imports of Russian 
uranium. The time for sitting on our hands is over.
    The second bill, S. 4066, is a bill to promote the domestic 
production of high-assay low-enriched uranium. This is a 
specific type of uranium that will fuel America's advanced 
reactors. That includes TerraPower's Natrium reactor, which 
will be built in my home State of Wyoming. It also includes X-
energy's reactor, which will be built in Senator Cantwell's 
home State of Washington. Currently, there are only two sources 
of high-assay low-enriched uranium. One is Russia. The other is 
the Department of Energy. My bill would ensure that the 
companies like TerraPower and X-energy have a domestic source 
of high-assay low-enriched uranium. Specifically, it would 
require the Secretary of Energy to produce this fuel from its 
excess inventories of highly enriched uranium. It would also 
require the Secretary to make sufficient quantities of high-
assay low-enriched uranium available for the initial needs of 
our advanced reactors. At the same time, the bill would 
accelerate the commercial availability of this fuel here in the 
United States. If our advanced reactors are to succeed, we must 
help them secure the fuel they need here at home in America.
    The last bill, Senate bill 4038, is a bill to promote the 
production and use of renewable diesel and sustainable aviation 
fuel. Renewable diesel offers among the most promising means to 
reduce carbon emissions for heavy duty trucks. Likewise, 
sustainable aviation fuel offers among the most promising means 
to reduce carbon emission from aircraft. Unlike conventional 
biodiesel, renewable diesel can meet the same technical 
specifications as petroleum-based diesel. That means that there 
are no physical limits to how much renewable diesel can be used 
in today's engines, fuel pumps, storage tanks, and pipelines. 
This bill would require the Secretary of Energy to report on 
the domestic production and foreign imports of renewable diesel 
and sustainable aviation fuel. That includes the type, volume, 
and origin of the feedstocks. This bill would also exempt 
renewable diesel, from outdated and unnecessary labeling 
requirements. My home State of Wyoming is a leading producer of 
renewable diesel, and that renewable diesel is used in 
California. Last year, the California Air Resources Board wrote 
me explaining that existing labeling requirements are 
inhibiting the greater use and production of renewable diesel, 
and this is specifically related to California. The bill that 
Senator Feinstein and I have introduced would solve that 
problem and allow California and other states to use much 
larger volumes of that fuel.
    So I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today, and 
I look forward to the testimony of all of you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
    Now, we will turn to our witnesses for today's hearing.
    Dr. Kathryn Huff, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, 
U.S. Department of Energy.
    Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of 
Energy.
    Mike Wech, Administrator and Chief Executive Officer of the 
Southwestern Power Administration.
    Jeff Navin, Director of External Affairs, TerraPower.
    Matt Leuck, Technical Services Manager at Neste, U.S.
    We will start with Dr. Huff. Please proceed.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHRYN HUFF, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 
           NUCLEAR ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Chairman Heinrich, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, and members of the Committee. It is an honor to 
appear before you representing the Department of Energy, along 
with my colleagues, to discuss the various energy bills under 
your consideration. I look forward to your questions and will 
begin my testimony on the legislation relevant to nuclear 
energy. To meet our ambitious carbon reduction goals and to 
rebuild U.S. leadership globally, the Biden Administration is 
prioritizing activities that keep the existing fleet of nuclear 
power plants operating, deploy advanced reactors, secure and 
sustain the nuclear fuel cycle, and expand international 
nuclear energy cooperation.
    The Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine has 
demonstrated the grave threat to global energy security posed 
by dependence on Russian-supplied fuels. Russia, the largest 
global enricher of uranium, currently supplies a significant 
fraction of the nuclear fuel used by the United States, as well 
as our international allies and partners. In particular, 
conversion and enrichment services from trusted sources are not 
sufficient to replace current imports from Russia. Without 
expansion of this domestic fuel cycle capacity, the United 
States cannot securely support the low-enriched uranium needs 
of today's reactor fleet, or make high-assay LEU (HALEU) 
available for advanced reactors, research reactors, and medical 
isotope production. The Department is working to address these 
energy security challenges in the face of ongoing global 
events. I want to thank this Committee for your leadership in 
the development of proposed legislation at tackling this very 
important issue facing our nation and the world.
    S. 3856 bans uranium imports from the Russian Federation. 
American dependence on Russian uranium threatens our energy 
security. Untrustworthy state-sponsored programs have no place 
in our energy policy. However, any uranium import ban must be 
accompanied by strategic investments that strengthen our 
domestic nuclear fuel supply chain. Additionally, our nation's 
current nuclear power operators will need some time to wean 
ourselves off of this Russian supply.
    S. 4066, the Fueling our Nuclear Future Act, would direct 
the Department to accelerate the commercial availability of 
HALEU produced in the United States. The Department shares the 
Committee's concern about HALEU availability. Prior to Russia's 
invasion of Ukraine, DOE was already working to address HALEU 
needs for commercial deployment and uranium needs for its other 
missions. However, given global events, a new and more urgent 
path is needed. My office is actively addressing this topic in 
coordination with the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA).
    On behalf of my colleagues across the Department, I would 
also like to briefly touch on the other legislation considered 
today. S. 3740, the Micro Act of 2022, would expand DOE's 
capacity for early stage research pursing transformative 
technologies to advance the micro-electronics industry and 
reinforce DOE's position as a leader in this field. 
Microelectronics are essential to the execution of DOE missions 
in science and engineering, clean energy, energy security, 
national security, and stewardship of the nation's nuclear 
stockpile. DOE looks forward to working with the Committee on 
this legislation.
    S. 4280, the Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act, 
would complement the Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs and other 
programs included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The 
technologies developed and matured by this legislation may 
eventually be located in one of the four Direct Air Capture 
Hubs. Furthermore, they likely would leverage geological 
storage sites that will be developed from BIL provision 40305, 
Carbon Storage Validation and Testing.
    Finally, S. 3145, the Small Scale LNG Access Act of 2021, 
appears to codify into law a Department of Energy rule that 
expedites the approval process for facilities that export small 
scale shipments of LNG. While the Department does not have a 
position on this particular bill, DOE is ready to provide 
technical support as needed.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 
Committee today. I am happy to take your questions.
    [The written testimony of Dr. Huff and Ms. Speakes-Backman 
was submitted as one document. It appears following Ms. 
Speakes-Backman's opening statement on page 11.]
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
    We will go to Ms. Speakes-Backman next.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF KELLY SPEAKES-BACKMAN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE 
               ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Thank you, Chairman Heinrich, Ranking 
Member Barrasso, and members of the Committee. Thank you for 
the opportunity to testify today. Today, I am going to be 
testifying on four bills that will address a range of important 
energy issues across the transportation and building sectors, 
which are two of the five largest sources of greenhouse gas 
emissions in our nation. My written testimony provides 
additional detail of the bills as the Administration continues 
to examine them.
    Senate bill 3543, the Vehicle Innovation Act, would 
reauthorize and complement the critical work already underway 
in the EERE's Vehicles Technology and Hydrogen Fuel Cells 
Offices, to increase innovation efficiency of the 
transportation sector across road, rail, sea, and air. 
