[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 AMERICAN ENERGY EXPANSION: STRENGTHENING ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND 
                           NATIONAL SECURITY

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            JANUARY 31, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-1











    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]












     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy 
                        energycommerce.house.gov 
                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
51-279 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2024 
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                   CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
                                  Chair
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                  Ranking Member
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              ANNA G. ESHOO, California
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KATHY CASTOR, Florida
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                PAUL TONKO, New York
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          TONY CARDENAS, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              RAUL RUIZ, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
GREG PENCE, Indiana                  ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota, Vice  LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
    Chair                            DARREN SOTO, Florida
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               KIM SCHRIER, Washington
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
KAT CAMMACK, Florida
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                      NATE HODSON, Staff Director
                   SARAH BURKE, Deputy Staff Director
               TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director  
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Hon. Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  South Carolina, opening statement..............................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Colorado, opening statement.................................    16
    Prepared statement...........................................    18
Hon. Bill Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Ohio, opening statement........................................    20
    Prepared statement...........................................    22
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................    25
    Prepared statement...........................................    27

                               Witnesses

Paul M. Dabbar, Former Under Secretary of Energy.................    30
    Prepared statement...........................................    32
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   210
Donna Jackson, Director of Membership Development, Project 21, 
  National Center for Public Policy Research.....................    35
    Prepared statement...........................................    37
Ana Unruh Cohen, Ph.D., Former Majority Staff Director, House 
  Select Comittee on the Climate Crisis..........................    40
    Prepared statement...........................................    42
Robert McNally, President, Rapidan Energy Group..................    53
    Prepared statement...........................................    55
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   223

                           Submitted Material

Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
Letter of January 30, 2023, from Paul N. Cicio, President and 
  CEO, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, to Mrs. Rodgers 
  and Mr. Pallone................................................   142
Letter of January 31, 2023, from Anne Bradbury, CEO, American 
  Exploration and Production Council, to Mrs. Rodgers and Mr. 
  Pallone........................................................   146
Statement of Michelle Bloodworth, President and CEO, America's 
  Power, January 31, 2023........................................   148
Statement of the Forum for American Leadership, ``Creating an 
  Arsenal of Energy: How to Bolster U.S. Energy Security and Aid 
  our Allies Confronting Authoritarian Aggression,'' April 1, 
  2022...........................................................   153
Statement of the Forum for American Leadership, ``Blueprint for a 
  Serious and Sound Climate Policy,'' April 18, 2022.............   157
Statement of the Forum for American Leadership, ``Eight Necessary 
  Steps to defend U.S. Critical Energy Infrastructure from Cyber 
  Attacks,'' October 2, 2021.....................................   163
Statement of the Forum for American Leadership, ``Congress is Key 
  to Restoring Realism in U.S. Energy Policy,'' September 28, 
  2022...........................................................   167
Statement of the Forum for American Leadership, ``Setting U.S. 
  Climate Policy Straight: Recommendations for the 118th 
  Congress,'' December 5, 2022...................................   171
Statement of the Forum for American Leadership, ``Restoring U.S. 
  Energy Security: Recommendations for the 118th Congress,'' 
  December 5, 2022...............................................   173
Report of the Department of Energy, ``Restoring America's 
  Competitive Nuclear Energy Advantage: A strategy to assure U.S. 
  national security,'' 2020\1\
Report of the Center on Global Energy Policy, School of 
  International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, 
  ``Reducing Russian Involvement in Western Nuclear Power 
  Markets,'' by Dr. Matt Bowen and the Honorable Paul Dabbar, May 
  2022...........................................................   175
Article of January 20, 2023, ``Russia's state nuclear company 
  aids war effort, leading to calls for sanctions,'' by Catherine 
  Belton, The Washington Post....................................   192
Article, ``Ukraine war to accelerate shift away from fossil 
  fuels--BP,'' by Carlos Anchondo, Politico, January 31, 2023....   197
Report, ``Energy Justice and Climate Change: Key Concepts for 
  Public Health,'' American Public Health Association............   199
Report, ``Improving Equity Outcomes for New Federal Investments 
  in Clean Energy Infrastructure,'' Bipartisan Policy Center, 
  July 2022......................................................   202
Article of January 30, 2023, ``China invests $546B in clean 
  energy, far surpassing U.S.,'' by Sara Schonhardt, E&E News....   208

----------

\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at 
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20230131/115356/HHRG-118-IF00-
20230131-SD014.pdf.

 
 AMERICAN ENERGY EXPANSION: STRENGTHENING ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND 
                           NATIONAL SECURITY

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
                  Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                            Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:02 a.m., in the 
John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. 
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (chair of the committee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Rodgers, Burgess, Latta, 
Guthrie, Griffith, Bilirakis, Johnson, Bucshon, Hudson, 
Walberg, Carter, Duncan, Palmer, Dunn, Curtis, Lesko, Crenshaw, 
Joyce, Armstrong, Weber, Allen, Baldersen, Fulcher, Pfluger, 
Harshbarger, Miller-Meeks, Cammack, Obernolte, Pallone (ranking 
member), Eshoo, DeGette, Schakowsky, Matsui, Castor, Sarbanes, 
Tonko, Clarke, Cardenas, Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Veasey, Kuster, 
Kelly, Barragan, Blunt Rochester, Soto, Craig, Schrier, Trahan, 
and Fletcher.
    Staff present: Kate Arey, Content Manager and Digital 
Assistant; Jolie Brochin, Clerk, Health; Sarah Burke, Deputy 
Staff Director; Michael Cameron, Professional Staff Member, 
Innovations, Data, and Commerce; Lauren Eriksen, Clerk, 
Oversight and Investigations; Theresa Gambo, Financial and 
Office Administrator; Jessica Herron, Clerk, Innovations, Data, 
and Commerce; Nate Hodson, Staff Director; Tara Hupman, Chief 
Counsel; Noah Jackson, Clerk, Communications and Technology; 
Sean Kelly, Press Secretary; Peter Kielty, General Counsel; 
Emily King, Member Services Director; Elise Krekorian, 
Professional Staff Member, Energy; Giulia Leganski, 
Professional Staff Member, Communications and Technology; Mary 
Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Brandon Mooney, 
Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Clare Paoletta, Professional 
Staff Member, Health; Kaitlyn Peterson, Clerk, Energy and 
Environment; Peter Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member, 
Energy; Michael Taggart, Policy Director; Hannah Anton, 
Minority Staff Assistant; Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff 
Director and General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff 
Director; Anthony Gutierrez, Minority Professional Staff 
Member; Caitlin Haberman, Minority Staff Director, Environment, 
Manufacturing, and Critical Minerals; Perry Hamilton, Minority 
Member Services and Outreach Manager; Kris Pittard, Minority 
Professional Staff Member; Greg Pugh, Minority Staff Assistant; 
Caroline Rinker, Minority Press Assistant; Kylea Rogers, 
Minority Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of 
Communications, Outreach, and Member Services; Medha Surampudy, 
Minority Professional Staff Member; Rebecca Tomilchik, Minority 
Junior Professional Staff Member; Isaac Velez, Minority Intern; 
Tuley Wright, Minority Staff Director, Energy, Climate, and 
Grid Security; and C.J. Young, Minority Deputy Communications 
Director.
    Mrs. Rodgers. The committee will come to order.
    The Chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Welcome to our first Energy and Commerce Committee meeting 
hearing of the 118th Congress, especially to our new 
subcommittee chairs: Jeff Duncan, who is our new chair of 
Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee, and Bill 
Johnson, who will chair the Environment, Manufacturing, and 
Critical Minerals Subcommittee.
    Energy is foundational to every aspect of our lives. 
Whether it is making energy more affordable and reliable, 
securing our supply chains, beating China, protecting the 
environment, addressing climate change, or putting energy 
security back at the center of policy making, these should be 
bipartisan goals, and we have already proven they can be over 
the last few weeks.
    One of our actions on the floor was passing H.R. 22, the 
Protecting America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China 
Act. And it passed with 113 Democrats voting for it. And then 
just last week H.R. 21, the Strategic Production Response Act, 
in another bipartisan vote to help ensure a vital energy asset 
isn't drained for nonemergency political purposes.
    These are just the beginning of a robust agenda to restore 
American energy dominance. We need to be doing more to secure 
and unleash American energy. Rush-to-green policies have had a 
devastating effect in Europe. Countries are rationing energy, 
switching back to coal-fired plants, and people are dying due 
to a lack of heat and electricity. America doesn't have to 
follow Europe down this path. Addressing emissions and 
unleashing abundant, affordable, and reliable energy aren't 
mutually exclusive.
    In the last decade we have led the world in emissions 
reduction while increasing the availability of affordable 
energy through innovation. We did this while maintaining some 
of the highest environmental and labor standards in the world, 
and we must continue innovating and taking advantage of our 
abundant natural resources and reducing emissions.
    Natural gas is one of our greatest economic and strategic 
resources. We cannot afford to shut it down. Instead, we must 
expand production and continue building pipelines, the safest, 
most reliable infrastructure to move it around the country, and 
increase our capacity to export LNG to the rest of the world, 
to reduce carbon emissions, and combat Russia and China's use 
of energy to expand their authoritarian influence.
    We also have an opportunity to achieve a new renaissance in 
American nuclear technology and once again lead the world in 
its development and deployment. But to be successful, we need 
to rethink our restrictive regulatory approach and combat the 
antiscience opposition to expanding nuclear energy. We need to 
review the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's procedures and 
practices to be sure it can efficiently license new and 
advanced reactors.
    Thankfully, we are close to finishing the Vogtle plant in 
Georgia, but one new nuclear plant isn't enough. Ensuring safe 
nuclear power is essential for ensuring American energy and 
also for protecting the environment and addressing climate 
change. And we can do this without inefficient, burdensome 
regulations. Safety cannot be an excuse for doing nothing.
    To reestablish American nuclear energy globally, we need to 
approve and build new advanced reactors, establish a permanent 
spent fuel repository, while exploring the potential for fuel 
recycling, and establish a reliable domestic fuel industry that 
supplies and enriches uranium and reduces our reliance on 
Russia.
    Across the board we need to update the regulatory landscape 
to pave the way for energy sources and technologies of all 
kinds: hydropower, nuclear, natural gas, and oil, hydrogen, 
along with wind, solar, and batteries. Republicans support all 
of these technologies, but we do not support picking winners 
and losers through massive subsidies and rigging regulations to 
favor certain industries.
    Our energy solutions are climate solutions. We have a 
responsibility to our generation and future generations for 
cleaner water, air, and reduced emissions. Every energy 
technology and source has a role to play, but we need to be 
able to ensure that we are not becoming entirely dependent on 
unreliable, intermittent energy sources that rely on Chinese 
supply chains.
    It is time to flip the switch and unleash American energy, 
and this committee is at the very center of securing our global 
leadership and making people's lives better.
    I want to work with everyone, Republicans and Democrats, to 
achieve these goals. These cannot continue to be partisan 
issues. And my door is open to every member of this committee 
who wants to lead on unleashing American energy.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:] 
    
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Rodgers. And now I will recognize our full committee 
ranking member, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for his opening 
statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairwoman Rodgers.
    And we just had our organizational meeting, and for those 
in the public, we are very proud of the fact that we now have 
the first woman chairperson of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee in its long history that goes back to almost the 
first days of the Republic.
    So let me just make that announcement. I am sure all of you 
recognize it, but I want to mention it again.
    Now, I want to say that we are meeting for the committee's 
first hearing of the 118th Congress. The first few weeks of any 
Congress are an opportunity to lay out our priorities for the 
next 2 years. But, unfortunately, the energy bills that 
Republicans have brought to the floor this month have only 
demonstrated just how misguided and misplaced their priorities 
are.
    Both bills that were mentioned by the chairwoman--the one 
that dealt with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in China and 
the one we just dealt with last week that dealt with the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and said that we couldn't use it 
unless we opened up more public lands on the same percentage 
basis--they are both misguided because they limited this 
administration--or it was an attempt to limit this 
administration's ability to bring down gasoline prices at the 
pump. And instead of moving towards clean energy, which is the 
future and the only way that we are going to have less 
dependence on dictators and have less volatility in the market, 
it was an attempt to try to give more opportunities to Big Oil, 
which, frankly, they don't even want, right.
    I mean, we know that during this gasoline crisis that we 
have had over the past year or so, this idea that somehow Big 
Oil wanted to pump more, they wanted to pump the leases they 
already had, was simply not the case. They wanted to keep the 
price artificially high. That is another reason why they 
opposed using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: because it 
brought prices down.
    So all I am basically saying is, as we move towards an 
energy transition, let's keep in mind that encouraging 
renewables--as we did with the Inflation Reduction Act, as we 
did with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law--this is the way to 
go in the future.
    I am certainly one of the key people that believes that we 
have to use all sources of energy, whether it is nuclear, 
hydropower, the other things that the chairwoman mentioned, 
certainly all of the above. But the bottom line is that we are 
going to be left behind if we don't move towards renewables and 
encourage them the way we did with the Inflation Reduction Act.
    Now, the chairwoman mentioned China. Now, make no mistake 
that the rest of the world, including China, are already 
embarked in a major transmission to clean energy. In fact, 
China's investments in clean energy are so vast that the 
International Energy Agency forecasts that over the next 
several years 40 percent of solar and wind energy growth will 
come from China alone. And yet Republicans consistently oppose 
our efforts to catch up. If we don't move towards clean energy, 
if we don't use the proceeds of and the credits and the other 
incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act, we are going to be 
left behind. And that is going to mean left behind in terms of 
innovation, left behind in terms of the number of jobs that are 
created. And the irony of it is that although most, if not all, 
Republicans in the House voted against the Inflation Reduction 
Act, that many of those credits are going to the very red 
States and the industries in the very red States that want to 
take advantage of it.
    So this is not a Republican or Democratic issue. This is a 
bipartisan issue. We need to move towards clean energy.
    Madam Chair, I just wanted to mention that one of our 
witnesses today is Dr. Unruh Cohen. I want to thank her for all 
of her work as staff director for the Select Committee on the 
Climate Crisis. I look forward to her testimony and the 
testimony of all of the panel.
    But I just wanted to take a moment to thank my long-time--
or our long-time--staff director of our Energy and Environment 
policy team, Rick Kessler, who is retiring this week. After 25 
years of dedicated service to Congress, of which 12 years was 
spent with this committee, Rick has more than earned his 
retirement.
    Earlier in his career Rick also worked in my personal 
office on energy and environmental issues. And last Congress, 
Rick was instrumental in our work on the Inflation Reduction 
Act, fighting to make sure meaningful climate investments, 
including many provisions from our own Clean Future Act, were 
included.
    And during his tenure he was also instrumental in helping 
us pass the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, the Pipeline 
Safety Act, legislation phasing down the use of dangerous HFCs, 
and many, many more energy and environmental laws.
    So he has been a devoted member of my team and our team, 
always guiding us by a sincere desire to improve people's 
lives. And I am personally grateful for his many years of 
service, wish him nothing but the best in the future.
    And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Mrs. Rodgers. All the best, Rick.
    The Chair recognizes Energy, Climate, and Grid Security 
Subcommittee Chair Duncan for 5 minutes.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF DUNCAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
           CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

    Mr. Duncan. Thanks for recognizing me.
    I first want to start by saying congratulations on holding 
your first hearing as chair of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee. You have been a champion of expanding all forms of 
American energy, and I looked forward to working with you and 
the rest of the committee to deliver affordable and reliable 
energy to all Americans.
    I look forward to also getting to know my colleagues on the 
subcommittee on both sides of the aisle and trying to find 
common ground that we can work on to move America forward.
    I also want to thank all the Democrat Members that voted 
for the SPR last week. It was a true bipartisan bill that voted 
out of the floor, and thank you for that.
    I want to thank the four witnesses that have attended the 
hearing today. I look forward to your insights on the state of 
American energy.
    America became the global leader in crude oil and natural 
gas production while also leading the world in emission 
reductions. We did this by encouraging the entrepreneurial 
spirit in the private sector. The shale evolution is a perfect 
example of this. It is estimated that shale evolution saved 
U.S. consumers $203 billion annually. That breaks down to about 
$2,500 per family of four. It also lowered energy-related 
greenhouse gas emissions by 527 million metric tons per year, 
the most in the world. American energy production and emissions 
reduction are not mutually exclusive.
    Unfortunately, Democrats and President Biden's regressive 
energy agenda takes a whole-of-government approach to phase out 
the oil and gas industry, and that is just wrong. Their agenda 
discourages investment, and the top-down aggressive regulatory 
approach seeks to create government-controlled economy and 
energy sectors.
    Republicans on Energy and Commerce have solutions to 
reverse the Democrats' regressive energy agenda. It starts with 
unleashing all forms of American energy by creating a 
regulatory structure that encourages investment and innovation 
to bring all forms of energy online.
    Energy is the foundation of our economy, and it impacts 
every aspect of American life. High energy prices hit low-
income and middle-class Americans the hardest. According to the 
EIA, one-third of American households struggle to pay their 
energy bills. One in five households have to forego basic human 
necessities like food and medicine in order to keep the lights 
on and heat their homes. The Democrats rush-to-green policies 
are making energy unaffordable for American families. High 
energy increases the price of everything and contributes to 
rising inflation.
    Our policies put the American consumer first so they don't 
have to decide between putting food on the table or keeping the 
lights on.
    Ensuring we not only have affordable energy but also 
reliable energy is critical. There is no question a secure and 
resilient power grid is necessary for national security and a 
strong economy.
    For these reasons, our energy grid is an attractive target 
for our adversaries. Pipelines, refineries, and other energy 
infrastructure are also extremely vulnerable to attack. Our 
policies must prioritize strengthening and hardening our grid 
and energy infrastructure. Energy security is national 
security, and our ability to export plays an important role in 
this.
    Since Congress lifted the crude oil export ban in 2015, we 
have seen the benefits of free trade and open markets in the 
energy sector. When America is the world leader in energy 
production, the world is a safer place. There is no doubt about 
that.
    We can and should export to energy-dependent countries who 
rely on corrupt nations. We have seen how Putin has used energy 
as a political weapon to keep this stranglehold over Europe. 
The best way to decrease the leverage of OPEC and Russia and 
the best weapon against Putin is a more aggressive U.S. energy 
production policy.
    Nuclear energy also plays a critical role in energy 
security. Exporting our nuclear technologies gives us the 
ability to set global nuclear norms. Many of our adversaries 
recognize this and are prioritizing building up their nuclear 
sector. It is time the United States takes a hard look at the 
regulatory obstacles that stand in the way of nuclear 
advancement in this country.
    Republicans have solutions to bring more nuclear on line by 
addressing inefficiencies in the permitting process while also 
maintaining our global gold standard in nuclear safety.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to bring more nuclear on line so that we can once 
again be a global leader.
    The ranking member mentioned China. There is no doubt that 
China is adding wind and solar and other renewables to their 
energy matrix. They are also building a heck of a lot of coal-
fired power plants, fossil fuel generation, mining rare earths 
that they need for all the technology, which is very 
detrimental to the environment.
    So we have got to address those issues. China will be a big 
part of that addressing.
    And I want to thank Chair Rodgers for holding this timely 
hearing. It is time to flip the switch, unleash American energy 
production, and achieve American energy dominance. I look 
forward to the hearing and from our witnesses.
    And with that, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Duncan follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Rodgers. The Chair recognizes Ranking Member DeGette 
for 5 minutes.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. It is really 
fun to say that.
    And I want to say one of the things that makes the Energy 
and Commerce Committee so unique is not just our vast 
jurisdiction but the willingness of Members to work together in 
a bipartisan way to get things done for the American people.
    I have had the honor of serving on this storied committee 
since I was a freshman Member of Congress. As the chair of the 
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee for the past 4 years, 
I am proud of the work that we did to hold the oil and gas 
industries accountable for the high gas prices last year and to 
help move our country forward.
    In just the past 4 years, the full committee has passed 
legislation to strengthen our energy infrastructure, accelerate 
the deployment of new clean energy technologies, and help 
reduce the harmful emissions that are driving the climate 
crisis.
    Thanks to those efforts, we have put our Nation on course 
to becoming truly energy independent and no longer dependent on 
the global oil market, which is the goal. And so I am hoping 
this hearing doesn't indicate that the majority is looking for 
ways to turn back the clock on that progress.
    I was disturbed that the majority memo that I read didn't 
mention renewable energy sources one single time and instead 
doubled down on, frankly, outdated policies advocating 
increased fossil fuel production which will impede U.S. energy 
independence and make us more--ironically make us more 
dependent on an unstable international market. And that is 
because oil and gas is an international market, and so if we 
produce for here, it just goes into the international market.
    We have all heard the slogans ``drill, baby, drill,'' 
``energy dominance,'' and now ``energy expansion,'' but don't 
be fooled. These policies will not expand our potential for new 
renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, and that will 
only increase our dependence on oil and gas. So that will 
weaken our economic, environmental, and national security in 
the process. They are nothing more than a giveaway to the oil 
industry to further pad their profits.
    Now, like Ranking Member Pallone, I was dismayed by the 
early energy bills considered on the floor. Just last week 
Congress considered H.R. 21, a bill that would open up our 
public lands to oil and gas exploitation and limit the 
President's ability to respond to future energy emergencies 
through the SPRO. We have seen this all-out push to expand oil 
and gas drilling before, and it just doesn't work.
    Last February the United States produced more than 11 
million barrels of oil per day, one of the highest levels of 
crude oil production in U.S. history. But when Vladimir Putin 
launched his war of aggression in Ukraine, the price of 
gasoline skyrocketed. And we as a nation were immediately 
reminded of how reliant we continue to be on a global commodity 
that is subject to disruptions of international markets.
    The only way to secure our economic prosperity, our 
environment, and our national security is to break the 
addiction to oil as soon as possible. And so to do that, we 
must transition to clean energy technologies.
    Now, I think that we could work across the aisle on this. I 
think that we could work together on supporting the research 
that we need to advance new clean energy technologies that will 
both make us energy independent and help us reach our Nation's 
climate goals.
    I think--I am sorry that my colleagues didn't support the 
CHIPS and Science Act that has made investments in our energy 
and science agencies. But I will also say I do think--and I am 
looking forward to working with Chair Duncan and with our 
friends on the other side of the aisle. We have already talked. 
And I do think that we can find bipartisan ways to both reduce 
our dependence on the international oil market and also to 
develop clean energy that will address the climate crises.
    But what we have to do, Madam Chair, in my opinion, we have 
to stop retreating to our corners and seeing everything as a 
zero sum game for whatever side. The markets and the utility 
companies and others have realized this. They have been moving 
to clean energy sources as fast as they can, and they need our 
help to be able to have the research and development to be able 
to make this secure, to make the grid secure, and to make the 
sources so that we can transition to a clean energy economy, be 
independent, and also address the climate crisis.
    So I look forward to working with you and with this 
committee. I am excited about it. But we have to really hold 
out the branch and not talking about just drilling.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mrs. Rodgers. The Chair recognizes subcommittee chair for 
Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Minerals, Subcommittee 
Chair Johnson, for 5 minutes.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I too want to congratulate you for being selected as the 
chair of the best committee in the House of Representatives, 
the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and for holding your 
first full committee hearing as chair and making it about such 
a vital issue, ``American Energy Expansion: Strengthening 
Economic, Environmental, and National Security,'' and I too 
look forward to working with you and our Members on both sides 
of the aisle to do the right things.
    I agree that it is time for all members of our committee to 
get to work to come up with solutions to the major problems 
driving inflation in our country, a staggering inflation which 
threatens to lower all Americans' standard of living and make 
us less secure.
    Just over 2 years ago, America was energy dominant for the 
first time in 70 years. We were the largest energy producer in 
the world, and fuel for our homes and automobiles was 
affordable for working Americans. Unfortunately, the President 
and the Democrat majorities in the last Congress decided to 
wage an all-out legislative regulatory and public relations 
campaign to suppress that energy dominance, leading to 
skyrocketing and unaffordable gasoline, natural gas, and 
electricity prices for many Americans. Not just that, but 
rather than relying on superior American innovation and 
ingenuity to solve emission issues--which we have demonstrated, 
by the way, we are clearly able to do--this campaign against 
American energy and energy workers is attempting to cancel 
proven, increasingly cleaner forms of existing energy resources 
in favor of only a few forms of weather-dependent energy 
sources. And that has very serious negative economic and 
national security implications.
    Put simply, energy security is national security. We have 
heard it said over and over again, and it is true. It takes 
energy to produce raw materials, to manufacture products, to 
produce farm products, like produce, eggs and poultry, and pork 
and beef, to get those products to market.
    In fact, energy is at the center of everything. Americans 
have seen firsthand--they are living it--that limiting domestic 
energy production and cheapening the value of the dollar 
through reckless Federal spending is a textbook way to drive 
inflation higher. We can do better. We must do better.
    Now, I am not reflexively opposed to some of the Democrats' 
solutions being proposed, like, for example, greater renewal 
deployment in our country, but where I struggle is with the 
practical implementation of these policies and plans, the cost 
and potentially negative impacts on the quality of life for 
American consumers.
    We can't just take what sounds good in townhalls and 
wealthier coastal or metropolitan areas and suggest that folks 
in less wealthy, more rural areas just jump in line and do it 
as well. If we want viable, sustainable energy solutions that 
make all Americans secure, that appreciates the diversity of 
our landscapes and doesn't rely on premature aspirational 
technologies or the availability of mineral supplies from 
foreign countries being available, then it is time to turn the 
page on the current national energy strategy, or a lack 
thereof, particularly since it is one that makes us more 
dependent on nations that hate us.
    To illustrate the point, I ask my colleagues to consider a 
recent report in the Washington Post. It suggested senior U.S. 
military officials are predicting and preparing for war within 
1 to 5 years with China, the very country we depend on for the 
critical minerals required for many of the rush-to-green 
solutions. This is why we need to maximize the production of 
clean, reliable, affordable American energy and the associated 
critical minerals right here at home, along with improving the 
permitting process so investors aren't deterred by government-
imposed barriers and uncertainty for new energy infrastructure 
projects.
    And, friends, it is time to get serious about making 
rolling blackouts on our energy grid a thing of the past and 
lowering gasoline prices with increased American domestic 
production, rather than being dependent on artificial market 
interventions by the White House.
    More domestic supply is necessary to meet these challenges, 
and we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that draining our 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve assets is a recipe for success. We 
produce energy better, safer, and cleaner than any other place 
in the world. These facts used to be a source of national 
strength and pride, not to mention American international 
diplomacy.
    Let me conclude with a hearty welcome to our witnesses 
today. I appreciate that you are here, and I look forward to 
you sharing your experiences with us.
    With that, Madam Chair, thank you for yielding to me. I 
yield back the balance--well, I have exceeded my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Rodgers. The Chair recognizes Ranking Member Tonko for 
5 minutes.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And first let me congratulate you on your great achievement 
and Chair Johnson for his taking on leadership of the 
Environment Subcommittee.
    I have had the privilege of working with the two previous 
Republican leaders of the subcommittee, Representatives John 
Shimkus and David McKinley. During that time we certainly had 
our disagreements, but we also found issues where we could go 
beyond partisanship and work together for the benefit of our 
constituents' public health and indeed the environment.
    So whether it is drinking water, brownfields, harmful air 
pollution, or the many other issues under the subcommittee's 
jurisdiction, I do hope we will be able to find policies where 
we can work together. And as we begin to consider how our 
Nation can improve our energy security, foster innovation, and 
become the global leader in the energy economy of the future, I 
believe there have been great strides made by Congress in the 
past several years.
    In the 116th and 117th Congresses, this committee played an 
instrumental role in the development and enactment of several 
historic energy and environmental laws, including the Energy 
Act of 2020, the AIM Act to phase down hydrofluorocarbons, the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the Inflation 
Reduction Act.
    The IIJA included $62 billion for DOE clean energy 
investments, including programs that will make our electric 
grid smarter and more resilient, build a domestic battery 
manufacturing and recycling supply chain, and support the 
development of cutting-edge industries through hydrogen and DAC 
hubs.
    The IRA built upon that down payment with nearly $317 
billion in funding for DOE, EPA clean energy programs, and 
expansion and extension of a wide range of tax incentives and 
other climate and clean energy investments. These efforts took 
our long-term national energy security seriously, positioning 
the United States to become the leader in many of the energy 
technologies and supply chains that will come to dominate the 
global energy system over the next several decades.
    And we are already starting to witness the benefits of this 
long-term commitment to a clean energy future. More and more 
private-sector companies are making plans to manufacture and 
deploy clean-energy technologies across our country. Electric 
vehicles, semiconductors, solar components, batteries, offshore 
wind turbines, and electrolyzers are all part of this growing 
effort to create new industries right here at home.
    It has been estimated that the IRA could result in 9 
million jobs over the next decade, and many investments will 
support the deployment of affordable clean-energy solutions 
resulting in major savings for American consumers.
    These economic and job-creation benefits are, of course, 
only part of the story. There will also be a significant 
reduction of pollution, which will mean fewer hospital visits 
and missed days of school and work. Reducing climate and 
traditional pollution will make us a healthier and more 
productive society as we continue to fight to avoid the worst 
potential consequences of global climate change.
    But we do know that, even after the IRA and the IIJA, there 
is still much more work to be done. So, as we consider how to 
best build upon these historic bills, I would caution that 
creating loopholes in our Nation's environmental laws for the 
benefit of polluting industries will not improve our long-term 
national energy security.
    On the contrary, our environmental laws can be a driver of 
innovation, complementing the investments we have already made 
to support the development and deployment of next-generation 
technologies.
    I do want to welcome a great public servant to the 
committee, Dr. Ana Unruh Cohen, who can advise us on how to 
build upon the progress of the past 4 years. Dr. Unruh Cohen 
and former Select Committee Chair Kathy Castor played a 
critical role in the climate and clean-energy successes of the 
117th Congress. I can think of no one better to help us 
understand where we have come from, what we have achieved, and 
what is left to do to transition our Nation and our planet to a 
more just and sustainable energy system.
    Thank you, Dr. Unruh Cohen, for joining us today.
    And, Madam Chair, I want to thank you for making this our 
first hearing of the new Congress. The American people should 
know more about the work that has been done to make our country 
less reliant on economically volatile and polluting industries. 
And soon we will be able to provide more information to our 
constituents and local businesses about how to take advantage 
of the generous tax credits and rebates in the IRA.
    So I look forward to having many more opportunities to 
share that information with the public in the months ahead.
    Earlier our past chair, Frank Pallone, acknowledged Rick 
Kessler for the great work he has done with this committee and 
certainly with the subcommittee that I chaired.
    Rick, I thank you for an outstanding bit of professionalism 
that you brought to this committee. I thank you for the hard 
work, the passion, and the success that we have all enjoyed. 
God bless you as you go forward with your new career 
opportunities.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
    
    
     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
    
    Mrs. Rodgers. Our first witness is the Honorable Paul 
Dabbar, former--well, he was Under Secretary of the Department 
of Energy.
    And you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENTS OF PAUL M. DABBAR, FORMER UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY; 
DONNA JACKSON, DIRECTOR OF MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT 21, 
 NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH; ANA UNRUH COHEN, 
 Ph.D., FORMER MAJORITY STAFF DIRECTOR, HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE 
 ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS; AND ROBERT McNALLY, PRESIDENT, RAPIDAN 
                          ENERGY GROUP

                  STATEMENT OF PAUL M. DABBAR

    Mr. Dabbar. Chair McMorris Rodgers, Ranking Member Pallone, 
and members of the committee, I am honored to be again before 
this committee. I was with the chair last in Washington State a 
couple of years ago as we were making good environmental 
progress adjacent to her district.
    Not so long ago, under the leadership of Secretaries Perry, 
Brouillette, the U.S. became the undisputed dominant country in 
energy. When I was Under Secretary in 2017, crude oil exports 
jumped from zero to 1 million barrels a day. We were amazed by 
the jump.
    By 2019, exports had jumped to 3 million barrels a day. 
That year, for the first time since the 1950s, we went from the 
largest energy importer in the world to a net energy exporter.
    The Jimmy Carter founding mission for DOE had finally been 
achieved, and the U.S. became the undisputed dominant country 
in energy. We became the number-one producer of crude oil in 
the world, increasing from a low of 4.8 million barrels a day 
to 12.9, a monumental jump. We became the number-one global 
producer of natural gas. We became the marginal producer and 
the global price setter of crude oil, taking the crown from 
OPEC.
    We extended our lead as a top country in the discovery of 
new energy technologies, including solar, lithium ion 
chemistry, and new drilling technologies. We were a solid 
manufacturer, including for turbines, nuclear, electric 
vehicles, and drilling.
    We allowed the country to build, whether it was wind, 
batteries, LNG, or pipelines. This resulted in energy price 
deflation, and the U.S. led the world in the reduction of tons 
of emissions. No other country came close to that combination--
production, technology, and manufacturing--not China, not 
Russia, and not Saudi Arabia.
    This dramatic turn in energy posture not only created 
economic growth and security, it produced a new foreign policy 
playing field, and we were no longer at the bidding of a 
cartel.
    This allowed us to take the lead in stabilizing the global 
energy markets when COVID hit. We were so strong that the 2020 
OPEC production agreement was announced from the White House. 
That was energy dominance.
    We did this by concurrently focusing on all-the-above 
energy policies, increasing all-the-above energy supply, 
strengthening energy national security and diplomatic posture, 
producing energy price deflation, and reducing emissions.
    This shift happened for three reasons: U.S. energy 
technology innovation, government policies that encouraged all-
the-above energy supply, and investment by the private markets.
    The trigger was a vast amount of energy innovation 
technologies. Much of which is now being deployed did not exist 
20 years ago. Then this committee, in a bipartisan and after 
many years of negotiations, passed several acts that made a big 
difference. Those E&C compromises I can summarize as, ``If you 
give me my pro supply policies, I will give you your pro supply 
policies.'' But this balanced approach has taken a detour, and 
we are now back to asking Riyadh, Caracas, and Tehran for their 
help.
    Here are the steps the committee can take to establish an 
energy dominance: Require agencies such as Interior, EPA, and 
FERC to permit, license, and approve all-the-above energy 
types. FERC needs significant legislative reform, including a 
reform of the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act, to 
make them do their statutory obligation to ensure that there is 
enough energy supply. They need to be required to approve 
transmission projects for all types of energy, and they need to 
radically overall ISO rules that encourage baseload that is 
being shut down faster than intermittent is being built.
    Capital providers needs to be pushed so that investment 
criteria is not all about ESG and that they should also care 
about prices, reliability, national security, and supply chain 
versus supporting energy production moving overseas, the 
autocratic regimes, including one using slave labor. That does 
not seem very ESG to me.
    And we need to continue to support discovery, science, and 
innovation, a leading strength of America.
    Our moment of energy dominance was a culmination of many 
factors: innovation, all-the-above pro-supply set of policies, 
markets willing to invest, and strong energy diplomacy.
    As we confront the challenges of the energy markets today, 
we do well to remember the ingredients that made us so 
successful not so long ago.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Dabbar follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    Thank you for your testimony.
    Our next witness is Ms. Donna Jackson with the National 
Center for Public Policy Research, Project 21.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF DONNA JACKSON

    Ms. Jackson. Chair Rodgers, Ranking Member Pallone, and 
members of this committee, I thank you for allowing me to 
testify today. My name is Donna Jackson. I am the director of 
membership development for Project 21, a Black leadership 
network of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
    Project 21 is one of the oldest and largest Black 
conservative think tanks in the country. Our hundreds of 
members come from all walks of life, from small business 
owners, law enforcement, healthcare workers, teachers, energy 
industry workers, clergy, healthcare workers, both professional 
and nonprofessional. Most of us are not career activists, 
lawyers, or lobbyists, and more than a few of us actually live 
in the communities that we hope to improve.
    I applaud this committee for kicking off a new session of 
Congress by looking at increasing domestic energy supply and 
reducing energy costs. Needless to say, these costs are tough 
enough on the middle class, but they are even tougher on folks 
struggling to reach the middle class. In fact, they are 
actually harder than you may think.
    The U.S. Energy and Information Administration had some 
very useful statistics. It talked about the problems that 
Americans have in paying their energy bills. One-third struggle 
to pay their energy bills. A fifth of them have to forego 
necessities. But, of course, these numbers are double, nearly 
double for minority communities. And this report was actually a 
couple of years old. So added inflation makes it even that much 
harder.
    But perhaps even more damaging is their immediate 
difficulty of paying for sky-high energy bills, making it from 
paycheck to paycheck, and the long-term barriers to upward 
mobility and achieving a piece of the American dream. In so 
many ways, it is painful and unaffordable. Domestic energy is 
part of the ticket out of poverty. And we have so much of it, 
so much of it.
    For example, we see the entrepreneur spirit of the Black 
community. In many Black-owned businesses, small-owned 
businesses, these businesses are struggling and failing under 
the weight of high energy costs. And they also have regulatory 
compliances that they barely can afford. And it is 
disproportionately impacting small businesses that really want 
to make it in this country.
    It all adds up to a regressive tax on those seeking to 
better themselves, their families, and their communities by 
owning and operating their own businesses.
    Unaffordable energy means less--means the individuals have 
less to spend on necessities. The industrial employment has 
historically led to the emergence of a vibrant Black middle 
class. But what we are seeing is these energy costs are 
destroying these high-paying gateway jobs for low-income and 
minority communities. And we have very few options to earn 
money to be able to make it into the middle class.
    The energy industry itself represents a very reliable 
source of well-paying jobs for people that don't have the 
options of being able to participate in the keyboard industry. 
And, yet, we are destroying those options for these individuals 
who have the American spirit, who want to do better, want to be 
self-reliant and not dependent on government assistance. We 
should not be making minority and low-income individuals an 
afterthought in saving this planet. Their lives matter. Our 
lives matter.
    And I applaud you that you are considering the fact of the 
hardships that unaffordable energy poses to people like me who 
have self-esteem, self-respect, and we want to be a part of 
this great American experience.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you for your testimony.
    Next we will hear from Dr. Ana Unruh Cohen, former majority 
staff director of the U.S. House Select Committee on Climate.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.