Reauthorization of this bill is critical due to the role that 
transportation plays in decarbonizing our economy, which is now 
the largest share since 2016 of greenhouse gas emissions, 
according to the EPA. This bill also allows EERE to continue 
the work that will drive down costs, will improve 
accessibility, and decrease emissions.
    Senate bill 3769, the Weatherization Assistance Program 
Improvements Act, would assist in making more homes ready to 
weatherize while increasing the amount of work that can be done 
on homes receiving assistance from the Weatherization 
Assistance Program, both of which are consistent with the DOE 
goals of a more energy-efficient and equitable future.
    Senate bill 4061, the water heater bill, aligns the 
Department's goals of encouraging cost-effective resource 
conservation and consumer utility bill savings while 
maintaining product utility, a level playing field for 
manufacturers, and encouraging grid benefits for utilities.
    And finally, Senate bill 4038, the Renewable Diesel and 
Sustainable Aviation Fuel bill, complements our priorities on 
sustainable aviation fuels, and DOE supports the updated 
definitions of sustainable aviation fuels and renewable diesel, 
as well as the labeling requirements, DOE authorizations, and 
EIA data collection and reporting requirements. We have really 
ambitious but achievable SAF goals that require flexibility to 
work across all feedstocks. So accordingly, we recommend that 
this bill strike the language excluding municipal solid waste 
and gas derived from the biodegradation of municipal solid 
waste from the definition of biomass.
    So EERE looks forward to working with the Committee on this 
legislation and other important issues as the U.S. transitions 
to a clean energy economy. I appreciate the ongoing, bipartisan 
efforts to address our nation's energy challenges, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The jointly prepared statement of Dr. Huff and Ms. 
Speakes-Backman follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Senator Heinrich. All right.
    Administrator Wech.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE WECH, ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF 
  EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION, U.S. 
                      DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Mr. Wech. Good morning, Chairman Heinrich, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, and distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you 
for the opportunity to appear before you today to represent 
Southwestern Power Administration and the Department of Energy 
regarding legislation to establish the Southwestern Power 
Administration Fund, currently under consideration as S. 3719 
by your Committee.
    By way of introduction, Southwestern is a power marketing 
administration that serves over ten million end-users in the 
heartland of the nation. As a federal utility, we have a 
statutory mission to market and deliver electricity from 24 
federal hydroelectric generating plants operated by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers. In our nearly 80 years in business, we 
have done just that and more in meeting our statutory and 
contractual obligations while also providing grid stability and 
voltage support for both the regional--and ultimately, the 
national--bulk electric system when severe weather events and 
other disasters strike. We take great pride in providing the 
sustainable hydropower product we market and deliver. Our 
stewardship of the reservoirs and river systems within our 
marketing areas is carefully balanced with flood risk 
mitigation and other uses so that we can meet the power needs 
of our customers. However, because these projects we market 
from are almost entirely dependent upon rainfall, extended dry 
periods mean that we must purchase replacement power and energy 
to meet our contractual obligations. With market conditions 
being tight, this replacement power can get very expensive.
    S. 3719 authorizes a change specific to the funding 
structure of Southwestern which supports end-users in Arkansas, 
Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. The bill 
establishes the Southwestern Power Administration Fund, a 
permanent self-financing revolving fund supplied through 
Southwestern's power sales receipts, with no annual 
appropriations. The intent of the Southwestern Power 
Administration Fund will provide for continued infrastructure 
investment for maintenance and operations of our transmission 
assets without appropriations, will perform full cost recovery 
for the government, and it is a proactive, proven model of good 
financial stewardship, fully supported by Southwestern's 
customers. No mission or function changes to Southwestern's 
program are proposed. All program costs would continue to be 
recovered in our power rates to our customers.
    I do want to note, however, while Congressional Budget 
Office rules will result in a score for this fund, there is no 
taxpayer burden, as our customers will continue to repay costs 
associated with Southwestern's program. Mr. Chairman, this 
concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to address any 
questions that you or the Committee members may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wech follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Navin.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF JEFF NAVIN, 
            DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, TERRAPOWER

    Mr. Navin. Thank you, Chairman Heinrich, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, and members of the Committee. My name is Jeff Navin, 
and I am the Director of External Affairs for TerraPower. 
TerraPower is an advanced nuclear company based in Bellevue, 
Washington. We were founded by Bill Gates and others in 2008 to 
solve the dual challenges of global energy poverty and climate 
change. We are building the Natrium project at the site of a 
coal plant slated to be retired, just outside of Kemmerer, 
Wyoming, as part of the DOE's Advanced Reactor Demonstration 
Program. Per the terms of the ARDP, we plan to bring our 
reactor online in 2028 at a 50/50 federal/private cost share.
    Natrium differs from conventional reactors in three 
important ways. First, is the way that we cool our reactor. 
Conventional nuclear reactors are cooled by water, which has a 
relatively low boiling point. This requires a combination of 
pressurization and redundant pumps to ensure that the hot water 
is removed from the core to avoid a loss of coolant. Natrium 
uses sodium as a coolant. Sodium's boiling point is 882 degrees 
Celsius, far above our reactors' operating temperature. So our 
system is inherently safe through the use of physics and 
natural convection, which allows Natrium's design to be less 
complex and less expensive, with higher levels of safety.
    Secondly, the Natrium reactor is much smaller. Our 
reactor's baseload capacity is 345 megawatts, roughly a third 
of the size of a conventional plant, making it cheaper to buy 
and ideally sized to replace generation at fossil fuel plants 
that are slated to be retired, just like we are doing in 
Kemmerer. And finally, instead of directly producing power by 
generating steam from the reactor core, the Natrium plant uses 
the heat from our reactor to power a molten salt energy storage 
system that allows us to store 500 megawatts of electricity for 
up to five and a half hours. That is a gigawatt-scale energy 
storage--much larger than any lithium-ion battery storage 
system currently operating in the world, and a game changer for 
grids with high penetrations of wind and solar.
    So Natrium can provide carbon-free, reliable baseload power 
and can store more energy than any lithium-ion battery storage 
project in the world, and we are seeing states like West 
Virginia repeal their bans on new nuclear plants and now, 
especially, countries in Central and Eastern Europe are looking 
for alternatives to Russian natural gas, and Natrium can meet 
that need. But all nuclear reactors need fuel. And Natrium, 
like most of the advanced reactors designed, as Dr. Huff 
mentioned, requires a special fuel called high-assay low-
enriched uranium, or HALEU. Today, the only source of 
commercially available HALEU is Russia. With DOE's blessing, we 
initially planned to use HALEU from Russia for our initial core 
load while the Department stood up the Advanced Nuclear Fuel 
Availability Program to establish domestic HALEU enrichment 
capabilities. And while we are still waiting for the Advanced 
Nuclear Fuel Availability Program to be launched, and you know, 
timing-wise, the ARDP awards were actually made ten months 
after that was signed into law--the law that authorized that. 
Today is actually the 18-month anniversary of the Advanced 
Nuclear Fuels Act being signed into law, and we are still 
waiting for the RFP to come from the Department to make that 
program available. But even if that program were launched 
today, it will take years to get to the point where we are 
manufacturing the volumes of HALEU that we will need to fuel 
our reactors.