              STATEMENT OF ANA UNRUH COHEN, Ph.D.

    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Good morning, Chair Rodgers, Ranking 
Member Pallone, and the members of the committee.
    I am Ana Unruh Cohen, and I most recently served as a 
majority staff director for the Select Committee on the Climate 
Crisis.
    For a climate scientist turned congressional staffer, it 
will be hard to stop serving as staff director for the select 
committee during the last 4 years under the leadership of 
Representative Kathy Castor and with other members of this 
committee while Congress passed the most consequential climate 
and clean energy laws in U.S. history.
    The last 4 years have underscored how energy, climate, and 
economic security are tied together. Between the economic 
impact of prevaccine COVID lockdowns, ongoing supply-chain 
disruptions, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and extreme weather 
events, it has become clearer than ever that the United States 
needs to invest in building an energy economy that meets the 
needs of the 21st century. To thrive we will need affordable 
energy that addresses the climate crisis, improves public 
health, and reduces our reliance on volatile global powers and 
their resources.
    The legislation enacted in the 116th and 117th Congresses, 
especially the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the 
Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS and Science Act, make 
critical down payments on achieving those goals. We are already 
seeing the benefits of these laws accrue across America.
    Since the enactment of the IRA in August of 2022, almost 
$90 billion in clean energy projects have been announced, 
initiating new economic development opportunities across the 
country, and we will see even more in the coming years.
    The need for the clean energy transition is clear and 
growing in urgency. The United States faced $35 billion extreme 
weather in climate-related disasters in 2021 and 2022, with a 
cumulative price tag of more than $180 billion in direct 
economic losses alone.
    Other countries around the world have faced devastating 
heatwaves, droughts, and floods in recent years. Without 
comprehensive climate action, the science points toward 
continued disasters with regional, national, and global 
consequences.
    The climate crisis and need for energy security will 
require governments at all levels to increase their engagement 
on energy and climate policies, to realize the potential 
created by the news laws, and to use the available tools to 
ease impacts on family when new climate and energy challenges 
arise.
    Congress, and especially this committee, will need to 
understand and respond to the increasingly dynamic global 
energy landscape to maintain U.S. global leadership and 
competitiveness.
    Successful energy and climate legislation must meet the 
test of cutting climate pollution guided by science, reducing 
energy costs on families, advancing equity and justice, and 
creating good, family-sustaining jobs. As this committee takes 
up energy and climate legislation, Members should evaluate the 
bills with these metrics in mind, just as we did at the select 
committee and working with the standing committees in the 116th 
and 117th Congress. My written testimony summarizes many of the 
accomplishments of those laws.
    My testimony also summarizes the current global energy 
investment landscape as countries ramp up climate action. But 
climate considerations are not the only driving force behind 
increased interests in clean energy. Just yesterday BP's chief 
global economist pointed to the Russian invasion as a reason 
that countries are seeking to increase access to domestically 
produced energy, most of which he said will likely come from 
renewables and other nonfossil fuels.
    As we have heard, China is leading that clean energy race, 
and we must catch up. They may be out front now, but the United 
States can close the gap to power America in ways that improve 
our global competitiveness and help solve the climate crisis.
    American ingenuity is our superpower. Giving up on a 
technological competition is not the American way. Instead, we 
need energy and climate solutions that meet the needs of the 
21st century, and we need them now.
    I will close on a personal note. Many of you who know me 
from DC may not know that I was born and raised in Corpus 
Christi, Texas, or that my dad spent his career in the chemical 
industry, and my brother currently works in safety operations 
for oil and gas.
    I am well acquainted with the challenges that communities 
face in balancing energy production and public health, and I 
know we can do it in a way that--find a way forward for a clean 
energy future that works for everyone and doesn't pit public 
health against economic security.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Unruh Cohen follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Rodgers. My favorite line is ``American ingenuity is 
our superpower.''
    Next let's turn to our final witness, Mr. Robert McNally, 
president of Rapidan Energy Group.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF ROBERT McNALLY

    Mr. McNally. Chair Rodgers, Ranking Member Pallone, 
distinguished members of the committee, I am Bob McNally, 
president of Rapidan Energy Group. With the exception of 2\1/2\ 
years in the Peace Corps and 2 years working for President 
Bush, I've been an analyst, historian, and a student of energy 
markets policy and geopolitics.
    I would like to briefly summarize my view on where we are 
headed in oil prices and touch on some energy prices.
    Let me start with the good news. For the best part of the 
last 20 years, OPEC is no longer controlling the global oil 
market. Let me tell you the bad news. For the best part of the 
last 20 years, OPEC is no longer controlling the global oil 
market. That is why we have seen the return of Space Mountain 
price volatility. It is paradoxical, but true: When the oil 
market does not have a successful, durable manager like OPEC 
or, before it, the Texas Railroad Commission, oil prices wildly 
gyrate in boom-and-bust cycles that hurt our economy, national 
security, and environment.
    What to expect in the future as you do your work: More of 
what we have seen in the past. Oil prices are going to gyrate 
between 5- to 7-year boom phases when they go up and bust 
phases when they go down. In the late summer of 2021, we exited 
a bust phase, lower oil prices, and we are in the foothills of 
multiyear boom cycle.
    President Putin's decision to invade Ukraine hit fast 
forward on this boom cycle last year, as we saw with $5 
gasoline, but oil prices quickly retreated when all the Russian 
supply we thought we were going to lose did not go offline.
    Now, the shale boom is a huge economic and security 
benefit, but it will not insulate our consumers from oil price 
volatility. Therefore, we cannot retreat into energy 
isolationism. We must work with allies to support domestic 
energy production and support infrastructure, bolster free 
trade, maintain ample stockpiles, and prevent adversaries from 
holding the world hostage to economy-reckoning disruptions.
    As we enter this new multiyear boom phase, it is all the 
more important that we resist or correct policy mistakes. These 
include old ones, like 1970-era ideas of windfall profits taxes 
or restricting exports. Look, on the windfall profits taxes, 
they are going to--profits are going to go up during booms and 
down during busts. Seizure of them by the Government will only 
worsen supply and increase prices later.
    Restricting energy exports will not lower pump prices at 
all--I mean, for any meaningful period of time, if at all, for 
our consumers. Longer term it will raise them. Restrict export, 
you get less supply. Less supply, you get higher prices. 
Moreover, restricting the exports now would help Putin, help 
Iran, and hurt our allies.
    Newer errors to resist or correct include an overall shift 
unfortunate from all-the-above to keep it in the ground. As we 
enter a boom cycle and face geopolitical risk, it is critical 
the capital flow back to fossil fuel production, refining, and 
infrastructure. Fossil fuel is 82 percent of our primary energy 
supply; oil alone, 31 percent; renewables--they are great--7 
percent.
    Policies that delay or impede the return of capital 
expenditure to fossil energy will only tighten supply/demand 
balances further and punish consumers with even higher energy 
prices.
    So the Strategic Petroleum Reserve cries out for course 
correction, Members of Congress. At 372 million barrels, the 
reserve is down by about a half, the lowest in 40 years, due to 
recent emergency and nonemergency sales.
    Now, the energy gyrations after Russia's invasion of 
Ukraine illustrate the folly of frittering away our emergency 
supplies. To their credit, President Trump--excuse me--
President Biden and the Congress agreed to cancel 140 million 
barrels of planned energy sales, and it signaled an interest in 
refilling. And, Chair Rodgers, you shepherded a bill that will 
also impose restrictions.
    Finally--and this is often overlooked but very important as 
you begin your work--I would like to highlight for the 
committee's attention an overlooked but crucial area for 
improvement. A large gap has opened between increasingly 
unrealistic energy transition targets on the one hand and 
objective and timely analyses to require to assess their costs 
and likelihood on the other.
    President Biden and some Members of Congress have called 
for outlawing the use of natural gas and coal and electricity 
by 2035. That is 60 percent of our generation. It is astounding 
there has been no cost estimate by EIA of this proposal.
    Meanwhile, under political pressure, the EIA has ceased 
providing a policy-neutral reference case scenario and adopted 
a peak rosy demand scenario. On that basis they have called for 
no new investment in oil and gas in the world. I can't think of 
anything more catastrophic for energy than that.
    Now, to conclude, our country is blessed with enormous 
energy resources. The sweats and the smarts exhibited every day 
by our intrepid energy-sector workers underwrite our standard 
of living. Perilous market and geopolitical conditions may 
loom, and policy risks certainly abound. But if you leverage 
and if we leverage realism, pragmatism, and innovation, we can 
protect our economy, security, and environment.
    I wish you and your committee success.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McNally follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you for your testimony.
    I will begin the questioning and recognize myself for 5 
minutes.
    Restoring American energy dominance and putting security at 
the center of our energy policy should be the top priority, and 
we should be sure that our policies don't put Americans and our 
allies at strategic disadvantage to geopolitical adversaries 
like China.
    The Biden administration's national security strategy 
released in October mentions climate more than 60 times. It 
talks about, quote, ``an urgent need to accelerate the 
transition away from fossil fuels.'' By contrast, the Chinese 
President's annual report to the National Congress of the CCP a 
few weeks later only mentions climate twice and warns a gradual 
withdrawal from traditional energy must be based upon safe, 
reliable replacements. He talks about less restrictions on 
fossil fuels. There seems to be a mismatch of priorities here.
    Mr. Dabbar, your testimony makes the point that as a 
dominant energy producer with an all-of-the-above mindset, 
America strengthened its national security, lowered prices, and 
helped drive down carbon emissions. The developing world will 
continue to demand affordable traditional energy for the next 
several decades.
    So does it make sense for the United States to accede its 
energy dominance in traditional energy to China?
    Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Chairwoman, for the question.
    I would like to make the point that China is absolutely not 
the benchmark for clean energy. Some people like to point out 
about how much they manufacture. They produce more emissions 
than the whole OECD combined, and we lead the world in the 
reduction of tons of emissions, and China is increasing by 3 
times per year than we are cutting. These are just numbers; 
right. These are just facts.
    And by far--I wrote a paper at Columbia I published last 
week. Fifty-seven percent of all the Btu's in China from all 
energy uses is from coal, and it is going up. It is going up. 
And so China is not the benchmark, right? They do manufacture 
some things well, but they are not the benchmark. I wish 
everyone kind of just knew--knew kind of the fact pattern on 
that.
    U.S. leadership for energy allows us flexibility around 
prices, as we were hearing earlier. And as many people here who 
are veterans, there are less people in the way than when I was 
younger when I was in the military and allows flexibility that 
did not exist, and it allows us, from a security point of view, 
to support our allies, which if we hadn't been building what we 
have been building in Texas and elsewhere, we would not be in 
the place today to help our friends.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Would you speak briefly about how we make 
sure that we can export our energy and technological 
innovations like advanced nuclear to developing countries 
rather than having China and Russia increase their influence?
    Mr. Dabbar. So, Chair, as Congressman Tonko pointed out, 
the U.S. leads the way in energy innovation. We need to do 
better at manufacturing. We are not bad at it, but we can do 
better. But almost everything that is out there in the world 
was invented in America. The lithium ion battery chemistry was 
funded by DOE and the National Science Foundation. I was there 
when we won the Nobel Prize for the lithium ion battery. 
Drilling technologies, we lead the world in drilling 
technologies. Solar, thanks to Secretary Chu and DOE, drove 
down those costs.
    So the important part is about how do we take--we need to 
continue to support innovation. We lead the world on that, and 
we need to figure out how to take some of those and continue to 
build on our leadership to export.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    I would like to turn to Ms. Jackson.
    And you make a very compelling point about energy 
affordability. You know, just a recent review of the Energy 
Information Administration data shows that residential 
electricity price is up 24 percent since January 2021, 
industrial rates up over 30 percent.
    Would you just talk briefly about why lowering energy 
prices is so important to the communities that you work with?
    Ms. Jackson. You know, minority communities are already at 
the low end of the spectrum in terms of resources and finances. 
The average income for Black Americans is $48,000 a year. They 
are basically living on about $3,700 a year. They don't have 
that much extra money to be able to spend on unaffordable 
energy. It disproportionately impacts their standard of living.
    We are experiencing the largest decrease in the standard of 
living that we have ever experienced in my lifetime. We are 
struggling to be able to pay our bills, and be able to go to 
work. We are struggling to be able to buy food. We are 
struggling to buy shoes for our kids, clothing. We don't have 
any extra money left over for even necessities--not luxury 
items--necessities.
    And we want home ownership, but we can't save any money. We 
want to be able to start our own businesses, but we can't save 
any money.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    Ms. Jackson. Every week we are in a negative deficit.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Thank you.
    Pleased to yield to the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Pallone, 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairwoman Rodgers. I appreciate 
the opportunity to speak about energy expansion and security 
today. However, as I alluded to in my opening statement, I 
reject the premise that fossil fuels are the key to expanding 
our energy security here in the 21st century.
    So Dr. Unruh Cohen, in your testimony you highlighted some 
of the actions that Congress took during the 116th, 117th 
Congress and that President Biden took last year to enhance our 
energy security, particularly through the Energy Act of 2020, 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and 
Science Act, and of course the Inflation Reduction Act, all of 
which this committee played important roles in developing.
    So let me ask you, could you speak about how the 
investments we made in our electric grid in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the hundreds of billions of dollars of 
investments we made in the Inflation Reduction Act will enhance 
our energy security by speeding the energy transition?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Thank you for the question. Enhancing and 
expanding the grid is one of the most critical aspects to 
transitioning to a clean energy economy, reducing pollution 
from the electricity sector, which then has knock-on effects 
for other sectors. And so, in both the infrastructure bill and 
in Inflation Reduction Act, we had critical programs to invest 
in the resilience of the grid and the expansion of the grid, 
and I think we have it--those will come to fruition soon.
    We are already seeing some good signs on building more 
transmission as well as using the existing footprint to 
replace, to upgrade with the technology so that we can carry 
more electricity and electrons on the given footprint.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. Now, I also suspect we will 
hear quite a bit today about the so-called benefits of dirty 
sources of energy, but even from a pure energy security 
perspective, fossil fuels come with plenty of costs. So would 
you talk about how some of the vulnerabilities of the fossil 
fuel-based economy, both as it relates to our dependence on 
petro dictators as well as closed to consumers, and could you 
talk about the risks we would face to our energy security if 
some of the critical investments included in the IRA were 
rolled back?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. That is a big question, but yes. As oil 
and methane are now international markets, so as we stay 
dependent on them here in the United States, the demand and use 
of them around the world as well as either geopolitical attacks 
or disasters that impact the delivery have repercussions on 
both the price and, therefore, our U.S. economy.
    In the United States, we have a few States that are oil and 
gas producers, and they see that benefit in their economy. Most 
of the States are actually consumers, and so, as we see 
volatility in price, that has a negative consequence on 
everybody's economic outlook.
    So we have to keep that connection in mind, and as I said 
in my oral testimony and in my written testimony, the future is 
moving to reducing the use of fossil fuels, ramping up clean 
energy fuels. That enhances our domestic energy security, it 
helps improve public health, and as we are seeing, it means 
more economic development and jobs in the United States.
    And all of that movement is underscored by especially the 
infrastructure bill and the Inflation Reduction Act.
    Mr. Pallone. I know you have only a minute left, but I 
wanted you to--you mentioned with regard to the Select 
Committee on Climate, and, you know, actions that Congress 
could take to build on the work of the BIF and the IRA towards 
a more clean energy economy. What are some of the things this 
committee should be focusing on in this Congress in that 
regard? You have got 45 seconds.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. OK. Well, I have three that I will try and 
get through. One, I think there does need to be more focus on 
grid enhancement. Actually, Senator Manchin's proposal had some 
language on the grid that I think Energy and Commerce staff 
also liked, to help deploy more things, deal with cost 
allocations. So I think that is something the committee should 
look at.
    Workforce issues are incredibly important, and I know in 
the last Congress, this committee, along with Education and 
Labor, worked on some very important legislation going towards 
the energy workforce. I think that needs to be a focus.
    And finally, the consequences of the climate crisis are 
here. Adaptation and resilience has to be a focus of every 
committee that has some jurisdiction. EPA has some important 
programs there that fall under the jurisdiction of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Madam Chair, that sounds like some 
bipartisan things we could work on.
    Mrs. Rodgers. For sure.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Mrs. Rodgers. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, 
Mr. Latta.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for holding 
today's hearing, and also congratulations to you on your first 
hearing today, and look forward to working with you to get 
energy to the forefront here in the United States.
    I also want to thank our witnesses for being with us today, 
and your testimony. It is always important to have you here so 
we can get your views out.
    But if I could start with my questions. Secretary Dabbar, 
in your testimony, on page 3 you said about reestablishing 
energy dominance here in the United States, but I want to point 
and to hone in on one of your sentences. You state, ``And they 
need to radically overhaul ISO rules to encourage baseload 
power that is being shut down faster than new intermittent 
plants are being built.''
    I come from Ohio. You know, what we do, we make things. We 
have major manufacturing in my district and across the State. 
That means, when I am talking about steel, when I am talking 
about float glass, and I am talking about our Central Foundry 
over in Defiance, and I think about all the different things 
that we have, we have to have massive amounts of power.
    In 2014, we had a polar vortex that went across the 
Midwest, and every power plant in the State was up and running, 
that we did not have one blackout or brownout because every one 
of those power stations was up.
    I think it is important to point out about baseload power. 
Can we get baseload power--and I am--we are for all-of-the-
above energy strategies we fought for as Republicans in 2008. 
But my question is, when it comes to baseload and peaking--and 
I think that is a problem that a lot of people don't 
understand--but where is that limit where we have to be at to 
make sure that we can make sure that these lights come on every 
day and those plants go on every day with baseload capacity?
    Mr. Dabbar. So I am a big fan of wind and solar, and they 
are great at low costs on kind of a spot basis. They are the 
worst technologies when it comes to availability and 
intermittency. OK. So these are just kind of technology kind of 
fact patterns. And what has happened with ISOs is that they 
have become kind of Rube Goldberg kind of contraptions that 
they used to be when many people here were part of initial 
setting up ISOs about free markets, about having market 
clearing prices, and have transparency.
    In reality, what has happened, RPS standards, production 
tax credits, all these different things have made these 
constructs incredibly fragile and encouraged baseload from 
being shut down in New York. They shut down good, well-running 
nuclear power plants to replace it with intermittent.
    And many areas of this country, more power plants are being 
shut down than are being built, and that is just a fact. That 
is just kind of numbers.
    And so at the end of the day, the ISOs, under the Federal 
Power Act, under the authority of FERC, are allowing an 
increased vulnerability in the power markets year after year, 
and I strongly think that FERC needs some more guidance from 
this committee on increasing the reliability before it tends in 
the wrong direction.
    Mr. Latta. Let me go on here. You talk about nuclear. I 
think it is also important to bring this up, because I know 
that I am working with Senator Barrasso over in the Senate to 
advocate for policies that build our domestic needs through 
industry because it is so important. And I think it is 
important, one of the questions I have got is, how critical is 
it the United States builds up its nuclear fuels infrastructure 
in this country?
    Mr. Dabbar. So, Congressman, I wrote a paper about this and 
an article in The Hill. There's portions of nuclear fuel 
fabrication that are fine, such as making fuel rods, but I 
think, as many people here know, the U.S. is significantly 
exposed to Russia in terms of uranium enrichment.
    Forty-seven percent of all the uranium enriched services, 
that are a key component to making nuclear fuel, is from 
Russia. It makes OPEC seeming like a minor component of crude.
    And I know there has been a lot of discussion about how to 
incentivize enrichment being rebuilt in this country when DOE 
and Sentra shut down the last enrichment plant in Kentucky. The 
U.S. has had no ability. And as a side point, the U.S. has lost 
its ability to make high enriched uranium for the nuclear 
weapons program. Most people have no idea that we have lost the 
capability of making new nuclear material for weapons. And that 
is all related to this topic.
    I think this Congress should take a look at how to 
incentivize bringing it back from Russia.
    Mr. Latta. Well, and again, because again, when you think 
about with Russia, what is going on today and our dependence on 
them, it is critical for this country to get out there and make 
sure that we got a nuclear fuel security program that we can 
rely on.
    But I want to thank our witnesses, and Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Duncan [presiding]. I thank the gentleman. The Chair 
will now go to Ms. Eshoo.
    Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank each 
one of the witnesses. I have to tell you that I am having a 
little bit of a tough time figuring out what you are for, 
really what you are for. I hear a mix of, you know, ``Woe is 
us. We were in great shape, we are not anymore.'' Some are for 
a mixed portfolio of energy sources.
    If you were to sum up in a sentence, starting with--I don't 
have my glasses on--Mr. Dabbar, what is it that you want the 
Congress to do relative to energy? Is it displacement of other 
sources of energy? Are you saying that we should, you know, 
pursue more oil? One sentence, what is your top line to the 
Congress of the United States today?
    Mr. Dabbar. I think in one sentence, Congresswoman, I think 
properly incentivizing and authorizing all forms of energy that 
support producing emissions concurrently with that is the right 
general set of policies to do.
    Ms. Eshoo. What does that mean, though? What does that 
mean? Are you--I mean, if you are promoting oil and that there 
be more oil exploration, just say it so that, you know, it is 
clear, and then it is up to Members to decide how that--I think 
that we have to have a mixed portfolio. I think that countries 
around the world, including the United States, are in big 
trouble, given what emissions have caused us.
    We know that we have to have energy to operate, but it is a 
matter of, you know, what it is. So if it is oil, say so, so 
that it is clear, because otherwise it sounds like, to me, kind 
of a convention of just--generally speaking, a convention of 
energy suppliers having a discussion.
    Do you want to redo your one sentence, or are you sticking 
with it?
    Mr. Dabbar. I would make one comment, Congresswoman, that a 
colleague of mine at Columbia made a point that there's a 
difference between supply and demand. And as long as there's a 
demand for an energy type, so as long as we are still having 
internal combustion engines for a period of time--maybe long, 
maybe short, you can have that debate--it is better for America 
to produce that oil. Saudi Arabia right now intends----
    Ms. Eshoo. Well, your colleague over here said the good 
news is that OPEC is not in charge of the bubble or whatever 
anymore. So you don't see--I don't think--well, whatever. It is 
a difference of opinion of witnesses here.
    How about the gentleman at the end, what is your one 
sentence?
    Mr. McNally. Congressman Eshoo, so my one sentence would 
be: Go back to all of the above. Federal policy in the last 2 
years has shifted from bipartisan all of the above to anti-
fossil fuels. Keystone Pipeline decision, call to end Federal 
leasing, the ban on gas and coal electricity----
    Ms. Eshoo. That is a long sentence. OK. Because my time is 
running out.
    Doctor?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Congresswoman, I would say what Congress 
needs to evaluate their actions on is getting America and the 
world to a net-zero-carbon-pollution economy. So you need to 
evaluate everything that is coming through here of whether that 
will help advance that goal in the United States or us working 
with partners.
    It may not mean the total end of fossil fuel, but it will 
be a managed transition to achieve that goal.
    Ms. Eshoo. Ms. Jackson?
    Ms. Jackson. Yes. I am for letting the markets decide what 
energy sources we should use. If you prop up an energy 
industry----
    Ms. Eshoo. OK, one sentence, that is one sentence. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Jackson. Well, if you subsidize something, then of 
course they will produce more of that.
    Ms. Eshoo. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, everyone.
    Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair will now 
go to Mr. Guthrie from Kentucky.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. I think someone said more 
power plants are being shut down now than being built. You 
know, the concern with that is, on December 23rd, when we were 
all wondering if we were going to get home for Christmas 
because of all the snow is coming in and the ice coming in, the 
storms coming in, are planes going to fly, you know, all that 
tension, and are we going to pass a bill or not. And then you 
get a phone call from my wife saying, guess what, we were out 
of power.
    So in Kentucky, where I represent, I represent the Paradise 
plant that John Prine's parents are from, that area, that 
finally shut down the coal plant after that song has been 
around for a long time.
    But we are having rolling blackouts in Kentucky, December 
23rd and December 24th. So my constituents experienced that.
    So, Mr. McNally, according to the Energy Information 
Administration, carbon emissions from coal from the United 
States is 2.5 percent of global carbon emissions. And yet, we 
are shutting down coal plants, where people are not able to 
have heat on the coldest days of the year.
    So my question for you: Can you talk more about 
implications for policymakers of, like, the International 
Energy Agency? They provide forecasts that do not include 
accurate baseload power needs.
    And also let me just go to my second question for you. What 
information are expert statistical and energy information 
agencies like EIA and IEA not providing us, and do you think 
this--these forecasts gloss over the factors that should be 
considered, like grid reliability?
    Mr. McNally. Thank you, Congressman Guthrie, for that 
question. And if I could have added a comma and a sentence or a 
phrase to my sentence, it would have been: ``and get objective 
and timely data so you can do your work.''
    Indeed, one of the main reasons we need to have IEA, 
especially, return to what we call business as usual or a 
reference case scenario, is, you can't do a cost-benefit 
analysis without one.
    When folks refuse to put a forecast out saying, Look, 
here's the future if we just freeze policies in place--they 
don't do that--then you cannot assess the cost and benefits of 