    And so, we are looking for the alternatives. And the only 
alternative to non-Russian HALEU is, as Senator Barrasso 
mentioned, is to down-blend highly enriched uranium from the 
Department of Energy stockpile. So the DOE and the NNSA are 
earnestly looking for excess HEU that can be down-blended into 
HALEU. To date, the volumes that they have identified are below 
what is needed to fuel the two ARDP projects' initial cores, 
and they also have some capacity issues in their ability to 
down-blend. But to be clear, HEU down-blending may be the only 
way we can get our initial cores, but we will also need a fully 
functional, fully funded Advanced Fuel Availability Program for 
our subsequent cores, and the bills being considered today 
directly address these concerns.
    First, S. 4066, the Fueling the Nuclear Future Act of 2022, 
recognizes the critical and urgent need for domestic HALEU 
enrichment capabilities, and looks to down-blending of HEU from 
the DOE stockpile to meet the needs of the ARDP initial cores, 
and it addresses all of the issues that I have mentioned in my 
testimony. Secondly, S. 3856 prohibits the importation of 
Russian uranium. TerraPower will not use Russian HALEU, but 
that means we will need a domestic source. So it is appropriate 
that the Committee is considering both S. 3856 and S. 4066 
together.
    So finally, just let me express my sincere appreciation for 
all the Committee has done to support advanced nuclear power--
the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program and the Advanced 
Nuclear Fuel Availability Program exist because of the 
bipartisan work of this Committee. And so, I thank you again 
for the invitation and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Navin follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
    Mr. Leuck.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF MATT LEUCK, 
            TECHNICAL SERVICES MANAGER, NESTE, U.S.

    Mr. Leuck. Thank you, Senator Heinrich, Senator Barrasso, 
and members of the Committee. My name is Matt Leuck. I am the 
Technical Services Manager at Neste, U.S., based in Houston, 
Texas. I definitely appreciate the opportunity to come discuss 
S. 4038, the Renewable Diesel and Sustainable Aviation Fuel 
Parity Act, and more importantly, why this legislation is 
important to expanding the availability of low-carbon fuels 
both for long distance and heavy-duty vehicles.
    Neste is a leading producer of low-carbon fuels. We are 
currently the world's largest producer of renewable diesel and 
sustainable aviation fuel, with a current production capacity 
of over one billion gallons annually, and with ongoing 
expansions of refineries and a soon-to-be finalized joint 
venture in California that will bring us to over 1.8 billion 
gallons a year by the end of 2023. Currently, one-third of 
Neste's annual volume is sold into California, which is helping 
actual groups here in the U.S. make meaningful climate impact. 
Last year alone, 3.3 million tons of GHG were abated in 
California alone.
    What is renewable diesel? There is a much longer and much 
more technical explanation in my written testimony, but I will 
touch on a few things here. This is important because the 
chemical composition of these fuels is what determines their 
level of access to existing infrastructure, whether that be 
storage tanks, pipelines, or fueling stations. Renewable diesel 
is a fuel made of pure hydrocarbons. Just like a fossil diesel, 
it is pure hydrocarbons. So when you have a blend of these 
fuels, the only way to determine what that ratio is, is 
actually using carbon-14 dating, which is what archeologists 
may use for artifacts. Biodiesel, on the other hand, is not a 
hydrocarbon. It is an ester molecule that happens to run a 
diesel engine, but again, not a hydrocarbon. So while renewable 
diesel can provide quicker cold starts, lower emissions, and 
also reduce maintenance costs for owners and consumers, 
biodiesel can suffer issues like cold flow properties, storage 
concerns, and other things.
    The big question is, why not electricity? So in some 
applications, renewable diesel is as environmentally friendly, 
if not more so, than electrifying those same pieces of 
equipment. Stillwater Associates recently released a report 
showing that fueling with 100 percent renewable diesel resulted 
in three times larger cumulative GHG reductions by 2032 than 
equivalent EV conversion scenarios, and also doing it at one-
third of the cost of converting those things to EV.
    So why does labeling actually matter? The relatively small 
policy change would allow renewable diesel significantly more 
access to existing infrastructure, and it can help expand the 
availability of low-carbon fuels across the nation. Diesel does 
reach the market via multiple sources, including pipelines that 
are accessed by many refiners at the same time. So from a 
technical perspective, renewable diesel, because it is 
chemically diesel fuel, can utilize that same network. But 
unfortunately, the labeling required by the Independence and 
Energy Security Act of 2007, the precise percent of renewable 
diesel must be tracked all the way to point of sale of 
customer. That is only required for biomass-based diesel 
though, not coal-to-liquid diesel fuel or gas-to-liquid diesel 
fuel or other technologies. So by treating this as something 
non-fungible, the labeling is actually effectively capping the 
market to five percent blends of renewable diesel. To move to a 
higher concentration, refiners, pipelines, and terminals must 
all agree on a fixed percentage, and that does require 
segregated storage and separate transportation, rail cars, 
trucks, and other modes of transportation that actually do have 
their own carbon footprints. So by not allowing it in the 
pipeline, you are putting more carbon into the atmosphere.
    Also, consumers are not required to take any action based 
on the percent of renewable diesel blended into their fuel. So 
by applying these labeling requirements that are unnecessary 
and arbitrary, we are actually not providing any actionable 
information that gets into the consumer protection. The 
labeling requirements serve as a barrier to entry that can also 
discourage construction of new renewable diesel production 
capacity, again, because that segregated storage creates 
logistics concerns near the refineries, but also getting it to 
market and creating that higher carbon footprint. So the bottom 
line is that there is neither a technical reason, nor a 
consumer benefit to maintaining the current labeling 
requirements for any renewable diesel that meets the ASTM D975 
standard. While heavy-duty and long-distance vehicles are more 
difficult to decarbonize, they are harder to electrify. 
Significant opportunities to decarbonize those areas do exist 
right now at no additional cost. So with appropriate policy 
support, the labeling reform included in S. 4038, these sectors 
can meet science-based decarbonization goals today without 
waiting for time in the future.
    So waiting for your questions later. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Leuck follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, all. I will recognize myself 
for five minutes and then we will go with the Ranking Member 
and just go down the dais in the order that folks showed up.
    So Ms. Speakes-Backman, I wanted to ask you a little bit 
about the microelectronics research centers, and particularly, 
how would they be implemented at labs that already have a 
substantial existing microelectronics R&D presence?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Thank you for the question and thank 
you for your leadership.
    We are excited about the potential for the bipartisan chips 
bill that can help foster energy innovation. DOE has and 
continues to play a really vital role in reducing the energy 
that is required to produce and utilize microelectronics and to 
create more sustainable technology systems to help our energy 
system. The Office of Science at the Department of Energy has a 
unique position to play in this role, and it is critical for 
advancing microelectronics over the coming decades. We are very 
excited about the coordination that has expanded between the 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office 
of Science, and also with the labs. And so, a closely 
coordinated effort will be undertaken to make sure that this 
gets----
    Senator Heinrich. Yes, I guess one of the things I am 
trying to understand is, if you take a lab like Sandia and they 
already have something like the Mesa Complex that is very much 
in this lane, are we going to rearrange the pieces on the 
board, or are we going to coordinate that so that we are not 
moving things that we have already invested heavily in?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Thank you for the clarification on the 
question. We have no intent of moving the deck chairs around. 
We really have the intent to coordinate what is already 
existing, taking stock of the progress that has already been 
made to advance that and accelerate it.
    Senator Heinrich. Moving to weatherization, under the 
current legislation, would weatherization extend the things 
like electrical panels and breaker boxes that are oftentimes 
sort of the precursors to be able to do meaningful 
weatherization?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. So in this current legislation, if the 
wiring, for example, is defective, then this would authorize 
the installation of weatherization measures by first using the 
readiness funds and then being able to weatherize.
    Senator Heinrich. So if something is defective, it would 
apply. If it just simply needs an upgrade for capacity, it 
would not apply.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. It would not. I think there is some 
funding, though, in the Enhancement and Innovation program, as 
a part of this. There is about $48 million available to 
organizers across the country to help support preparing homes 
for electrification and decarbonization.
    Senator Heinrich. Great.
    Dr. Huff, do U.S. nuclear power plants have sufficient 
uranium fuel reserves to operate in the near-term and longer 
term if we cut off imports from Russia, and how are we going to 
manage that change?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    Our analysis in DOE has indicated that yes, there is a 
limited time in which the existing nuclear power plants can be 
sustained on their existing inventory, but that time is quite 
limited. They will need some years to wean themselves off of 
Russian imports. So it is an important feature of any proposed 
import policy restrictions.
    Senator Heinrich. What do we need to do to send the 
appropriate investment signals that this is going to be a long-
term play, that we are not going--you know, it costs enormous 
amounts of money, obviously, to change the flow and create 
additional domestic capacity. So we have to send a signal that 
we are in this for the long-term. So can you talk a little bit 
about that?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    The Department of Energy, in response to Russia's 
unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, has stood up a uranium tiger 
team which developed a uranium strategy that suggests a 
procurement of fuel, LEU, low enriched uranium, including high-
assay low-enriched uranium, which would support, from new 
capacity of conversion and enrichment services in the United 
States, the standing up of additional capacity for that fuel 
supply chain. That signal would have to be a sustained contract 
with awardees responding to a request for proposals and would 
have to be paired with stable import policies for the long-
term.
    Senator Heinrich. Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Navin, why did TerraPower make the decision to not use 
Russian uranium?
    Mr. Navin. Well, I think for many of the same reasons that 
probably drove you to draft S. 3856, you know. We only planned 
to use Russian HALEU for our initial core load while the 
Department of Energy stood up the Advanced Nuclear Fuels 
Availability Act, which this Committee proposed and passed. You 
know, we were always a little hesitant about that, but we 
thought, you know, Russia had provided and does provide LEU to 
reactors and we thought we could maybe count on them to get the 
first core load, but obviously, when Vladimir Putin's tanks 
rolled into Ukraine, that calculus changed dramatically. And 
so, we are happy that you are addressing that part of the 
supply chain.
    Senator Barrasso. So America's nuclear industry, I think, 
is ready to make the transition away from Russian uranium, you 
know, Russia is the fourth largest supplier of uranium, but I 
think our nuclear industry in the United States needs some 
certainty, market certainty, specifically. So will banning 
Russian uranium provide the market certainty that industry 
needs to invest in domestic uranium supply chain?
    Mr. Navin. Certainly, I mean, we have seen Russia engage 
in, you know, non-competitive acts to sort of price American 
companies out of business. We have more than enough, as you 
know, we have more than enough uranium in the United States to 
meet this need. Where the gap is, is on the enrichment side. 
And Senator Heinrich, you know, you have the Urenco facility in 
Eunice, but it is not licensed currently to produce HALEU. So 
for our needs, we need new enrichment capability to produce 
high-assay low-enriched uranium. And that investment will come 
as a combination of the Fuel Availability Act that you passed, 
a Senate demand signal, but also certainty that we are not 
going to let outsiders come in and undercut those prices after 
those investments are made.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Leuck, I wanted to spend a little bit 
of time talking about the renewable diesel. You know, it is 
among the most promising ways, I think, to reduce carbon 
emissions from heavy-duty trucks and other engines that use 
diesel. Can you explain why that is?
    Mr. Leuck. Sure. So renewable diesel is made from waste and 
residues. It is existing carbon that was already in the 
atmosphere. So we are taking biogenic carbon rather than fossil 
carbon that has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of 
years and just reusing it. So we are operating the same 
equipment, getting the same power, doing the same work, but you 
are not actually adding carbon, you know, to the atmospheric 
load. Also, because it is a much cleaner fuel in the 
properties--the physical properties of it--they do allow for 
reduced maintenance costs for fleet owners and other things. So 
when you combine operational, environmental, it kind of does 
come out to be one of the best.
    Senator Barrasso. Now, anything different in terms of the 
aviation fuel and what we are trying to do there too?
    Mr. Leuck. I am actually not an expert on aviation, so I am 
not going to get too into that, sorry.
    Senator Barrasso. All right. Let me then move to labeling 
requirements, if I could, to you, Mr. Leuck. So nearly all 
renewable diesel production in the United States or anything 
imported comes through California, which is why Senator 
Feinstein and I worked on this legislation. So last year, the 
California Air Resources Board and the California Energy 
Commission specifically wrote to us and wrote to me. They 
explained that renewable diesel is fungible, fully 
interchangeable with petroleum-based diesel, in terms of its 
ability to be used. They also explain that there are no 
performance concerns with renewable diesel, that part of your 
testimony. The two regulators said that the Federal 
Government's ``current labeling requirements serve as an 
artificial barrier to using higher levels of renewable 
diesel.'' And for that reason, they explained in their letter 
to me that we are losing an opportunity, an opportunity to 
deliver needed public health and climate benefits associated 
with using higher levels of renewable diesel.
    So do you agree with the State of California's assessment 
of our Federal Government's current labeling requirement?
    Mr. Leuck. I do. I think the letter that Ms. Randolph and 
Mr. Hochschild wrote is exactly spot-on.
    Senator Barrasso. So then, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to enter that letter into the record.
    Senator Heinrich. Without objection.
    [The letter referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Barrasso. And then, Mr. Navin, the Department's two 
advanced reactor demonstration projects, which will be sited in 
Wyoming and Washington State, they need about 20 tons of high-
assay low-enriched uranium. Commercial enrichment is not going 
to be available in time for the initial fuel loads. The 
Department has sufficient supplies of excess uranium to meet 
these initial needs. Significant investment will be needed to 
make this uranium available. Why is access to the Department's 
stockpiles of this uranium so very important?
    Mr. Navin. Well, as you know, Senator, the Advanced Reactor 
Demonstration Program requires us to bring the X-energy reactor 
and the TerraPower reactor online by 2028, within seven years, 
and that time frame is aggressive, but very much appropriate as 
we are trying to bring these technologies to the marketplace. 
Without having the ability to down-blend HEU, we will not have 
the fuel available to turn those reactors on in time.
    So it is a stopgap measure. No one is proposing that we use 
down-blended HEU to run these reactors in perpetuity, but to 
get those initial core loads on to fill that gap while the fuel 
availability program gets stood up, it is the only way that we 
can meet the deadline and bring these products to market.
    Senator Barrasso. Yes, thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Heinrich. You bet.
    Senator Marshall.