different policies to maintain adequate electricity supply for 
your constituents while we are trying to decarbonize, which is 
important.
    So we have to insist that the International Energy Agency 
go back to providing the tool you need to evaluate policy.
    On the EIA side, they are ably led by Joe DeCarolis, and 
they are a wonderful resource for this country. However, they 
have been AWOL in terms of providing you with objective, honest 
forecasts of the implications of the policies that are being 
pursued by this administration, or proposed. That is simply 
unacceptable.
    We ought not be afraid of science and analysis and 
forecast, but you are literally flying blind at this time.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK, thanks.
    And, Mr. Dabbar, a lot of times when I hear people back 
home, these questions they will ask me, let's say we do what--I 
think California has electric-only vehicles by 2035. If that 
was to come to pass for the country, something to that nature, 
you are dismissing--you have some environmental issues you are 
trying to address, but you create so many other implications 
and issues.
    People ask me, what am I going to do with the batteries 
once they are used? The rare earth minerals, I think we left 3 
trillion in Afghanistan when we pulled out in that chaotic 
decision the Biden administration did. I think the Chinese were 
waiting to move in. I mean, so what are the implications of--I 
know we are trying to decarbonize, but what are the other 
implications of some of the decisions coming from things like 
the Green New Deal, the IRA, other things such as that?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes. So one of the things I always find very 
problematic is arbitrarily picking technologies by legislators. 
The technology market moves much faster than the legislative 
process. I will give you an example. I just wrote a paper in 
The Hill in which I pointed out that California has looked at 
banning all internal combustion engines.
    But in Congresswoman Kelly's district, they figured out how 
to manufacture negative carbon gasoline, that when you burn it, 
it is net zero, OK, so a technology-neutral option, and 
something interesting coming out of Illinois. Rather than 
saying everything has to be electric vehicles, why not let 
innovation drive the--you know, the opportunities that we have 
in front of us had not been invented.
    And so, I think there's a lot of great examples that we 
should have a technology-neutral policy and let us kind of 
drive to the future based on that.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. And just about a half-minute that I 
have left, what are some lessons learned from Europe and their 
decisions in their carbon fight? What's some good lessons? 
Maybe you or Mr. McNally can answer.
    Mr. McNally. Don't become dependent on Russia or any other 
adversary for your critical supplies of energy, a lesson we 
ought to take heart, as we have heard with regard to China.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. And you hear people say that is the 
reason we need to do all the wind and solar because--we can be 
independent ourselves and still have fossil fuels in this 
country. We lost that independence.
    So my time is expired, and I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman.
    The Chair will now recognize the ranking member of the 
Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee, someone I look 
forward to working with in this Congress, Ms. DeGette, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit an article from 
Energy Wire entitled ``Ukraine War to Accelerate Shift Away 
from Fossil Fuels.''
    Mr. Duncan. Without objection.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you. This article reports that BP's own 
annual energy outlook acknowledges that, quote, ``The increased 
importance placed on energy security as a result of the Russia-
Ukraine war leads over time to a shift away from fossil fuels 
toward locally produced nonfossil fuels, accelerating the 
energy transition,'' end quote.
    And so this hearing is about discussing the strength of our 
economic, environmental, and national security. In other words, 
its energy independence.
    Now, as I mentioned in my opening statement, my colleagues 
have put together--put forward policies and ideas that suggest 
that they think energy independence hinges on increased 
domestic development of oil and gas resources. But as I said, 
energy independence can only happen with a rapid transition to 
clean energy.
    And so, Dr. Unruh Cohen, first of all, I want to thank you 
for your work on the select committee. And I also want to thank 
my colleague Kathy Castor for her wonderful work on that 
committee too.
    In your expert opinion, will increasing oil and gas 
production help protect the American public from the volatility 
of the global oil market, and if not, why not?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Increased U.S. production will not 
necessarily protect American consumers from volatile energy 
prices because we are still connected to the international 
market, and so if something a world away causes production to 
go out in Saudi Arabia and we have a price spike, then that 
passes through our entire economy.
    Ms. DeGette. Even if the oil and gas is produced here?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. That is correct.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, will increasing oil and gas 
production reduce the cost of extreme weather and climate-
related disasters?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. It will not.
    Ms. DeGette. And will increasing oil and gas production 
ensure that our economy, the U.S. economy, is thriving?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. It will not.
    Ms. DeGette. Will increasing oil and gas production mean 
that the United States no longer imports crude oil from 
countries like Saudi Arabia?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Most likely not.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. So if increased oil and gas production 
won't protect consumers for price shocks, from the increasing 
cost of natural disasters, from the boom-and-bust oil economy, 
and it won't make us energy independent, what do we need to do, 
very briefly, to achieve energy independence, and how do we 
need to get there?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. I think our goal should be energy 
security, which means relying on clean energy produced here in 
the United States and working with our allies around the world. 
And there is a whole host of technologies that will help us do 
that, and we will see an acceleration in those based on the 
laws that have recently been signed.
    Ms. DeGette. Now, you are not suggesting that tomorrow we 
would have to stop using oil and gas, but you are saying we 
would need to----
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Correct.
    Ms. DeGette [continuing]. Have a transition? Is that right?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. We need a managed transition. That is what 
we need for our economy, that is what we need for our energy 
workers, that is what we need for our communities that depend 
on energy for their tax base. That is why we had so many things 
in the Inflation Reduction Act to help those communities and 
those workers transition.
    Ms. DeGette. Great. Thank you.
    And speaking of those communities, Ms. Jackson, I wanted to 
just talk to you for a minute because in my congressional 
district, I have a lot of low-income communities that are also 
environmentally very vulnerable.
    And I have a neighborhood, Globeville-Elyria-Swansea, which 
is just downwind from an oil--from a gas plant, from a gas 
refinery. And they have had terrible, terrible environmental 
problems there: lead in their soil, terrible asthma increases, 
all kinds of other problems.
    So I wanted to ask you the question. I know you advocate 
for low energy costs, and I agree with that, because those 
people have a hard time paying for their energy in the winter. 
I agree with that, but wouldn't you love to see an economy 
where we could both reduce those environmental impacts on low-
income communities and also have low energy prices? That would 
be a yes or no answer.
    Ms. Jackson. That would be a yes with stipulations.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentlelady, and I need to apologize 
to the gentleman from Kentucky for not recognizing him as the 
chairman of the Health Subcommittee, so welcome to that and 
good luck.
    I now want to go to the chair of the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Dabbar, Inflation Reduction Act, we have heard about 
that, and we have heard about trying to, you know, do all this 
stuff in America, and one of the stipulations in that Act, when 
they were doing all the Green New Deal-type stuff inside of 
what was supposed to be the Inflation Reduction Act, was that 
we would do it in America, we are going to do it in the United 
States.
    So I have got a couple of questions in that regard, and 
that is, one, recently the DOE awarded a $200 million grant to 
battery maker Microvast even after the company told the 
Securities and Exchange Commission that they were heavily 
dependent upon policies made by the Chinese Communist Party's 
apparatus in China.
    Do our DOE officials do a decent job of vetting these, or 
do they just plain just fill them out, and if they have got an 
address in Texas, that is good enough?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Congressman, I can't exactly define what 
DOE did on the Microvast award, but as you correctly said, the 
company itself told the Securities and Exchange Commission it 
was a Chinese-controlled entity and that it did not meet 
American accounting standards.
    And the Securities and Exchange Commission was looking at 
delisting them from the United States. Even though technically 
it was legally incorporated here, the vast majority of the 
operations were in China, by their own admission, and with the 
SEC.
    It is--I think it was the intent of the Inflation Reduction 
Act and the Infrastructure Act to strengthen American 
companies, and to--for those battery technologies, amongst 
others, get us away from China, and that is a bit of a question 
on why they decided to see that.
    Mr. Griffith. So you would think that was a bad decision by 
DOE, to give them $200 million?
    Mr. Dabbar. I think that there are plenty of other 
companies--there are plenty of battery companies, and I am not 
certain why awarding it to someone who self-admits that they 
are a Chinese-controlled entity, they could probably--there's 
probably other ones in the United States to support.
    Mr. Griffith. Let me ask you about Contemporary Amperex 
Technology Company Limited. Now, this is a Chinese battery 
manufacturer and also attempting to get both Virginia money and 
Federal money, made a deal with Ford, and in that deal, Ford 
would own the physical plant but the Chinese company would have 
all the technology. They would control all the technology and 
all the actual manufacturing. Is that really a way to bring 
American, green technology into the forefront, or are all we 
are doing is becoming a colony of China when it comes to 
battery technology, when we take our taxpayer dollars and give 
it to the Chinese, even if they have a Ford nameplate on the 
outside of the factory?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, yes, Congressman. It appears that Ford and 
the largest Chinese battery manufacturer, the largest one in 
the world, CATL, decided to structure legally to get around the 
Inflation Reduction Act American requirements, by having Ford 
front them, but it was really going to be a CATL plant.
    I applaud the Governor of Virginia to turn that down. But 
whether it is this committee or Ways and Means, I would hope 
that someone would write a letter to Treasury as they look at 
writing the letter--sorry--the Tax Code underneath the 
Inflation Reduction Act and make certain that lawyers--no 
disrespect to lawyers, I am a nuclear engineer--don't come up 
with all these options that legally get around the Treasury 
rules but allow Chinese companies to get a greater foothold in 
the United States. Hopefully, that is quite bipartisan.
    Mr. Griffith. Well, I hope they will be bipartisan, and I 
can assure you that we will continue to do oversight from this 
committee. Hopefully other committees will do as well.
    With the remaining time that I have left, I would be remiss 
if I didn't give Ms. Jackson some time. If you could expound on 
how late and missed electric bill payments, in light of the 
fact that the rates are going up for everybody in the country, 
including poor folks, how the late and missed electric bill 
payments compound the negativity on families living paycheck to 
paycheck?
    Ms. Jackson. Well, we are not living paycheck to paycheck. 
We are living paycheck to Wednesday, and then we are borrowing 
money for people to be able to last us to the end of the week. 
So the impact is devastating.
    This is the deal. Here is the situation. We should be 
making sure--our community shouldn't be an afterthought. And 
so, when you are sitting down there thinking about how you are 
going to work with energy, we should also be considering the 
cost.
    Mr. Griffith. And the cost for the poor families in 
particular?
    Ms. Jackson. Yes, yes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. My time is up. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. The Chair will now go to 
Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 
witnesses for being here today.
    Transportation is one of the most polluting sectors of our 
economy. Emissions from gas and diesel engines are directly 
responsible for the premature deaths of 17,000 to 20,000 
Americans per year, and that doesn't even take into account the 
much larger impact of vehicle emissions as one of the leading 
causes of climate change.
    And that is why I have been a long-standing champion of 
stronger vehicle emissions rules and stronger fuel economy 
standards, and why I lead yearly appropriations efforts 
supporting clean transportation across different agencies.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen, what are the health benefits of clean 
transportation, especially with regard to frontline 
communities?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 
The public health benefits of switching to cleaner 
transportation, transit, other ways to get around the country 
and our communities, is huge.
    So much--so many communities are impacted by NOx, smog, 
particulate matters, black carbon, that come from both on-road 
and off-road fuel use that we can--significantly decreasing 
those leads to immediate health benefits, both for asthma in 
kids and elderly.
    I mean, we are even at the point where we have identified 
some of those pollutants can cross the placental boundary in 
women, and so, you know, babies still in their mother's womb 
are being impacted by air pollution.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you. In 2021, I co-led the Medium and 
Heavy Duty Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Act, which would 
fund EV charging equipment for medium- and heavy-duty vehicle 
fleets. This would help State and local governments and 
municipal service providers and trucking companies electrify 
their fleets.
    The Inflation Reduction Act expands the 30(c) Alternative 
Fuel Refueling Property Tax Credit to help governments, 
businesses, and individuals buy and install EV charging 
stations.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen, what will the EV charging infrastructure 
look like in America in 5 years, given the incentives in the 
Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Well, as Yogi Berra is said to have said, 
it is hard to make predictions, especially about the future, 
but what I am confident in saying is, things will look totally 
different. The investments from both the infrastructure bill 
and the Inflation Reduction Act are really going to mean a huge 
expansion and improvement in our charging structures across the 
country.
    You know, we are going to see a huge increase in electric 
school buses, which is going to be incredibly beneficial to the 
budgets as well as the health of school districts all across 
the country.
    And, you know, I think we will be in a position where 
people will feel very comfortable traveling, you know, going on 
the great American road trip in their electric vehicle.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you. California leads the country in 
rooftop solar capacity with more than 8 million California 
homes benefiting from the cheapest source of energy known to 
man.
    I am a strong supporter of rooftop solar and proud to 
champion expanding the 25D Residential Clean Energy Tax Credit 
in the Inflation Reduction Act. When we talk about grid 
resilience, it is important to remember that many homes in 
Florida and Puerto Rico with rooftop solar did not lose power 
even after they were battered by powerful hurricanes.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen, what role does rooftop solar have in the 
clean energy transition, and how can it help make our electric 
grid more resilient?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Thank you for that really important 
question. Rooftop solar has incredible benefits, both to save 
consumers money on their electric bills and build back 
neighborhood resilience. I think, you know, increasingly, we 
will see neighborhoods with rooftop solars developing 
microgrids, so that when those--and additional placement of 
power, of PV and batteries, other things that critical schools, 
fire stations, those types of places in our community, so that 
when disaster does happen, there is still a power source, there 
is a place where people can come to get electricity and do the 
things they need in the aftermath of disaster.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you. I am running out of time, so 
thank you very much for your testimony. I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentlelady and now will go to the 
subcommittee chair for Innovation, Data, and Commerce, Mr. 
Bilirakis, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate it. Congratulations on your subcommittee 
chairmanship as well.
    Since the Biden administration came into office, Americans 
have been faced with a persisting energy crisis. We are in the 
midst of unprecedented increases in costs of living, and I 
continue to hear from my constituents on a daily basis 
regarding how difficult it is to make ends meet. I want to 
highlight one in particular, if I may.
    Patricia is an 84-year-old constituent who lives in Hudson, 
Florida, in Pasco County, with her 62-year-old disabled 
daughter. They live on an extremely strict, fixed income. Their 
electric bill has gone up an average of $50 per month in the 
past year despite the fact that they do not use central heat or 
air conditioning in their home--and you know what it is like 
not to have air conditioning, particularly in the State of 
Florida.
    So, when coupled with other inflationary increases in the 
price of food and medicine, this mother-daughter senior duo has 
been pushed to the brink of financial hardship.
    Sadly, many of my constituents have similar stories to 
Patricia, and very clearly, from Mrs. Jackson's testimony, the 
most vulnerable Americans are disproportionately affected.
    The United States needs energy policies that make energy 
more affordable for Americans, not more expensive. That is the 
bottom line.
    Particularly, I want to focus on improving the permitting 
process for pipelines and expanding pipeline infrastructure.
    I mentioned that this stat, I mentioned it earlier in the 
roundtable that we had last week, but according to the American 
Petroleum Institute, Florida will face a 42 percent market--
higher market-forward prices for natural gas in the average 
this calendar year.
    One of the main factors contributing to these higher costs 
is a lack of adequate pipeline infrastructure. Mr. Dabbar, can 
you please talk a bit about how delays in pipeline permitting, 
like for the Mountain Valley Pipeline and the canceled Atlantic 
Coast Pipeline, impact the ability for these projects to be 
completed or even deter the undertaking of these projects in 
the first place?
    And, again, what recommendations do you have to help 
expedite pipeline infrastructure for the American Southeast?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Congressman. So when a company comes along 
and wants to build a pipeline or a transmission line, they 
estimate how much it is going to cost, and how long it is going 
to take to start building, and how long it is going to take to 
build. There's two things that have really exploded the 
challenges around that.
    One is that the extended approval processes--when people 
come up with a project cost and the approvals take a very long 
time, those project costs, because of inflation, become 
uneconomic.
    And we are seeing that, for example, in Massachusetts, 
actually, with offshore wind right now. They proposed a 
contract, the approvals have taken so long, and then the 
inflation topic is on top of it, all of a sudden the offshore 
wind projects, they withdraw them because they don't make 
economic sense anymore.
    So the combination of inflation, plus very, very long 
approval processes are really impeding any sort of construction 
in this country today.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
    Another question for Mr. Dabbar: In addition to addressing 
delays on the agency's side, is there anything we can do in 
Congress to reduce the delays brought about by the courts?
    Mr. Dabbar. Congressman, I am not--never written a law from 
scratch like everyone here has, but I do think that the Federal 
Power Act and the Natural Gas Act are not definitive enough to 
make FERC approve and meet their statutory obligation to 
deliver energy, of any type. Everything is getting held back.
    So I do--I would recommend that this committee take a look 
at how to facilitate, and maybe things such as time stops, time 
clocks, the maximum amount of time to review. That is not to 
say yes or no. It is just, put a timeline on, so it doesn't 
take 10 years for a 10-mile road.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it.
    Mr. Duncan. Yes, I thank the gentleman. The Chair will now 
go to Ms. Castor for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen, thank you for returning so soon to help us 
focus on policies that will help America build greater energy 
security and policies to help solve the urgent climate crisis.
    While it is disappointing that Republicans in Congress have 
dismantled the Climate Committee, I have incredible pride in 
the progress that our committee and the Democratic-led Congress 
made for America. Talking about lower-cost clean energy, 
creating good-paying jobs, and building healthier, more 
resilient communities. We could not have accomplished all that 
we accomplished without your leadership and expertise, so thank 
you very much.
    You know, at the outset of the creation of the Climate 
Committee, we convened and did broad outreach to people all 
across the country: business, labor, faith leaders, scientists, 
farmers, entrepreneurs, and Members on a bipartisan basis.
    It culminated in this ``Solving the Climate Crisis Action 
Plan'' that made 715 policy recommendations to help solve the 
climate crisis. And I am so proud to report that, as of today, 
438 of our policy recommendations were passed in the House of 
Representatives, and 314 were passed into law.
    The report was described as the most detailed and well-
thought-out plan for addressing the climate crisis that has 
ever been part of U.S. politics, an extraordinary synthesis of 
expertise from social and scientific fields.
    What that did is, it really culminated in a lot of the new 
law, the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest clean energy and 
climate investment in U.S. history, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law that will help make communities more 
resilient and electrify transportation, the CHIPS and Science 
Act that will empower industries to lead the clean energy 
transition.
    And I love the stat that you cited in your testimony. In 
the 9 months since the Inflation Reduction Act was signed, 
companies have announced more than $90 billion into clean 
energy investment.
    So these are magnets now for capital, investing in our 
workers, in our communities, and in the clean energy future.
    And though the Climate Committee ended with the last 
Congress, our fight has to continue. And I want to highlight to 
everyone--I am going to send this around to their offices--we 
did a year-end report that highlights key accomplishments and 
then additional opportunities, because there are so many more 
opportunities that we have got to focus on.
    Meanwhile, the last 8 years have been the hottest on the 
planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in their 
recent assessment, made clear that the next few years are 
critical to limit warming. Thankfully, progress begets 
progress, and with our accomplishments, we are poised now to 
move now to significant implementation.
    You answered a question from--to Rep. Eshoo about the most 
important is to focus on net zero, getting to net zero, as soon 
as possible. So go into a little more detail on the most 
important steps of implementation on how we get there to reach 
our climate goals and reduce climate pollution.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Thanks for the question. And, you know, 
one of the good news, just going back to some of the permitting 
discussion in the Inflation Reduction Act, we also had nearly 
$1 billion set aside to agencies to help them do these analyses 
and get the projects permitted that we need to get permitted.
    So I think that is one of the first things that we need to 
see. We need to see that implementation on the ground. We need 
to see--we need to build the EV infrastructure. We need to 
upgrade and expand our transmission infrastructure and using 
the programs that we passed in the infrastructure and the 
Inflation Reduction Act.
    We also need to see the partnership with States and local 
communities and business organizations, because much of what we 
passed in the Inflation Reduction Act are--there's tax credits, 
there's other programs and initiatives that are going to help 
States do even more.
    So I think it will be really important for Congress to work 
with the Biden administration to see those implementation--the 
implementation of those two laws in particular come to 
fruition.
    Ms. Castor. We really are at an exciting pivot point, and 