    Senator Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My first question will be for Mr. Wech. I want to talk just 
a second about Senate bill 3719, the Southwestern Power 
Administration Fund Establishment Act, authored by Senator 
Moran, my Senior Senator. Senator Moran is always locked in on 
helping Kansans and helping drive down affordable clean energy 
cost down for Kansans. It is my understanding this legislation 
would give the Southwestern Power Pool more certainty, and when 
it would give you more certainty, it allows you to be more 
efficient and eventually, hopefully, will make the price of 
clean fuels more affordable in Kansas. Can you just speak to 
that for a second? How does that work, and how would it impact 
Kansans?
    Mr. Wech. Senator Marshall, thank you for your question. I 
appreciate it and thank you for allowing me to be here today.
    With respect to how it would help Kansans, under our 
current authorities we have use of receipts, or the power of 
sales receipts that come in, but many times there are 
constraints there due to budget scoring or other issues. Going 
forward, by establishing a revolving fund, that would allow us 
to establish both an operating and a forward-looking fund that, 
when emergencies occur--triple digit temperatures like we are 
seeing right now across the country, high power prices due to 
constraints on the bulk power system--we are prepared and have 
the funding certainty to be able to make replacement power 
purchases, respond to those emergencies, respond to that 
diversity that we may see in power prices. Having that funding 
certainty that we do not have today, because in today's world 
we have to go back and request emergency funding and emergency 
funding has to be paid back in a very, very short time period, 
within one year. So that is immediate rate volatility to 
Kansans and many of our other ten million end-users.
    So the intent of this fund is to pre-plan, have the funds 
available, and when we have these kinds of emergencies, respond 
without large rate spikes and volatility to customers.
    Senator Marshall. That is great. It sounds like it would 
make you more efficient.
    Mr. Wech. Yes, sir.
    Senator Marshall. I am so excited about today's hearing. 
This is why I came to the Senate, to solve problems like this, 
to think about how innovation can impact American citizens. And 
I think that the bills we are considering today will do just 
that, and that it is going to be innovation that drives clean, 
affordable energies, not heavy-handed government taxes and 
regulations.
    So Dr. Huff, we have work to do. And I just want to spend a 
few moments educating the Senators and their staff as well. I 
want to talk about recycling uranium for a minute. So just walk 
us through, right now, what happens to the uranium waste from 
our current nuclear energy plants? What are the opportunities 
for recycling? What are we spending right now just to protect 
that waste? And is it a national security issue? Just walk us 
down that for a second.
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    We in the Office of Nuclear Energy agree that there are a 
variety of options for the future of our spent nuclear fuel. 
The current situation is that once reactor fuel is removed from 
the core, after it has spent some years in that core, this 
solid material, the rods are removed from the core and kept in 
a cooling pool where it cools down for a few more years. Once 
it is quite cool, it is removed and dried and placed in a dry 
cask which is held at the facility where it was generated until 
the Federal Government takes on that responsibility, takes 
title to the fuel and removes it from site.
    The Nuclear Waste Policy Act dictated that we in DOE should 
be removing that fuel by 1998. As that has not happened, we now 
pay the utilities, through the Judgment Fund, some fees which 
now total quite a bit--$9 billion--I believe.
    Senator Marshall. Annually.
    Dr. Huff. Total since 2013.
    Senator Marshall. Okay.
    Dr. Huff. Yes.
    And so, until the Department of Energy begins to remove 
that fuel, we will continue paying from that Judgment Fund, but 
eventually, once our consent-based siting process identifies a 
site for interim storage, we should be able to remove it from 
that site, put it in an interim storage facility, stop paying 
from the Judgment Fund, and explore options for permanent 
disposal.
    Your question on recycling----
    Senator Marshall. Wait a second, what about--isn't there 
lots of security involved to keep that safe from people who 
could use that in bad ways?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, currently the largest part of the cost of 
that kind of thing is, you know, it is stored onsite at the 
reactors behind gates and guards with guns.
    Senator Marshall. Right, and in the near future, we don't 
see any place where this is going?
    Dr. Huff. Well, our plan is to establish a location for an 
interim storage----
    Senator Marshall. Which nobody wants.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Marshall. Okay, let's talk about the opportunities. 
Here are the opportunities. What are the recycling 
opportunities, please?
    Dr. Huff. I will say it is possible to, as the French 
currently do, remove that fuel from the, you know, casks, split 
it chemically and reform it into new fuel which can be put back 
into reactors. Here in the United States, we do not currently 
reprocess spent nuclear fuel, largely because of the economic 
challenges of that endeavor. However, in the Office of Nuclear 
Energy, we pursue fuel cycle research to lower the cost of that 
kind of process in the hopes that someday it could be an 
option.
    Senator Marshall. But it goes way beyond that. We could use 
Uranium-235 for the light water reactors. There is plutonium, 
strontium, a whole lot of other issues we could use that for as 
well, medically, lots of opportunities for that waste.
    Dr. Huff. Every nuclide in the table of the nuclides--3,000 
nuclides are produced in a reactor available in that fuel.
    Senator Marshall. What an opportunity. Thank you so much.
    Oh, and by the way, I am going to invite you to come do a 
staff meeting, really, for the staff members of this Committee. 
I would love for you to sit down and just talk about nuclear 
recycling with them a little bit. It is just an incredible 
opportunity.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you for your interest, and I would 
point out that we are talking about a temporary facility to 
store some of that, but we have no long-term geologic 
repository. So what temporary means is very much up in the air.
    Senator King.
    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Leuck, in your written testimony you mentioned briefly 
forestry waste as a feedstock, and I wish you would expand on 
that. We are doing research on that at the University of Maine, 
and of course, as the most forested state in the nation and the 
most oil-dependent state in the nation for heating, this is of 
great interest to us. Talk about forestry waste and biomass as 
a heat source.
    Mr. Leuck. Sure. So for renewable diesel right now we are 
using waste and residues as a feedstock. That is the current 
technology, bio to liquid. The next generation of technologies 
will likely be lignocellulosic and municipal solid waste.
    Senator King. Lignocellulosic is a big word for wood waste.
    Mr. Leuck. It is. So yes, exactly. So forestry waste or 
crop waste. So treetops, bark, branches, things that do not go 
to the timber industry and do not really have a useful life 
once a tree is cut down. We are working on technology to take 
that and actually turn it into usable, renewable diesel fuels.
    Senator King. And the other side of that is, it is pretty 
good to get all this junk out of the forest because of the 
forest fire danger.
    Mr. Leuck. I am sure it would be, yes.
    Senator King. So this is, you think, a viable path for this 
material?
    Mr. Leuck. You know, our company invests a lot of money 
into research and development and innovation and technology, 
and this is very much on the forefront of our work, you know, 
globally we are based in Finland, which is like Maine, it is a 
very forested country, right? There is a lot of opportunity 
there for the ligno feedstock. So yes, I think there is very 
good opportunity.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman, in terms of energy and renewable 
energy, to me, the golden opportunity is energy storage. If we 
can crack cost-efficient, effective energy storage, we can move 
to an entirely fossil-free energy grid, because wind and solar, 
we know, can supply the power, but the question is, what 
happens when the wind does not blow and it is not sunny. So I 
hope storage--and storage is part of the bill that we will be 
discussing next week. We have passed several bills, but I hope 
that is a high priority. I cannot think of something that could 
make a bigger difference in a shorter period of time than the 
development of grid-scale, economically viable storage.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Thank you for your thoughts on that 
subject. I could not agree with you more. The Department is 
spending----
    Senator King. Can we be sure that is in the record, that--
--
    [Laughter.]
    Senator King. Go ahead.
    Senator Heinrich. Twice.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. The Department is focused very much on 
not only the clean energy technologies that can produce the 
power, but how can we get our entire system more efficient in 
terms of grid, and for energy storage, including batteries, how 
can we get the carbon out of our transportation sector. So----
    Senator King. But that--if we can develop the storage 
capacity and the clean grid and electrify transportation and 
electrify with heat pumps, that is probably 75 percent of the 
carbon budget.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Absolutely. Currently, the 
transportation sector is the highest of the five major sectors 
contributing to greenhouse gases. But buildings are not far 
behind, as is the power grid.
    Senator King. But the cleanliness, if you will, of electric 
vehicles depends on how the electricity is made that goes into 
them.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. 100 percent----
    Senator King. You are not gaining a lot if it is oil-
produced power. If it is nuclear or renewable, then you are in 
a fossil-free future.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Yes, sir. And thank you for that 
observation. I think working across the entire Department of 
Energy, and actually, a whole-of-government approach, is really 
how we have taken a look at how we can impact the sectors and 
how the sectors interact. I think that is the name of the game, 
not just a technology specific, but really figuring out how 
they interact and how we can accelerate it.
    Senator King. Well, there will be a necessity for 
additional transmission. I think that is clear as part of--
anybody that looks at this problem.
    The other issue on storage, I hope we do not put all of our 
eggs into the battery basket. There are older technologies, 
100-year-old pumped storage of water or weights and there is 
all kinds of research. So that kind of thing, because batteries 
have their own set of problems in terms of rare earths and 
importing minerals and mining. So I hope that the research is 
not confined to just batteries.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Yes, sir, and thank you for the 
question. I think there are various levels of commercial 
viability of different technologies of energy storage. So when 
you think about lithium-ion batteries, it is terrific for the 
two-and-a-half to four-hour storage that is necessary on the 
grid today, but when we think about a higher penetration of 
renewables onto the grid, we are going to need longer and 
longer duration. And actually, we have this already when you 
think about hydropower and pumped hydropower storage 
opportunities. So what we are working on in the Department of 
Energy, from our Water Power Technologies Office, is really 
ways to make sure that we can produce hydropower and to store 
energy through hydropower storage technologies more 
efficiently, more effectively, and be more integrated with the 
grid.
    Senator King. Well, one of the models is Norway and 
Denmark. Denmark, very heavily wind. Norway, very highly 
hydropower, and they swap power back and forth as needed and 
true-up at the end of the year. Hydro-Quebec could be the 
battery for all of the Northeast.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have a question for, is it Ms. Speakes-Backman? Am I 
pronouncing your name correctly?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Hirono. Close enough?
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. It was perfect.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you so much. This has to do with the 
water heater efficiency standards. I am co-sponsor with 
Senators Stabenow and Blackburn of S. 4061, to update 
definitions of the water heating equipment and more clearly 
define residential and commercial water heaters because they 
are, I think, regulated differently. So I know there has been 
some debate on the House side about how the bill's direction 
for DOE to consider requiring electric storage water heaters to 
be capable of demand response could push other non-electric, 
non-DR water heaters out of the marketplace. That is not the 
intent. Is there anything in S. 4061 that would impact DOE's 
ability to regulate standards for appliances in a fuel and a 
technology-neutral way or otherwise restrict or be a 
disincentive to the availability of non-electric water heaters 
in the market?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Thank you very much for your question. 
We agree with you that there is terrific potential for 
impacting markets, especially for folks who are suffering from 
high energy bills with this----
    Senator Hirono. That would be people in Hawaii.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. We are very excited about the 
potential. To answer your question more directly, there is 
nothing in this bill that changes the efficiency standards in a 
fuel and technology-neutral way. This bill does allow, however, 
DOE to consider demand response of electric water heaters 
specifically, so as to increase the efficiency of grid 
interactivity of buildings.
    Senator Hirono. Again, for you--one of the updated 
definitions in S. 4061 is for solar thermal assisted electric 
water heaters, and using the sun's free energy to heat and 
store water is important to Hawaii's transition to renewable 
energy and will help people to lower their energy bill. As of 
April 2019, Hawaii requires all new single-family homes built 
in the state to have a solar water heater. My understanding of 
the definition of solar water heaters contained in the bill is 
that it will finally provide certainty to manufacturers and 
consumers of solar water heaters and allow for the continued 
availability in Hawaii and other parts of the United States. Is 
that correct?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Yes, it is correct, Senator.
    Senator Hirono. Do you agree that the bill will help 
residential and commercial consumers have a water heater that 
is equipped appropriately to their needs and the intended use 
of the water heaters?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Yes, Senator. We think that the 
definitions in this bill really allow us at the Department of 
Energy to consider the unique benefits of solar thermal water 
heaters.
    Senator Hirono. I think that Hawaii has the greatest 
penetration of solar--use of solar--of any of the states, but 
we started off being totally the most oil-dependent state in 
the country, paying the highest bills, and we are now at the 
forefront and moving to clean energy, 100 percent, by 2045. So 
I think we lead the country in that effort. And of course, 
water heaters--that is a big part of energy consumption.
    So much of the nation has been suffering from--again, for 
you--from intense heat waves and such severe weather consistent 
with climate change, it increases people's demand for 
electricity and threatens the reliability of the grid. The 
Natural Resources Defense Council, the American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy, the Appliances Standards Awareness 
Project, and the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration 
Institute have submitted for the record a letter of support for 
S. 4061.
    [Letter of support for S. 4061 follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Hirono. Mr. Chairman, you can see that I am really 
pushing for S. 4061. So there you go.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Heinrich. Duly noted.
    Senator Hirono. I am on a roll here.
    And the letter states, ``grid flexibility technology that 
enables storage water heaters to respond to grid conditions and 
variable electricity prices can help reduce peak demand and 
consumer cost by heating water when power is cheap, clean, and 
plentiful.''
    Do you agree with their assessment that water heaters 
equipped to respond to the demands on the electric grid can 
help people save on their electric bill?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Absolutely.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you.
    Okay, I think I have made my point.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Hirono. Thank you.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Senator.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Thank you.
    Senator Heinrich. Senator Kelly, would you like to go next?
    Senator Kelly. I would, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman, and good morning and thank you, 
everybody, for being here today, all of you.
    But I want to take a few minutes to talk about 
microelectronics and microchips. As you know, semiconductor 
chips are in everything from cars, fighter jets, satellites, 
advanced missile systems, most of our weapon systems, and the 
U.S. faces two serious challenges when it comes to microchips. 
First, we do not make nearly enough of them here in the United 
States, and the bipartisan plan to fund the CHIPS Act and enact 
the FABS Act, which we passed just yesterday, is going to help 
to reverse that trend and hopefully the House passes this. They 
have a critical vote coming up here, probably early this 
afternoon, to get this finally across the finish line. And we 
are hopeful that that is successful. But secondly, we also have 
to maintain U.S. leadership in microchip innovation.