thank you again, and I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair will now go to the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Minerals, my friend 
from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you. You know, today it is clear from 
our testimony that America needs a course correction on our 
national energy strategy, because the current strategy simply 
is not working.
    In fact, it is increasingly evident that we don't really 
have a national energy strategy at all. A change in direction 
must be made. Republicans on this committee have the plans and 
the legislative proposals to do just that.
    It has already been said, energy security is national 
security. That goes for us here in America and for the rest of 
the world.
    Other countries are thinking about this. Look at China. Do 
you think they cornered the market on rare earths and critical 
minerals by accident? Do you think it never occurred to them 
that in a time of great power competition, this would give them 
the upper hand?
    I will get back to that in a moment, but right now America 
is in a similar spot with natural gas. Global demand is 
booming, and demand will remain high for decades to come. We 
have plenty for use here at home and to export abroad. Natural 
gas can and should be our global power differentiator. We 
should want the world to rely more on us for natural gas, not 
the other way around.
    So first, Mr. McNally, I appreciated your recommendations 
in your testimony making changes to the Natural Gas Act, to cut 
the red tape surrounding LNG exports. I have got legislation 
that would do that.
    Can you explain to our committee, when we are leading in 
exporting energy resources around the globe, and even though it 
certainly supports jobs and investment here at home, how is it 
that that also improves America's geopolitical position abroad?
    Mr. McNally. Thank you for that question, Congressman 
Johnson.
    Nothing less than making the United States an arsenal of 
energy, as we were an arsenal of democracy under President 
Roosevelt during World War II. We are the world's largest 
natural gas producer. This year we are going to be the biggest 
exporter, and two-thirds of our exports have been flowing to 
our beleaguered allies in Europe facing the largest war since 
World War II on the continent there.
    And we are beating the Qataris, the Norwegians, the 
Azerbaijanis put together. And, you know, Winston Churchill 
said, you know, security and energy comes from diversity, 
diversity alone. And thank God our allies, both in Europe and 
in Asia, in Japan and South Korea, they know they can rely on 
the United States as an arsenal of energy, an ample source of 
energy imports, especially when they face our geopolitical 
rivals.
    So it is hard to overstate when you look at history, when 
you look at our current predicament and the outlook, how 
important being an arsenal of energy, keeping domestic 
production strong, and policies favoring exports alive.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, continuing with you, Mr. McNally, back 
to critical minerals and rare earths, I mean, it is hard to 
believe our military relies on China for this stuff. We need to 
scale up domestic production rapidly, and if you read the 
reports, I do believe America can do this safer and cleaner 
than anywhere else that it is currently being done.
    Can you go a bit further into how environmental regulations 
could be improved or changed to allow this to happen here in 
the United States?
    Mr. McNally. Thank you, Congressman. Congress might want to 
consider establishing a National Stockpile for critical 
minerals, and tax credits and other incentives to produce it 
here at home. And we might want to think about restricting the 
dependence, at least at some point in the future. It may be 
hard to go cold turkey, but in the coming years, to require 
that we get off of Chinese sources for our critical minerals 
and so forth.
    So I think there is a variety of things I think you and 
others have been thinking of doing. Frankly, it is really just 
common sense, and I think you should pursue that course and 
will. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. In a final kind of statement here, you know, I 
have heard it mentioned several times, you know, to get to 
these bipartisan solutions, one of the things we have to do is 
not go into our respective corners on this important issue.
    And words matter. And I think one of the things that if we 
could just come to an agreement, the word ``transition'' 
doesn't mean what a lot of people out in America thinks that it 
does, right?
    The Biden administration uses the word ``transition'' to 
talk about getting rid of fossil fuels. That is a negative way 
to use that term. I mean, we can walk and chew gum at the same 
time. We can increase market-driven innovation on renewables 
without throwing out the bath water and destroying the three-
legged triad of oil and gas, coal, and nuclear that provide the 
resilience, the reliability, the affordability, and the 
sustainability to our electric grid.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sarbanes for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Unruh Cohen, I want to talk a little bit about the 
profits of the oil and gas companies, which, to be very candid, 
drive me insane. So we have seen, through 2021 and 2022, 
ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, made a record-breaking combined 
profit that is anticipated to be well over $200 billion.
    They were also getting taxpayer subsidies during this time. 
I will come back to that in a moment.
    We also have information today that Chevron announced $36 
billion of profit, and Exxon this morning announced a profit of 
$56 billion.
    Some of our colleagues on the other side suggest that, you 
know, this is a necessary evil, it is what has to be done to 
fund research and production and so forth on the part of that 
industry.
    But then you look at how they are using these profits, and 
we see that Chevron announced that it would be spending $75 
billion to buy back its own shares, and only investing $12 
million into its business to increase production.
    And, of course, these profits we have seen over the last 
few years have come at the expense of ordinary citizens out 
there being gouged at the pump. So it is clear that, at a 
minimum, taxpayer subsidies to that industry don't make any 
sense given the profits they are posting. Would you agree with 
that?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Yes, I would, Mr. Sarbanes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. And to the extent the Government is going to 
provide investments, aren't the investments that are reflected 
in the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act, in clean energy, in building out our future 
there--aren't those the kinds of investments that make a lot 
more sense?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Yes, Mr. Sarbanes, that is correct. And in 
our work in the select committee, you know, we argued that we 
should be aligning our tax code and our investments to drive 
the U.S. economy to this net-zero-carbon pollution.
    Mr. Sarbanes. I mean, look, it makes--there is something to 
be gained by going back and looking historically. The United 
States wanted to establish its fossil fuel industry, at one 
point, as premier in the world, and so the Government stepped 
up as a partner to try to drive that kind of innovation, and it 
was a very successful partnership.
    Now we have the opportunity to go create a clean energy 
future, again, lead globally. That is what we are trying to do 
with the pieces of legislation that we passed.
    But the model is really no different. It is just this 
mature, successful, very profitable fossil-fuel industry is no 
longer in need of support. If anything, we should be looking at 
ways to suss out what about their profit-making enterprise is 
fair to the American consumer and what is unfair, and how we 
can look to different kinds of investments to stand up this 
other set of opportunities.
    But before we run out of time, just speculate with me on 
why the industry can't seem to free itself of this alternative 
reality. I would think that with the profits they are raking 
in, they would want to step into that clean energy future, 
using all of their assets and leverage and exercise leadership 
globally, establish themselves as real players in that arena.
    But for some reason their reflex, their instinct, is to 
keep doubling down on the old way of doing things. What is the 
problem there? What is the difficulty with the frame of 
thinking?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Well, I think as you look at oil 
companies, you know, you really need to examine whether they 
want to be oil companies or whether they want to be energy 
companies, because we need energy companies in the 21st 
century, and that may be a whole range of things. And even if 
they are saying they want to be energy companies and that may 
mean they are diversifying their portfolio, then next you have 
to look, as you mentioned, at where they are putting their 
money. Is it just a little token piece of investment in other 
renewables or other technologies, or, you know, are they making 
a significant shift.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much.
    Yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman.
    And the Chair will now recognize the gentleman from the 
crossroads of America, the great State of Indiana, Mr. Bucshon.
    Dr. Bucshon.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My constituents in southwest Indiana need access to 
reliable, affordable, environmentally sustainable energy. Look, 
all of us want to breathe clean air, we want clean water to 
drink, and we want clean land to utilize and enjoy in the 
future. That is kind of universal, right?
    You know, but when out visiting energy stakeholders 
recently, someone explained the current idealogically driven 
efforts to replace all of the fossil fuel generation with wind 
and solar in this way--and I am paraphrasing--basically said, 
``This is a battle between politics and science and physics, 
and I can tell you which one will win out.'' And I think what 
he meant by that is, we need to start looking at the facts and 
get away from the idealogy.
    And in that vein, I mean, Dr. Cohen, I just want to ask you 
a yes-or-no question quickly: Does the U.S. Government own any 
gasoline stations in America?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Did you say gasoline, gas stations?
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes. Like you go to pump your gas, does the 
U.S. Government own any of them?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Well, I assume DOE has some fueling----
    Mr. Bucshon. Did we build them? The answer to that question 
is no. And so I just don't see why the U.S. taxpayer should be 
funding EV charging stations across the country. Look, I 
support EVs. But why should we be doing that? Because--we are 
doing that because the market won't bear it. The free market at 
this point in our country won't bear it. If it in the future 
does, I am all in. Let the private sector----
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Well, the U.S. Government has certainly 
engaged----
    Mr. Bucshon. I didn't ask you a question. I didn't ask you 
a question.
    So every point you make on energy issues in this hearing 
depends on massive Federal Government subsidies and not the 
free market. So I just wanted to point that out. I mean, we 
have a disagreement, I think, between our two sides here: 
Believers in the free market and let, you know, technology, 
wherever it goes, all the above, or massively subsidize green 
energy at the expense of energy security and national security 
and cost.
    So, Mr. Dabbar, I will ask you this question: Do you 
believe that current investors in the energy sector are 
primarily motivated--by what? Politics, physics, science? I 
mean, if they are looking to invest, where--and what are the 
pressures being put on them by politics?
    Mr. Dabbar. So, Congressman, they are still primarily 
focused on profit. That is excellent for America.
    Mr. Bucshon. Of course.
    Mr. Dabbar. But there is pressure from investors around ESG 
because of, you know, people who feel like that they need to do 
a certain shift, and they do certainly get that pressure.
    Mr. Bucshon. Of course they do.
    And what do you think--same question, Mr. McNally.
    Do you have any comments on that?
    Mr. McNally. I would agree with my colleague. It is profit 
return on capital.
    Mr. Bucshon. Right.
    Mr. McNally. And I would just point out----
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes. I mean--but I will
    just give you my view. But we are using idealogical 
politics to try to divide--to direct investment in a free 
market capitalist system, and that is a huge mistake. Let the 
system work.
    Mr. Dabbar, again, you mentioned in your testimony that 
FERC needs to radically overhaul ISO rules to facilitate 
increased baseload power.
    What should we do?
    Mr. Dabbar. The markets that right now try to support 
baseload, the capacity markets, don't work, and more power 
plants are being shut down than are being built. I think that 
FERC needs to come up with new rules that specifically require 
either the ISOs or maybe even going back to the utilities, like 
in the old days, where they have an obligation to serve. Right 
now there is no obligation to serve, and that is the challenge 
in the markets right now. The individual power plant owners 
don't have an obligation to serve, and the wires companies 
don't have an obligation to serve other than keeping their 
wires up. But supply itself, where it used to be the individual 
utility had a, quote, ``obligation to serve,'' meaning to 
actually make the power, have power plants, that has been 
pushed out to the ISOs, and they are not incentivizing power to 
actually be built.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you for that answer.
    I just want to point out someone--one of you mentioned we 
shouldn't be using China as a benchmark, and let me just 
partially tell you why. I mean, since 2021, they are building 
33 gigawatts of coal-fired power generation, 3 times more than 
the rest of the world combined. They are building 14 new power 
plants since 2021 in their own country, and here--listen to 
this--but they will finish another 27 abroad. They are driving 
this worldwide. Of course, it is true they are trying to expand 
the renewables also, no doubt.
    Currently there's about 1,118 coal-fired power plants in 
China, 225 in the United States. So I just want to concur with 
that testimony that they are not our benchmark. And, first of 
all--the other thing is we are our benchmark. We should be the 
benchmark driving the global energy economy.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman.
    The Chair will now go to Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And before I get into my questions, Dr. Unruh Cohen, I 
believe you wanted to respond to the last exchange that you 
had.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Just--thank you for that, Mr. Tonko. Just 
a couple of points.
    You know, the physics that Democrats have been concerned 
about are the physics of climate change, and we have known 
since 1856, in experiments that happened in Seneca Falls, New 
York, by Eunice Foote, that putting carbon dioxide in the 
atmosphere warms things up.
    Secondly, the Government is totally involved in many ways 
in subsidizing transportation, whether it is the hundreds--you 
know, the centuries-long oil subsidies, biofuel subsidies, you 
know, we are involved, the U.S. Government, for many years 
building highways. We are involved in transportation. This is 
nothing new.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you.
    And, Ms. Jackson, I agree totally that we need to be 
focused on energy affordability and advancing solutions to 
reduce low-income Americans' energy burdens. It is a must.
    In 2015, though, I would acknowledge that one in three 
households reported experiencing energy insecurity, and one in 
five reported reducing or foregoing necessities, such as food 
or medicine, to pay an energy bill. Eleven percent of 
households reported keeping their home at an unhealthy or 
unsafe temperature. So this is not a new challenge.
    We have and have had real problems with energy 
affordability in our country, but we also have very important 
programs, programs that can help alleviate these burdens, like 
LIHEAP and DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program.
    So, Dr. Unruh Cohen, the select committee's report 
recommended significant support for DOE's Weatherization 
Assistance Program. Can you explain why we should be providing 
upfront funding to low-income families to support cost-
effective energy retrofits of their homes?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for that 
question.
    Weatherization is one of the most important things we can 
help low-income families deal with. The incentives for renters 
sometimes precludes, you know, upgrading on energy efficiency. 
And so instead of seeing their energy bills skyrocket, with 
insulation, with that weatherization, they can stay warmer in 
the winter and cooler in the summer and reduce their energy use 
and, thus, their energy bills and insulate them also from the 
volatility of electricity markets.
    On a personal note, my mother benefited from this program 
in Colorado, and it has meant a warmer house for her as she has 
seen some deadly cold weather there in Colorado Springs lately.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And in the 117th Congress the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
provided some $3.5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance 
Program. This funding will do a lot of good. Households 
receiving weatherization assistance save on average of $372 
each year on their energy bills. These are real savings and 
make a huge difference for families struggling to pay their 
utility bills. And there are other modest changes we can make 
to the program to improve it further, like allowing more 
funding to go to each household to account for the increased 
cost of construction materials and to allow service providers 
to train and retrain a qualified workforce.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen, I mentioned the Weatherization Assistance 
Program funding in the IIJA, but are there ways that the 
Inflation Reduction Act is expected to reduce energy costs for 
Americans?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Yes, there is a whole host of additional 
things in the Inflation Reduction Act that will help homeowners 
be able to purchase more efficient appliances. We will see more 
money flowing to State programs that help provide rebates and 
upfront--you know, cutting the costs upfront as people are 
purchasing those appliances, as well as just the overall 
advancement of adding more clean electricity. People will see 
just a general reduction in electricity costs.
    My written testimony quotes some of the analyses that have 
been done on the Inflation Reduction Act that gives us some 
sense of the benefits to come.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Dabbar, based on your testimony, you seem very 
proud of the work you did at the Department of Energy to 
support the development of innovative energy technologies. You 
mentioned breakthroughs in battery chemistry, solar 
technologies, and nuclear energy.
    Can you explain what you see as the role of the Federal 
agencies like DOE to partner with the private sector and 
academia to support emerging energy industries?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Congressman. As we have talked in the past 
about Brookhaven and elsewhere around the country, new energy 
technologies, we lead the world, in New York and elsewhere. And 
one thing I want to point out is that the beyond lithium ion 
chemistries--lithium ion is great, great American invention, 
Nobel Prize, say it again--but there are many other 
technologies in the battery space that can outperform 
potentially lithium ion, and that will reduce some critical 
mineral requirements and imports from elsewhere around the 
world and actually have them perform even better. And the 
support by this Congress, many labs, DOE is leading the way to 
even more innovation on that front.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman from New York.
    And now I will go to the Tar Heel State, North Carolina, 
Mr. Hudson for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me just say, you are doing an excellent job. You look 
good with that gavel in your hands.
    It is really an honor for me to serve on this committee 
again this Congress. You know, our committee has a long history 
of coming together to produce bipartisan solutions, and I look 
forward to continuing to work with all of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle in the coming Congress.
    And I want to thank our witnesses for your time today and 
for the excellent testimony you have provided.
    For the last 2 years, the Biden administration has failed 
to take meaningful steps to address energy production. Energy 
prices have surged to historic highs because of this, and all 
of our constituents have been paying the price. This winter has 
been extremely difficult for my constituents, particularly 
those on fixed income. Bad energy policy and the rising energy 
prices and the disruptions of supply that result from that 
disproportionately impact working families and lower-income 
communities.
    And, Ms. Jackson, I appreciate your testimony to that 
effect. And I would like to extend you an opportunity to answer 
the question earlier about LIHEAP and affordability for lower 
income, if you would like to expand on your answer.
    Ms. Jackson. Yes. I wanted to piggyback on her.
    You were talking about weatherization programs. The problem 
with minority communities is that they don't own their homes. 
What they want is homeownership, and we have climate policies 
that restrict that because it makes the building materials and 
the cost of building new homes so expensive that the price 
creates artificial scarcity and pushes them out of the 
marketplace.
    The other thing is when you talk about electric vehicles, 
when you create a mandate on electric vehicles, basically what 
you are doing is excluding Black people from being able to own 
a private vehicle, which is very much needed so they can be 
able to get jobs that are outside of their communities, because 
most of those jobs don't exist where they are.
    So weatherization benefits, of course, the landlord who 
owns the home. Subsidies for solar panels benefits who? The 
landlords who own those homes. We are renters, the majority of 
us, and creating higher energy costs is increasingly keeping us 
out of homeownership.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you for that answer.
    Changing the direction a little bit, last month two power 
substations in Moore County, North Carolina, were targeted with 
vandalism, causing a multiday loss of power for nearly 45,000 
residents. Besides not having heat during the coldest part of 
the year, residents of Southern Pines and the surrounding 
communities lost thousands of dollars as a result of spoiled 
food and medicine, lost wages for workers and income for 
business owners, disrupted transportation, and created a lack 
of accessibility and essential services.
    Now, I am proud of my neighbors for the way our community 
rose up and took care of one another, but this was a tough 
time.
    And just 2 weeks ago another substation was intentionally 
vandalized in neighboring Randolph County.
    Disruptions to our energy supply are dangerous. They are 
costly, and they are unacceptable, especially when more than 
one-third of U.S. households reported skipping or reducing 
expenses like medicine or food in order to pay their energy 
bill in the first place.
    I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to find 
solutions for these problems and hear from stakeholders on how 
we can address grid security.
    I will start with you, Mr. Dabbar. How do energy 
disruptions caused by a vulnerable grid impact our national 
security?
    Mr. Dabbar. So, Congressman, it is a high degree of worry. 
When we were at the department instead of the office, the CESER 
office--there is a significant amount of equipment that is 
produced overseas, including we found from China that they 
could easily have backdoors. Because as Mr. McNally has pointed 
out, energy is just in time. There is very little storage in 
electricity. There's some, but it is incredibly minor compared 
to demand. It is fragile. The system is very fragile because it 
is very just in time.
    And so small disruptions of the electrical grid can have a 
massive impact. And the importance of building software, hard 
support, it is an amazing vulnerability for the country.
    Mr. Hudson. Well, thank you.
    Mr. McNally, we have got 30 seconds left. Do you want to 
chime in there?
    Mr. McNally. Congressman, as a new resident of Southern 
Pines, I was directly impacted by that outage. I was also 
directly impacted by the brazen Russian-based attack on the 
Colonial Pipeline. It is astounding we have not spent more 
attention on that. That was the largest foreign attack on our 
energy sector ever. The closest we came is when the Japanese 
forgot to bomb the tanks at Pearl Harbor, would have set back 
World War II a few years. That was the closest risk. They hit 
us. They cut that vital artery that serves airports, major 
airports, and military bases. We are not deterring 
sufficiently. And I think we have some recommendations or we 
have put in the testimony how to improve--how we manage the 
next attack. I don't think it was well managed at all, sir.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I see I am out of time, but with your 
indulgence I will submit in writing questions for our witnesses 
on sort of what they see as the role of the Department of 
Energy and the Congress in working towards this goal of grid 
security.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Duncan. Members are reminded they can submit questions 
to witnesses in writing.
    The Chair will now go to Ms. Clarke for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to our 
ranking member, Mr. Pallone, for holding this important hearing 
today.
    Let me also add my voice in congratulating Chairwoman 
Rodgers on being appointed as chair of this historic committee.
    That said, I am deeply disappointed with the majority's 
failure to explicitly include any reference to environmental 
justice, racial or economic disparities, or inequality in their 
document organizing the jurisdiction of this committee.