    So last week, it was publicly reported for the first time 
that a Chinese chip maker had successfully produced chips 
smaller than ten nanometers. And this represents a serious 
threat to American leadership in technology and innovation, and 
we invented semiconductor chips. But it also makes it more 
critical that we redouble our efforts to out-innovate the rest 
of the world. That is why I am glad that the Committee is today 
considering the bipartisan bill which I introduced earlier this 
year with Senator Blackburn called the Microchips Research and 
Energy Innovation Act, or the Micro Act for short. And our bill 
will establish the first-ever research program within the 
Department of Energy's Office of Science specifically focused 
on microelectronics, which will have the ability to coordinate 
and facilitate breakthrough research in chip technologies. So 
thanks to the leadership and support from Chairman Manchin and 
Ranking Member Barrasso, our bipartisan bill was included in 
the CHIPS Act of 2022, which, again, we passed yesterday and 
the House should pass today.
    So Ms. Speakes-Backman, a few logistical questions for you. 
If the Micro Act is signed into law, as expected, will you 
commit to ensuring that the Department submits a request to the 
Appropriations Committee and our offices to explain what 
resources the Department needs to stand up these programs in 
Fiscal Year 2023?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. First of all, thank you, sir, for your 
question. Thank you for your leadership and yes.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you.
    And will you commit to ensuring that your office and the 
entire Department will work to quickly stand up these critical 
programs as soon as the funding is available?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Yes.
    Senator Kelly. As you know, much of the CHIPS Act funding, 
including for R&D, goes to support efforts at the Department of 
Commerce. Could you explain what special research capabilities 
the Department of Energy possesses which will help discover the 
next generation of microelectronics?
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Thank you for the question and yes, we 
agree with you that domestic manufacturing and innovation needs 
to come back home, and I will say that the Office of Science at 
the Department of Energy has a particularly unique position to 
help to support the advancement of microelectronic technologies 
over the coming decades. And we look forward, within the Office 
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, to supporting and 
coordinating with the Office of Science and the other offices 
with equities in microelectronic technologies to bring those to 
bear.
    Senator Kelly. Well, thank you.
    This is so critical we get this done. I mean, our national 
security is at risk. There is no question about that. And this 
vote that is going to take place this afternoon in the House, 
you know, it is unclear which way this is going to go. But I am 
hopeful that it is successful. If we do not lead on 
microelectronics, another country will. China is attempting to 
become a leader in microelectronics. Note the ten-nanometer 
chip they can currently make. Their capacity to make a lot of 
them will continue to increase. We are the best innovators in 
the world. We have to continue to innovate in this space. These 
things go in all of our weapon systems and consumer 
electronics. This is critical that we bring down costs.
    So I know this is not, you know, your issue. This is for 
the House of Representatives right now to get this across the 
finish line. But thank you.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Senator.
    Ranking Member Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple quick 
questions.
    So Mr. Navin, the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program is 
an example of how the Federal Government can move ahead quickly 
and efficiently to execute new programs. So what can be learned 
from this experience with this program to ensure a domestic 
fuel supply for advanced nuclear reactors?
    Mr. Navin. Thank you for the question, Senator.
    Yes, you are absolutely right, the Advanced Reactor 
Demonstration Program really was a game changer in nuclear 
energy policy and it represented, I think, a great example of 
collaboration between the Congress, between the department, the 
Office of Management and Budget, and all of the stakeholders 
that had opinions about this program. ARDP was launched in 
December 2019. The funding opportunity announcement was made in 
May 2020 and the awards were made in October 2020. So 10 months 
after it was signed into law, they got the FOA together, they 
collaborated with their colleagues at OMB, made sure Congress 
was comfortable with it, moved forward, solicited the 
responses, had a public-sector review process, a private-sector 
review process, and made those awards in 10 months.
    Today is the 18-month anniversary of the Advanced Nuclear 
Fuels Availability Act being signed into law, and we are still 
waiting on the FOA. And it does not actually take--people who 
follow this issue, you can look at the budget justifications, 
you can look at the Congressional, or the Appropriations report 
language. You can see that there is some tension and 
disagreement between various stakeholders within the 
government. And I understand that process. I spent more than a 
decade and a half in government. But what we really need is 
leadership, because for industry's point of view, I don't 
really care if it is this person's fault, this agency's fault, 
you know, this Committee's fault, it is a failure of the 
Federal Government. And what we really need is leadership--
somebody to pull those stakeholders together and say, we are 
facing a crisis, we need to get this thing out as quickly as 
possible.
    So I appreciate the Committee's leadership to pass that 
bill. We do need to see leadership to get everybody together to 
get the program launched.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    Mr. Leuck, Neste is the world's largest producer of 
renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel. Currently, 
Neste takes renewable diesel from Singapore to the United 
States while the facilities in Singapore use feedstocks from 
the United States, and I understand that Neste is interested, 
actually, in bringing jobs here. Would you discuss the interest 
in investing in renewable diesel production here in the United 
States?
    Mr. Leuck. You know, I think the biggest thing right now is 
the pending establishment of a joint venture in California to 
take what was a petroleum refinery and convert it to renewable 
diesel. So right there, there is a large investment on our part 
to bring that production here, stateside, which will also 
create jobs there. And then on the feedstock side you 
mentioned, through acquisitions of other companies, like 
Mahoney Environmental or Agri Trading, we can take our 
resources and help grow them and expand them much more quickly 
than they could on their own. So growing the footprint on both 
the production and feedstock side is big for us.
    Senator Barrasso. Great.
    And Mr. Chairman, just finally, I have nine letters of 
support from a total of 42 different organizations expressing 
their support for my nuclear legislation. They recognize the 
importance of ensuring advanced reactors have a domestic supply 
of high-assay low-enriched uranium. I ask unanimous consent to 
enter all nine letters.
    Senator Heinrich. Without objection.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    [The letters referred to follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Heinrich. Mr. Leuck, can you walk us through, 
again, what the current feedstocks that your technology uses 
are?
    Mr. Leuck. Sure. So waste and residues, basically. Things 
that have reached the end of their first useful life.
    Senator Heinrich. But more specifically?
    Mr. Leuck. Yes, primarily used cooking oil, tallow, fish 
oil, technical corn oil, which is a byproduct of ethanol 
production. Those are the current pathways we are using in the 
United States.
    Senator Heinrich. And how do those scale to demand? For 
feedstocks like that, if you had unlimited ability to produce, 
would you have the feedstocks to be able to produce at scale?
    Mr. Leuck. At some point, there is only so much waste and 
residue in the fats, oils, and greases world, right?
    Senator Heinrich. And so, then you transition to what 
feedstock?
    Mr. Leuck. Yes, but we are not there yet.
    Senator Heinrich. Okay.
    Mr. Leuck. But then after that, the technologies I 
mentioned to Senator King would be lignocellulosic and useful 
solid waste. That is kind of the next generation, and beyond 
that, there is even algae or e-fuels, or carbon capture fuel 
production. So there is a long runway of technology that is not 
just limited to what we are using now.
    Senator Heinrich. I got you.
    Mr. Navin, I know, you know, you are still relatively early 
in this process, but is there a target price for your 
technology in terms of price per kilowatt-hour that you think 
you can achieve once you are standing up multiple small modular 
reactors?
    Mr. Navin. Yes, so our nth-of-a-kind target price, so I am 
going to answer that in two ways, if I can. So we think that 
our plant, 345-megawatt baseload with the ability to store 500 
megawatts of electricity for up to five and a half hours, is 
going to be at about a billion dollars, which is obviously a 
lot of money, but for utilities, that is not something that 
they would blink at. And given that energy storage component 
being baked into it, we think that that is a really attractive 
value proposition to our customers and utilities.
    With the LCOE, you know, which is, kind of, an imperfect--
--
    Senator Heinrich. Levelized cost.
    Mr. Navin. Of these things, but the levelized cost of 
electricity, we think, will be in the low $50 per megawatt 
range, between $50 and $60, but on the lower end, closer to 
$50. That includes----
    Senator Heinrich. Kilowatt-hour?
    Mr. Navin. Correct.
    And that includes the integrated energy storage piece as 
well. So it is not just the production of the electricity, but 
that includes the----
    Senator Heinrich. So, including storage?
    Mr. Navin. Correct, sir.
    Senator Heinrich. Well, I want to thank all our witnesses 
for joining----
    Senator King. Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Heinrich. Yes.
    Oh, sorry. Senator King, go right ahead.
    Senator King. Well, I wanted to follow up on those 
questions. My father used to say the Pentagon was the only 
building in the world where as you drove straight toward it, it 
kept getting further away. And that is sort of the way I feel 
about modular nuclear power. We have been driving toward it for 
a long time. When? How close are we? I will ask both Ms. Huff 
and you, Mr. Navin. Are we three years away, five years away, 
ten years away? Because clearly, this could be a huge part of 
our energy future if--and the cost has been the principal 
barrier in the past. How close are we?
    Mr. Navin. So our project is being built as part of the 
Department of Energy's Advanced Reactor Demonstration program, 
which came out of this Committee. It requires us to build our 
reactor within seven years of assigning our agreement with DOE, 
which happened in May 2021. So our plan is to bring that plant 
online by 2028 just outside of Kemmerer, Wyoming. We are 
working on the site today. And as I mentioned in my testimony, 
the long pole in the tent, the thing that could prevent us from 
getting there is fuel. We do not currently have a pathway to 
that fuel because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and our 
decision to not purchase our first core load of fuel from 
Russia.
    So the bills that are being considered today to expedite 
the fuel availability program and to make HALEU available, our 
fuel available from excess stockpiles of HEU could help solve 
that problem. But our in-service date is planned on 2028 at 
which point we will turn the power plant over to our customer 
at Rocky Mountain Power/PacificCorp and they will own and 
operate that plant. It has a licensed life of 60 years with the 
ability to extend that for another 20.
    Senator King. What do you expect cost per kilowatt-hour?
    Mr. Navin. As we just talked about, in the low $50--$50 to 
$60, but we think we can get below $55 a megawatt-hour, but 
that includes a massive amount of integrated energy storage on 
top of that price.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman, your title is Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy. The cheapest and least polluting kilowatt-
hour is the one we do not use. So I hope you do not lose sight 
of the efficiency side of your job. Weatherization, to me, is 
so important. We do LIHEAP in New England. It is critical to 
controlling people's heating bills, but it would be really nice 
to do something that is not an annual subsidy that will allow 
them to reduce their heating bills through weatherization 
programs. So I hope you will give some emphasis to energy 
efficiency and weatherization.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Thank you for your sentiment, sir, and 
thank you for the question. I could not, again, could not agree 
with you more in that efficiency is the least expensive energy 
that we can procure--by not using it in the first place, and 
part of that is yes, through technologies that can work more 
efficiently to heat and cool our buildings and to provide 
water. But the other part is insulation, and we are working 
on----
    Senator King. Pretty mundane stuff, but it makes a huge 
difference.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Really mundane stuff.
    Senator King. Storm windows.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Yes, absolutely. I was just speaking 
with some folks about tips on how to save energy and there are 
programs that are available to folks, like LIHEAP, like the 
Weatherization Assistance Program, but there are also just 
really inexpensive ways that we can save money like, for 
example, close your shades in the afternoon. And I think that 
is an important message that we need to make sure that we are 
taking to the American people, that there are programs that we 
can provide and there are things that we can do to help. We can 
make it easier for folks to access. We can help improve their 
homes so that they can access these programs. But there is also 
a responsibility, I believe, that the Federal Government has, 
frankly, to make sure that we are helping people understand the 
everyday things that they can do.
    Senator King. Well, one barrier though is the initial 
capital cost for the homeowner, and there have been programs 
around the country where the utility company, for example, 
provides the financing and then it is paid back in the electric 
bill. We have to be creative about that because people may say, 
well, that is great, but I really can't spend $4,000. I don't 
have it. So we need to figure out how to creatively finance 
that investment, which will pay back rather rapidly, but the 
initial capital investment is tough.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. This is part of what I am so excited 
about, about this Weatherization Act that is being proposed, is 
that it helps not only to get people ready for weatherization, 
but also to be able to take advantage of other programs, where 
it is a step toward, really, coordinating across agencies of 
how people can more easily access these funding programs 
across, you know, across various programs, not having to----
    Senator King. And working with utilities because they 
already have a relationship with the customer.
    Ms. Speakes-Backman. Absolutely.
    Senator King. And the financial wherewithal.
    Mr. Wech, I just wanted to ask one quick question. 
Transmission. Transmission in the future, it seems to me, is 
going to be a real issue and a necessity. Describe how tough it 
is or easy it is for you to build a major transmission line in 
your service area.
    Mr. Wech. Thank you for the question, Senator.
    Specifically, it is, I am going to be very brutal here. It 
is a challenge. There is, you know, there is the ``not in my 
backyard'' syndrome that we are up against for many folks and 
we have to work really----
    Senator King. They want the power in their backyard, but 
they do not want the lines to get it there.
    Mr. Wech. Understood, yes, yes, I agree.
    And so, what we continually are doing is, we are, you know, 
one of the best ways we can make forward progress on this is to 
continue to educate the consumers, educate the public on the 
value of the benefits of new transmission. New transmission 
brings a wealth of opportunities that you have already 
mentioned in renewable energy, which gets us, you know, further 
toward a carbon-free environment. We take advantage of the 
efficiencies that we are going to see with transmission moving 
renewables to various areas of the country where there is dire 
need. It is going to relieve transmission congestion, which in 
turn, the congestion relief alone will lower market prices, 
which in the end, help the consumer.
    So we are working all the time to educate and inform the 
public on the benefits of this, but I will tell you, it is an 
uphill challenge, but I think education and continued effort on 
our part gets us to the finish line.
    Senator King. Well, it would be helpful to us if you could 
supply us information about the challenge and suggestions you 
might have for streamlining permitting, for example, not 
ignoring environmental impacts, but for example, one-stop 
shopping on permitting so that you do not have to go from 
agency to agency. Your thoughts could be helpful to us. I hope 
you would supply them to the Committee.
    Mr. Wech. I appreciate that comment, sir and yes, we would 
be happy to participate in that and provide information.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Heinrich. Thanks to all our witnesses for joining 
us here today.
    Members will have until close of business tomorrow to 
submit additional questions for the record.
    This Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all]