    I remain steadfast in my commitment to environmental 
justice and protecting the most vulnerable of our citizens. The 
exclusion of a clear commitment to environmental justice 
demonstrates a complete disregard for the historic 
marginalization and unjust systems exacerbated by our country's 
dependence on fossil fuels.
    The impacts of the climate crisis, including climate 
disasters like historic heatwaves, hurricanes, and flooding, 
disproportionately hurt the most vulnerable among us, 
historically marginalized communities of color, those living 
with medical conditions that require electricity, older people, 
communities where there are language barriers, pregnant women, 
and children.
    Far too often outdated energy sources, like dirty peaker 
plants--power plants which spew twice as much carbon dioxide 
and 20 times as much nitrogen oxides than regular power 
plants--are most often located in low-income and communities of 
color. Democrats understand that our country cannot continue to 
invest in sources of energy that exacerbate environmental 
injustices, pollute our communities, and rely on marks 
dominated by foreign dictators.
    That is why we passed the Inflation Reduction Act which, 
invested a historic $369 billion in clean energy made in 
America and bringing down greenhouse gas emissions. This bill, 
which not a single Republican in the House voted for, included 
provisions to lower energy costs, electrify homes, and so every 
American, not just the wealthiest, can be part of the 
transition to the clean energy community.
    This transition must be both just and inclusive, which is 
why we have to look back as well as forward to remediate past 
injustices.
    I want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today.
    My first question is to Dr. Unruh Cohen. Can you expand on 
the intersections between climate change and racial injustice?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Thank you, Congresswoman Clarke, for that 
important question.
    You know, unfortunately, the climate crisis hits the most 
vulnerable, and that tends to be poorer communities, 
communities of color, because, you know, they have had to 
develop in that lower-lying area, places that are flood prone 
on the coast, not to mention our Tribal communities in 
particular.
    So time after time we see those communities and people who 
are least able to adapt really being hit. I mean, what we saw 
in the U.S. Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico now on multiple 
times, I mean, it just illustrates within our own country the 
challenges that we face.
    And then when you look globally, you know, you see 
countries that have contributed just a minimal amount to the 
warming that we have experienced feeling the huge impact from 
the, you know, warming that we have already seen.
    Ms. Clarke. So as natural disasters caused by climate 
change continue to increase in frequency and severity, we must 
invest in resilience in low-income communities and communities 
of color so that our homes and critical infrastructure are 
prepared for when the next superstorm, wildfire, flood, or 
heatwave strikes.
    That is why I have partnered with my colleague 
Congresswoman Barragan to introduce the Energy Resilient 
Communities Act in the last Congress.
    So, Dr. Unruh Cohen, could you explain the role of 
distributed energy sources, like microgrids powered by 
renewable energy, in building out our Nation's resilience to 
climate change disasters?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Yes. As I said earlier that, you know, 
rooftop solar and other--in microgrids in a normal day 
contribute, help lower costs for the electricity. When disaster 
strikes, they can be isolated from the grid and continue to be 
able to provide power and electricity to communities as they 
are confronting, you know, some terrible times.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask for unanimous consent to 
submit this report from the American Public Health Association 
entitled ``Energy Justice and Climate Change: Key Concepts for 
Public Health'' into the record.
    Mr. Duncan. Without objection.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Clarke. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentlelady.
    The Chair will now go to Michigan. It must be cold up 
there. It is also known as the Mitten State. Mr. Wahlberg for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Wahlberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Three degrees this 
morning.
    I appreciate the panel being here today. I wish we had more 
time to talk about some reality issues as well, and I 
appreciate the reality that has been brought.
    Recently utilities in my State have announced--and in my 
district--that they will be closing some of our coal power 
plants even faster than initially planned. While I support 
cleaning up our environment and diversifying our power supply, 
we need to ensure that it is done intelligently, that it does 
not come at the expense of reliability, cost, or jobs. And did 
I say reliability?
    In some areas the coal plants are being replaced by clean 
natural gas, which has cleaned up the world, or at least 
cleaned up our country, and could clean up the world if we 
allowed it to take place and pushed it. In others, wind and 
solar will take up the mantle. This summer there were already 
capacity shortfall concerns in the region. I don't know if you 
have ever been to Michigan in January, but I worry that solar 
and wind just won't cut it.
    Mr. McNally, companies seem to be in a race to transition 
to green energy. Meanwhile, demands for energy is growing, 
especially with the Biden administration's push for EV adoption 
and electrification. And I am not sure these companies even 
believe in this race, but they lack the courage to stand up to 
the--I guess my issue--the green religion.
    How is this transition impacting reliability across the 
country? And should we expect concerns about the brownouts and 
blackouts to grow?
    Mr. McNally. Thank you, Congressman.
    May I suggest there is an absence of just core knowledge. 
If you think from Moses until Harriet Tubman, five millennia, 
the fastest a human being could travel on land was a horse. And 
the reason we transitioned from horses to cars and planes was 
not a PCORS policy. It wasn't central planning. It was a human 
innovation to solve kind of cravings we had. Actually, 
illumination is where oil started.
    And so we have to be very wary when we try to think that 
government central planning can effectuate a rapid and quick 
energy transition. The truth is energy transitions happen very 
rarely, very slowly, and due to innovation and so forth. And we 
see government get involved, you have unintended consequences.
    The earliest version of the corporate average fuel economy 
programs, the National Academy of Sciences determined about 20 
years ago it was inadvertently killing people by forcing 
automakers to downsize and downward deplete. We had an 
inadvertent, kind of a human cost. We were trading blood for 
oil out of a well-intentioned policy to conserve oil.
    So my recommendation, sir, would be that everyone--all of 
us, me included--study the oil history and energy history, have 
humility, learn the facts, learn about energy transitions, and 
be very careful when calling for sweeping government 
intervention in energy markets that sustain our quality of 
life.
    Mr. Wahlberg. ``I am from the Government. I am here to help 
you,'' right?
    Fermi and Cook nuclear plants are in my district, one on 
Lake Michigan, one on Lake Erie. The last nuclear reactor we 
built in the U.S. came on line in 2016, and it took 40 years to 
get it from conception to operation. Meanwhile, China is now 
the world's fastest expanding nuclear power producer. We need 
to reevaluate our country's approach to this technology.
    Mr. Dabbar, the cost and timeline to jump through all of 
the regulatory hoops seems to discourage investment in new 
traditional nuclear reactors. I get that. How can small modular 
reactors reshape U.S. investment in nuclear power, or can they?
    Mr. Dabbar. So, Congressman, in theory, small nuclear SMRs 
are similar to the Navy reactors. I ran a Navy reactor. They 
are built on time and on budget. It is much more likely that, 
if something is contained, can be produced in a central 
factory, it is going to be on time and on budget.
    That is not good enough. I ran the environmental program at 
DOE. I ran a very large nuclear business. It was not on time 
and on budget for a long time. When we left, it was back on 
time and on budget. People didn't believe that could happen.
    And so part of it is good technology, but part of it is 
culture, transparency, and running projects well. And that is 
a--I am going to do a forum on that at Columbia on how to make 
certain we are able to do that in nuclear going forward.
    Mr. Wahlberg. I wish you good success.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman.
    Members are advised votes are going to be called about 
1:30. We will try to get to two more, one on each side.
    Mr. Cardenas from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I grew up with freeways and power plants surrounding my 
community. As a child I remember not being able to go outside 
and play because of smog alerts. That was normal for us back 
then. It has improved because of government responsibility, 
both State, local, Federal, et cetera. That is the responsible 
way that government should be involved in trying to manage what 
is good for the American people, not just consider it to be a 
laissez-faire, let the markets take care of it themselves.
    By the way, the oil industry in America is very subsidized, 
so it is not necessarily a free market system, hasn't been for 
a long time and isn't today.
    Since I was a kid, science has shown that realities of 
climate change have worsened. The fact is that communities like 
mine have felt the brunt of climate change intimately because 
we have been on the frontlines unjustly paying the price for 
the--and also for the power plants on all sides of my--excuse 
me--on my side of town, but not on the other side of town, 
while certain companies and oil companies get richer.
    Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are beholden to the 
special interests of the fossil fuel industry and continue to 
fight for the expansion of oil, gas, and coal. Expanding our 
Nation's dependency on fossil fuels doesn't strengthen our 
economy or national security or our response to climate change. 
It hurts our economy and burdens the American people unjustly.
    Democrats understand that, when we don't prioritize our 
climate and health, it hurts the American people and leads to 
higher prices in energy, at the gas pump. It makes our national 
situation vulnerable to our adversaries and, once more, it has 
devastating long-term effects.
    That is why both the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the 
Inflation Reduction Act included critical investments in clean 
energy infrastructure and grid resilience.
    In your testimony, Dr. Cohen, you referred to the IPCC's 
sixth assessment report being a Code Red for humanity. And I 
note that the damages that stem from the climate crisis will 
disproportionately harm disadvantaged communities.
    Can you elaborate on why it is necessary to prioritize 
equity and justice if we truly want to void the worst 
devastation?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
    And, you know, I think it goes back to your childhood 
experience. Until we had government standards and safeguards 
for public health, you know, communities like you, kids like 
you were growing up, you know, surrounded by smog and other 
things.
    Mr. McNally made a point about horsepower, and I think it 
would just be important for this committee to remember that the 
U.S. automobile industry was still using whale oil as a 
lubricant until we banned the import of it in 1971.
    So there are important reasons for the Government to 
intervene, and equity and addressing environmental injustice is 
a criminal one right now. We spent a lot of time on the select 
committee thinking and recommending we integrate that. I think 
we are in a place where we have turned that corner, and every 
climate and energy bill really needs to have that environmental 
justice and equity lens.
    The Biden administration is moving forward on that with 
their Justice40, and I think, you know, Congress needs to 
continue to support those type of programs.
    Mr. Cardenas. When was the EPA created? Wasn't it early 
1970s?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. It was, yes, in the 1970s. Yes.
    Mr. Cardenas. And has the EPA been a good impact on 
improvement of our environment in our country, or is it 
something that maybe should have never come about?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. I think the EPA and its mission to protect 
public health and welfare has been incredibly critical to our 
economic development. We have seen the U.S. have phenomenal 
economic growth since the 1970s, as well as cuts in air and 
water pollution. We need to do more as we learn more, but we 
can absolutely protect every American's health even while we 
grow our economy.
    Mr. Cardenas. One of my colleagues talked about foreign 
attacks, but yet at the same time, I think they called it the 
Freeze that happened in Texas. And that turned out to be not 
only deadly but also, beyond that, long-term shocking for 
families that were paying hundreds of dollars a month for their 
energy bills and then found themselves at $5,000 and $10,000 or 
more in energy bills.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Yes.
    Mr. Cardenas. Was that an attack from another country, or 
was that Mother Nature?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. That was extreme cold and the natural gas 
industry in Texas not being prepared for it.
    Mr. Cardenas. Or not being regulated very well either?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. I think they could do better, speaking as 
a native Texan.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you to the gentleman.
    The Chair will now go to the Peach State, even though we 
grow more peaches than you do in my district, Mr. Carter from 
Georgia, 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to take this opportunity to begin with to 
congratulate the Chairwoman, and I am excited about what is 
ahead for us on this committee in the next 2 years, in this 
session, and I want to congratulate her.
    I also want to congratulate her on the choice for the first 
full hearing that we have. What better bipartisan subject could 
we have than American energy? And I think, you know, we all 
agree that we want America to be a positive energy leader in 
the world. So kudos on choosing this, and it is extremely 
important.
    Mr. Dabbar, you mentioned the fact that we want to return 
to American energy dominance and that it is very important. And 
this would require allowing America to unleash all of our 
energy potential, and we are certainly not doing that at this 
point.
    When we talk about energy security globally, we have got to 
be talking about reliability. It is paramount. We understand 
that. And I think that is probably why we haven't heard more 
about global power relying on solar or wind, because they are 
just not reliable at this point. But nuclear is, because it is 
baseload. It is 24/7. It is clean. It is everything we want.
    And, you know, it is exciting to think about the future as 
far as the innovations go, the advancements that we have seen 
in fusion, permitting SMRs. We just talked about SMRs. I am 
excited about that, and I think people should be excited about 
it.
    But let me ask you this: In the context of global energy 
security, when we are talking about global energy security, how 
important is it for us to have a domestic--a robust domestic 
nuclear energy to compete with adversaries like China and 
Russia around the world?
    Mr. Dabbar. So our energy costs have been the lowest, 
amongst the lowest in the world, including in electricity. That 
is a great sucking sound of industry, and we are seeing the 
opposite of that in Germany at the moment, right: high-risk 
energy policies, high prices. Their industry is moving out, and 
it is great. They are moving to America. It is actually a big 
strength of what we have as a result of all of that.
    And so that is--energy security drives the economy, drives 
us as a nation. It is also about us in the world. Once again, I 
am making reference to all the veterans here. We fought a lot 
of wars. A lot of wars were around energy. The whole Kuwait War 
was, frankly, about them invading and about energy.
    And our ability--and with all due respect, when we move 
from 4.8 million barrels a day of crude oil to 12.9, we came 
off--if you just look at the numbers, we came off of energy 
risk from OPEC. That is just numbers. We imported less from 
OPEC. We are less exposed to OPEC. And the energy prices were 
set in the Permian Basin for the world, and that is actually 
something driving innovation, driving costs down. That allowed 
us to have flexibility that is incredible.
    Mr. Carter. Good. And thank you for that.
    And I read with interest your--the article that you 
coauthored in The Hill about what is at risk due to Russia's 
nuclear power dominance. And, you know, it was interesting. It 
was also alarming, alarming that, you know, we have got to 
address this with our allies, and it is something we have got 
to work together with our allies.
    You also mentioned about Europe just then. I had the 
opportunity to go to Europe with the Conservative Climate 
Caucus, and what we witnessed there is a situation where they 
have allowed their policies to get ahead of their innovation. 
They are shutting down nuclear plants and relying on wind and 
solar when they are not ready for it yet, when--we all want to 
go to renewables. We all want to do that, but we have got to do 
it in such a way that we don't allow our policies to get ahead 
of our innovation, and that is exactly what they have done.
    But, again, the points that you bring up in this article 
that you coauthored, I am--they are alarming, and I appreciate 
you bringing it too.
    I want to go quickly to Ms. Jackson.
    Ms. Jackson, you bring up some great points, and I had the 
opportunity to read an article that you wrote as well about the 
minority exploitation game called environmental justice. And 
you mentioned in there about Ford Motor Company and about how 
they have $60 billion for--in the IRA, there was $60 billion 
for environmental justice programs about the size of Ford 
Motors who employs over 200,000 people.
    You know, all of this money that we put into the IRA--or 
was put into the IRA--I am not saying we, but was put in the 
IRA, it could have been used for better ways. Can you give us 
an example?
    Ms. Jackson. Yes, absolutely. You know. The biggest 
injustice of environmental justice is poverty and the fact that 
we are using environmental justice money to--that is going to 
lobbyists and never going into the community to create economic 
stability. It is not creating any business districts, not 
industrial parks, nothing that is going to improve the lives of 
those individuals.
    That money was equivalent to 2,000--the Tulsa Black Wall 
Streets, we could have built 2,000 Black Wall Streets for the 
equivalent of that environmental justice money. In other words, 
we wouldn't be having a conversation about poverty right now 
because all of our Black communities would be thriving. But, 
instead, we are going to get a few retrofits, a few windows, 
and nothing is going to change about the economic condition.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. Thank you for that.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
    I apologize for the Members and the witnesses, but votes 
have been called on the floor, so we are going to recess until 
10 minutes after the close of the second vote. There are two 
votes. The witnesses can take care of business, and we will be 
back 10 minutes after the close of the second vote.
    And the committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Duncan. All right. The subcommittee will come back to 
order.
    In the order of things, Dr. Ruiz is next from California, 5 
minutes.
    Dr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to focus today on the question of reliability. As an 
emergency medicine physician, I know how important reliable 
electricity is for powering critical medical equipment and 
preventing lifesaving medicine from spoiling. And one of the 
best ways to increase reliability, expand our Nation's power 
grid, and move towards a carbon-free energy system is to 
dramatically increase the battery storage capacity on our 
Nation's grids.
    Lithium batteries are a critical component of electrical 
vehicles, but they are also an obvious solution to securing our 
clean energy future, while also providing the grid reliability 
that we need. In fact, batteries are already being used to 
increase reliability on the power grid.
    In my district, California's 25th District, the Crimson 
Energy Storage in Blythe is currently the second largest energy 
storage project in the world, constructed by union labor, 
including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 
I believe also the Teamsters, powering vital medical equipment, 
electric vehicles, and so much more.
    Our country needs more batteries and more batteries storage 
projects like this. Batteries need lithium, and lithium is 
found at the Salton Sea in Imperial Valley, California. In my 
district the Salton Sea has a massive supply of raw materials 
that can power a clean energy future. The Salton Sea has the 
fifth largest deposit of lithium in the world, and it has the 
potential to supply the lithium needed not only for electric 
vehicles but also the batteries that can make our electric 
grids resilient.
    Lithium Valley, as we like to call it back home, is the key 
to unlock our clean energy future, cement the U.S.'s 
leadership, secure our energy independence, strengthen our 
battery supply chain, and protect our national security.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen, in your testimony you mention that China 
has a head start on the rest of the world in clean energy. I am 
sure you know that the head start includes both the chemical 
supply of lithium and the manufacturing of lithium batteries. 
In fact, according to the World Economic Forum, the United 
States is eighth in lithium production in the world, and China 
has 60 percent of the lithium refining capacity in the world.
    Can you talk about the effects of the United States lagging 
in producing a lithium supply and in manufacturing batteries?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Thank you for the question, Dr. Ruiz.
    And let me just underscore the importance of reliability 
first and say, you know, wind and solar availability is 
predictable. And so when you couple that with battery 
resources, we start to have a full spectrum 24/7, our 
opportunity to provide electricity to the grid from renewables.
    To do that, you are right, we need more lithium. And I 
know, you know, there are projects in Salton Sea and around the 
country that are, you know, getting their permits, moving 
forward, getting investments. And I think, you know, the 
investments that we see in the Infrastructure Act and in the 
Inflation Reduction Act are going to drive that further.
    The additional good news when it comes to the grid is we 
actually can take--when an EV has used their batteries and they 
are no longer great for that, you can put them in ways and use 
them on the grid.
    Dr. Ruiz. Yes.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. So there is a lot of energy that----
    Dr. Ruiz. So in terms of China--us importing the majority 
of batteries, et cetera, lithium from other countries, we all 
know too well that it is dangerous when our Nation is dependent 
on foreign supply chains, because if a foreign country decides 
to block exports or favor its own domestic companies for 
whatever geopolitical reasons, our clean energy revolution is 
stopped dead in its track.
    That means we need strong domestic supply chains that start 
in communities like in the Imperial Valley. That means making 
sure companies don't simply come in, extract community 
resources, and turn it into batteries elsewhere. And that means 
that those jobs are filled by local workers, and those benefits 
come home to our communities.
    All of this is more important than ever to ensure that the 
benefits of this lithium goes back to the Salton Sea, which 
could become a worse environmental disaster with reduced waters 
flowing from the Colorado River and the exposed playa putting 
fine particular dust in the air that can affect people's lungs, 
blood, et cetera.
    So the Inflation Reduction Act will help us build a strong 
supply chain for a clean energy future here at home.
    In what ways do you expect recently passed legislation like 
the IRA to strengthen our domestic supply chains and encourage 
domestic manufacturing of batteries in the U.S.?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. I think we are already seeing the results 
of that. I mean, of that $90 billion in investment that I 
mentioned in my testimony, a lot of that is electric vehicles. 
I think we just had one today that maybe I didn't get to 
incorporate. So almost every day there is a new announcement.
    Mr. Duncan. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    I want to thank the panelists for being here. It has been 
very informative.
    I approach energy in two broad categories: transportation 
fuels, which is fossil fuels and electricity for EVs, and then 
baseload power generation. And in baseload power generation, 
you have nuclear power, which can't be ramped up and ramped 
down very quickly or easily, so it remains constant.
    And then you have renewables as part of that energy metrics 
as they mix everything for transmission. Renewables come on 
line when the sun comes up or the wind is blowing. It could be 
a climatic event that makes solar go offline or they can see it 
starting to climb, or it might be the sun setting.
    And so when that happens, they have got to fill the gap to 
make sure that the baseload power is constant for our 
consumers. That is our constituents' homes, that is 
manufacturing, that is municipalities.
    And so what works in that gap-filling area is called hydro, 
if it is available, and natural gas. And so we have got to make 
sure that natural gas is a big part of that. And what I hear 
from a lot of my utilities is that we have a pipeline issue in 
this country, that our pipelines are about at capacity for the 
amount of gas that is drawn off of it. And if we don't meet 
that future demand, the gas isn't going to be available.
    So I wish the infrastructure bill would have included more 
gas pipeline permitting and projects, but unfortunately it 
didn't. It focused a lot on EVs and charging stations and all 
that.
    And look, as Mr. Dabbar said, I like wind and solar. I 
think it is groovy, and it ought to be part of the matrix, 
absolutely. But I also know about what works to provide that 
baseload power that our manufacturers need: always on, always 
ready, always available 24/7, 365 baseload of power.
    And right at Christmas Eve in South Carolina, even we just 
about had a Texas event because of some of those situations 
where wind and solar wasn't possible. Coal-fired power plants 
take 3 days to crank up to thermal capacity to meet energy 
needs. Natural gas is 30 minutes. So it has got to be a big 
part of that.
    Pipelines is the new word from ``The Graduate.'' It was 
plastics in the movie ``The Graduate.'' It is pipelines today.
    So I want to focus on nuclear. Nuclear energy must be a 
part of our energy matrix moving forward. Unfortunately, other 
countries are outpacing us. Adversaries like Russia and China 
have continued to develop and invest in their nuclear 
industries. In just the past few years, China has brought 21 
reactors online--many of them are advanced reactor designs--and 
31 plants are under construction.
    In this country we have got to focus on advanced nuclear or 
small modular reactors, thorium reactors, things that work, 
things that could be walkaway safe.
    Unfortunately, lack of development in U.S. industry is in 
large part due to regulatory and licensing structure that 
disincentivizes private-sector investment. I have got a piece 
of legislation we filed last Congress we hope to reintroduce, 
if we haven't already, that expedite the permitting process for 
nuclear power plants. If you have got a proven design that 
works, we can replicate that, do the geology, make sure that 
there ares no things there with the earth and earthquakes and 
other things, that it can be sited there, the water source 
there for cooling, but replicate that in an expedited 
permitting process. Let's gets nuclear power online as we 
continue to look at SMRs and other advanced nuclear reactors.
    I was glad to see an article this week that the first SMR 
was actually permitted to come on line and start producing 
energy as a test case. Once we see that it works--heck, it has 
worked in the United States Navy for, what, 50, 60, 70 years--
it works. Modular reactors work.
    So those are some of the things that I believe in.
    Mr. Dabbar, we, of course, don't have a government-
controlled energy sector. We need to incentivize private-sector 
investment. What are some of the high-level suggestions to 
modernize the nuclear regulations of this country to invite 
innovation, to invite growth, to encourage exports of nuclear 
technology and lead, once again, this globe in nuclear energy?
    Mr. Dabbar. So, as you pointed out, Congressman, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission is extremely conservative, as you 
know. You interview regulators all the time. Over the course of 
time, they get more and more conservative because they don't 
want anything overturned in the courts. And as a result, it is 
drug out, you know, tremendously as a result of that kind of 
increased view of, like, let's review it 10 times to Sunday.
    So I think any sort of, you know, legislation that might 
allow them to facilitate that, to make it--to get them focused, 
I think that is important, because that's where we have ended 
up.
    The other thing that I think we should look at doing is 
taking a look at some of the Federal power entities like WAPA, 
like Bonneville, and so on, and take a look at them willing to 
contract as like a first customer for some of these new 
reactors. So I think any authorization for DOE or TVA or others 
to be a first customer of those plants, I think that will 
provide a big jolt for the industry.
    Mr. Duncan. Yes, that is spot on. This committee will have 
an RCN to talk about those things, ask some of these same 
questions, also look at closing the fuel cycle and possibly 
recycling of spent fuel at commercial reactors, because there 
is a uranium concern and a fuel concern.
    So my time has expired, so I will now go to Mr. Peters from 
California.
    Mr. Dabbar. Congressman, 5 seconds.
    Mr. Duncan. Five seconds.
    Mr. Dabbar. The Savannah River National Lab proposed to me 
a recycling plant when I was Under Secretary, and I think you 
should be talking to them about their idea, because it is 
exactly what you just said.
    Mr. Duncan. We are. And there are great sites like Hanford, 
Idaho Flats, and others across the country that can play a part 
in that.
    Mr. Peters from California is recognized for 5.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Our path to true energy security is not to double down in 
oil and gas. The oil embargo in the 1970s, the Gulf War in the 
1990s, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the 2008 financial crisis, 
COVID, Putin's war on Ukraine all contributed to a roller 
coaster of harmful oil price volatility under both Republican 
and Democratic Presidential leadership. It is essentially what 
Mr. McNally testified to.
    And despite the pain of these price fluctuations, 
Republicans continue to propose the same false solution--more 
oil and gas--and that will only lead to more price uncertainty 
and pain as we have seen at the gas pump recently and as San 
Diegoans are seeing on their natural gas bills today.
    The solution long term is clean innovative energy 
technologies, which are becoming cheaper than fossil fuels and 
produce energy domestically without reliance on foreign 
adversaries. It is not radical. It is smart. Even Texas takes 
40 percent of its power from noncarbon sources, and it is not 
because Texas is against oil and gas. It is because it is the 
sensible thing to do.
    I am proud that we provided significant funding in the 
117th Congress to build this clean and more secure energy 
future, but I want to talk today about the 118th Congress. 
Something that we haven't talked about much today is speed, 
because we can have all the money in the world, but we will 
still fail if we don't act faster.
    Look at high-voltage electric transmission lines. According 
to research from Princeton, 80 percent of the projected 
emissions reductions from the Inflation Reduction Act depend on 
building transmission faster.
    Berkeley Lab found that there are currently enough wind, 
solar, and storage projects in the pipeline to power nearly 85 
percent of our economy, but 80 percent of those projects could 
be canceled due to insufficient transmission.
    According to Jesse Jenkins at Princeton, the current power 
grid took 150 years to build. To get to net-zero emissions by 
2050, we have to triple in size in the next 30 years. That 
means 200,000 miles of new transmission lines by the 2030s, 
200,000. Over the last decade, we have built just 1,800 miles 
per year because each one takes more than 10 years to 
complete--and 7 of those 10 years, seven of those 10 years--are 
just for planning and permitting.
    Other countries are doing it just fine. According to the 
Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, North America has built just 
7 gigawatts interregional transmission. Less than half of that 
is the U.S. So let's say we are about 3 or 4. South America is 
22, Europe is 44, China is 260.
    In the 1970s, our environmental priority was to stop dirty, 
destructive projects. The National Environmental Policy Act, or 
NEPA, was designed to require public input and to ensure 
Federal agencies assess the environmental impacts of proposed 
Federal projects and their alternatives before they made 
decisions. And we have NEPA to thank for a great deal of 
environmental presentation, but its implementation is 
inevitably slow, with documents that are thousands of pages 
long, reviews that take more than up to 4 years to complete, 
and NEPA is also the most litigated environmental statute, with 
lawsuits dragging on for more than a decade.
    And the simple threat of litigation can prevent new 
projects, including the climate action projects I have named. 
We must build to beat our climate goals. Climate action is 
about building things, not stopping things. To save the planet, 
we must build transmission, utility-scale solar power, 
passenger rail, hydrogen pipelines, direct-air carbon capture, 
bike lanes, tons of in-fill housing. And, ironically, many of 
the laws intended 50 years ago to protect the environment could 
undermine our climate action.
    Some claim that NEPA isn't the problem or that it can't be 
touched. But as someone who has practiced law in this field, I 
must say I don't believe we can sustain project-by-project 
litigation on climate initiatives and still achieve climate 
action with the time and the money that we have.
    These excessive process requirements effectively inflict a 
punitive tax on clean energy. And fixing laws to serve the 
public good, that is our job. We can achieve high environmental 
standards with less time.
    NEPA was signed into law in 1970. One hundred sixty-five of 
our congressional colleagues were not even yet born. We are as 
far in time from 1970 as 1970 was from 1917. This is an old 
law, folks. We are charged to update it for our times, and that 
is OK, because it didn't come from Moses on tablets. It came 
from people just like us who had IBM Selectric typewriters.
    Excessive process is not the only climate challenge, but it 
is one undeniably. And those of us committed to climate action 
who say that it is the greatest threat we face, we are called 
on to rethink cumbersome requirements that are decelerating 
clean energy products.
    To unlock a future that doesn't depend on greenhouse gas 
energy, we have to update our environmental laws to make it 
easier, not harder, to build. I encourage all of us to engage 
in a constructive process with the White House, with the 
communities of interest to come up with a real bipartisan 
process to enact sensible permitting of forms, deliver energy 
security and environmental protection for the American people.
    I look forward to working with all of you on that, and I 
yield back.
    Mr. Johnson [presiding]. I thank the gentleman for yielding 
back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Palmer from the great State of 
Alabama for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to start off by talking about how these Green New 
Deal policies impact people. Right now there are about 2 
billion people around the world who have little to no access to 
reliable energy. And it reminds me of a quote from Thomas 
Hobbes' book ``The Leviathan'' when he described life at that 
time as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
    Just to give you an idea of what having access to reliable 
energy means, the World Bank reported that since 1980, energy 
consumption has doubled. It was half what it is today in 1980, 
and extreme poverty was 4 times higher then than it is today.
    Life expectancy because of China's expansion of their 
energy grid--and, obviously, it is mostly coal-fired power 
plants, but their life expectancy has increased by 10 years. 
This is not just--I mean, I worked for two international 
engineering companies. You are going to hear me repeat that 
multiple times. I have a pretty good idea of what it takes to 
generate power. I worked in everything from refuse energy to 
aerospace, different projects. And I will just be honest with 
you--and it is not just my opinion. There was a report from the 
Electric Power and Research Institute that basically says that 
this study shows clean electricity plus direct electrification 
and efficiency are not sufficient themselves to choose net-zero 
economywide emissions.
    In other words, no amount of wind turbines, solar panels, 
hydropower, nuclear power, battery power, electrification of 
fossil technologies, any of that is going to get us to net zero 
by 2050. That is a Wall Street Journal article describing that 
policy--that research paper.
    Ms. Jackson, you and I have had this discussion before. I 
grew up dirt poor. My dad had an eighth-grade education. He 
built a house that I grew up in. He only finished what he could 
pay for. Unlike the Federal Government, he didn't spend more 
than he had. But we heated the house with a coal heater that 
sat in the kitchen, and in the wintertime we slept under about 
a foot of blankets that my mom and grandmother and great aunt 
quilted.
    What does it mean to people when they see their power bills 
going through the roof and they are having to make decisions on 
how much food they can afford to buy and still be able to 
adequately heat or cool their home?
    Ms. Jackson. You know, one of the things that we always 
advocate for, because I hear a lot of people talking about 
climate change policies, but I have never heard anybody talking 
about actually how many degrees it is going to save.
    If climate change policies are more harmful than what we 
are trying to save, then we shouldn't be enacting it. One of 
the things we advocate for is that you do an economic impact 
study on the lives of the people that it is going to affect, 
because the climate change policies right now are more harmful 
for low-income and minority families than the climate change--
than what climate change is supposed to be doing.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, we are hurting people.
    Ms. Jackson. We are hurting real people. I get calls every 
day from people that don't have my political lean, asking for 
help, Black people, NAACP people, Urban League people, saying, 
``We need help.'' They can't afford to pay these bills, but 
nobody is listening.
    Mr. Palmer. What gets me is, we keep hearing report after 
report from Europe, from United Kingdom, about the number of 
people dying as a result of excess winter deaths because they 
can't adequately heat their homes in the wintertime.
    We see that here as well. And people can't afford to heat 
their homes adequately and still afford their medicine. It 
really impacts people with respiratory disease, cardiovascular, 
that sort of thing, and it is almost like my colleagues across 
the aisle think this is collateral damage and it is acceptable 
to achieve what clearly they are not going to achieve by 2050.
    Ms. Jackson. Yes.
    Mr. Palmer. So, Mr. McNally, I want to ask you, I want to 
pivot now, China is building coal-fired plants all over the 
world. There was a report came out last year, last fall, that 
they had built 14 coal-fired plants. They are building out 
infrastructure around the world, developing allies, and yet we 
are going to make ourselves dependent on China for our energy 
production. Does that make any sense to you?
    Mr. McNally. Congressman Palmer, if there is one area, 
perhaps, of bipartisan agreement, I think we are all clear-
eyed--or hopefully are--that China views energy and the 
transition and dominance of both the power and the 
transportation aspects of energy as a way to replace the United 
States as the world's preeminent power. It is a militarized, 
superpower strategy, and we ought to see it as such and build 
our own clean energy here.
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, that time went by quick, but my 
time is expired, so I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from New 
Hampshire, Ms. Kuster, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Pallone, and our Energy and Environment subcommittee leaders 
for holding this important hearing. I want to start by taking a 
quick moment to congratulate Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers 
on making history as the first woman to chair this great 
committee.
    While we may represent districts on opposite sides of the 
country, our constituents rely on similar energy resources, 
including hydropower, and that is why I look forward to working 
with all of you to unlock the full potential of hydropower to 
provide affordable, reliable, and clean energy to communities 
from the Pacific Northwest to the Northeast.
    It is important today to remind ourselves that Democrats 
and Republicans share many of the same values when it comes to 
our Nation's energy resources. We believe that all Americans 
should have access to low-cost, reliable energy that does not 
depend on foreign resources or foreign technologies.
    While we may have our policy disagreements, if we focus on 
these shared goals, I believe we can find enough common ground 
to deliver on.
    Last Congress, we passed historic legislation to invest in 
our country's clean energy future and put the U.S. back on 
track to lead the clean energy revolution.
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, IIJA, included 
approximately $800 million in investments in our Nation's dams, 
including to upgrade our electrical grid for hydropower energy.
    In his testimony, Mr. Dabbar spoke about the importance of 
FERC prioritizing baseload energy, and I agree: Hydropower is 
the baseload power that we need.
    With black start capabilities, and the potential for 
additional energy reserves through pumped hydropower storage 
technologies, hydropower can provide additional resilience to 
our energy grid.
    I wanted to ask you, Dr. Unruh Cohen, can you speak to the 
ability of clean energy resources and technologies such as 
hydropower and hydropower storage, to bolster the resilience of 
our grid as we transition to clean energy?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman, 
and hydropower has been an incredibly important power source 
for the history of our country. I mean, it was the first power 
source for our industrial work up in the New England and the 
Northeast. And it continues to be critical.
    And I think the important thing to consider for this 
committee, and especially looking at the investments that we 
have made in dams over the past few Congresses, is the water 
cycle is very sensitive to climatic change, and so that is--we 
are going to see challenges to hydropower.
    Unfortunately, our friends in the West are really seeing 
that challenge now with the Colorado River level, but it 
impacts in the Northeast too.
    And so, in order to continue to provide that incredibly 
important clean energy from hydropower and from pump storage, 
we really need to look at the investments and make sure we are 
maximizing the clean power that we are getting from our dams 
around the country.
    Ms. Kuster. Yes. And I just would add, this pumped hydro 
storage, I was out in Mr. Curtis' district in Utah and meeting 
with a company there that is interested in pumped hydro 
storage, and how that can help with baseload and with peak and 
how we manage that.
    So my time is limited, but I will just say it is important 
that this committee does not overlook the potential of our 
Nation's hydropower resources to deliver abundant, reliable, 
clean energy. It exists. We have 90,000 dams. Some of them can 
be retrofitted with turbines.
    So I remain committed to pursuing holistic and 
comprehensive policies to bolster our hydropower-generating 
capacity and to ensure our Nation's energy independence, and I 
hope that will be on a bipartisan basis with our committee.
    I stand ready and willing to work with each of my 
colleagues here today to make good on these promises for the 
American people, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlewoman yields back, and I thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Dr. 
Dunn for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I saw an interesting fact 
yesterday. The EIA projects a 50 percent increase in world 
energy use by 2050. The U.S. should be the global leader in 
innovative technologies to maximize efficient energy 
production, be at the forefront of filling that demand.
    Entrepreneurial spirit drives innovation, but overly 
proscriptive policies from the Biden White House are drowning 
American innovators with burdensome regulation. This puts our 
economy and our national security at risk, as Mr. McNally 
pointed out a few minutes ago.
    This is why I will be focusing on combating the 
administration's radical energy policies that destroy American 
leadership in the energy space.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues on policies 
that will unleash American innovation and return America to the 
forefront of energy production and unlock resources for future 
generations.
    I have to pause for a moment to say, Ms. Jackson, it is 
great to see you again. We have talked a lot just recently. I 
hope to see you in Tallahassee before too long, or your team at 
least.
    But a first question, Mr. McNally, I am going to give you 
this question, and Mr. Dabbar, I would like you to answer after 
him.
    American innovation is driven first and foremost by ideas. 
Those innovative ideas then must be supported by efficient 
allocation of capital investment. This administration's 
policies and the private-sector ESG ideology are stymieing 
rational capital investments in the energy sector, specifically 
oil and gas but also in renewables and in the nuclear field.
    Capital allocators direct their investments to renewable 
technologies because they are supported by favorable government 
subsidies. Mr. McNally, do you feel that the current 
administration's policies and the ESG investing are obstacles 
to American innovation and development in energy?
    Mr. McNally. I do. I think that the administration is 
signaling that it doesn't want to see capital flow into oil and 
gas production at a time, as I mentioned earlier, when we are 
in the foothills of what I believe will be a multiyear boon 
cycle where we are going to want every drop we can.
    They are doing that on based on the idea that we need to 
enforce disclosure, or raise the cost of capital based on 
carbon and climate change and so forth. As I stated in some of 
the papers I will be submitting with my testimony, we need a 
sound and serious climate policy starting with depoliticized 
science, cost-benefit analyses, legislation, not regulatory 
rules and courts.
    Well, we should do that first, and then, if as a result of 
that, we need to start telling capital where to go and where to 
deploy, maybe we consider it down the road. But that is----
    Mr. Dunn. You got to be careful. You cautioned us on that 
earlier, be careful how you ready-shoot-aim, right, thing.
    Mr. Dabbar?
    Mr. Dabbar. Dr. Dunn, I have always had a view that the 
best place for Federal investment is in discovery and new 
innovation that is too far away from cash flow for the venture 
capital community and the corporate community to invest.
    The private sector, luckily, in this country is still 
vastly larger than the Federal Government, and the amount of 
capital is widely available for things that can be applied. And 
the better use for Federal money is where the private sector 
doesn't see anything quite yet to invest in, and therefore 
discovery, science, and innovation in new things is more 
efficient for the Federal spending.
    Mr. Dunn. OK. Very good. And on that subject, Mr. Dabbar, I 
am going to ask you to spend the rest of this time opining on 
what we can do to make America a global leader in the nuclear 
energy technology. And this is a pointed question because we 
have a large gathering of the nuclear industry this evening, so 
take it away.
    Mr. Dabbar. I think the advanced development reactor 
program that was passed here a few years ago has really 
triggered a lot. There is a lot of excitement within the 
industry right now, and I think that is moving along very well. 
So I think--I think Congress should be--has done a lot with 
that. I think----
    Mr. Dunn. Is there more we should do?
    Mr. Dabbar. I think that trying to find--that the U.S. 
system, trying to be maybe a first customer of some of that 
power, and once again, I said a little bit earlier, maybe TVA 
or WAPA or Bonneville should maybe look at being a first 
customer for some of the power coming off of those plants.
    Mr. Dunn. True. And we have talked about it, using DoD a 
number of times.
    Mr. Dabbar. Or DoD certainly.
    Mr. Dunn. Yes. So I like these ideas. Thank you all, all 
the panelists, for coming.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Delaware, Ms. 
Blunt Rochester, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Congratulations to all of the new Members and congratulations 
to Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers, and thank you to all of our 
witnesses.
    I have been proud to support and vote for the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, which made 
historic investments in our clean energy future.
    These investments not only help to expand domestic clean 
energy, they also help to diversify our renewable energy 
sources, which is a key to building a resilient and sustainable 
clean energy system.
    Before I start with my questions, I would also like to note 
that I was pleased to see in the testimony of Ms. Jackson and 
also hear from Dr. Unruh in her testimony a positive recitation 
about former Energy Subcommittee Bobby Rush's, his work on 
increasing diversity in the energy industry. This is really 
important to me.
    And while I was disappointed that we could not find 
bipartisan support and agreement in the last Congress, I really 
would love to see a compromise, and I am hopeful that in the 
118th Congress we will focus on workforce and jobs.
    As a former secretary of labor in Delaware and the former 
CEO of the Urban League in Delaware, this issue is an 
incredibly important one, and during this Congress I will 
continue to work on that issue, starting on creating programs 
within the Department of Energy to meet the workforce needs of 
the energy sector, and also to further train and get more 
people in the underrepresented communities into the energy 
workforce.
    It will lower the cost for those individuals that are in 
communities that are underrepresented and communities of color, 
and it will also increase opportunities and salaries. These are 
jobs that are good-paying jobs.
    I also want to address my questions mainly to you, Dr. 
Unruh Cohen. We have heard a lot today about energy production, 
but I also want to emphasize the importance of energy 
efficiency, again, back to the lowering costs.
    The global energy demand is only going to grow, and we need 
to focus on initiatives that optimize energy. Can you discuss 
the importance of energy efficiency when we think of things 
like national security, our economy, and also public health? 
Can you talk to us a little bit about the benefits?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that 
question. You know, the most important piece of energy is that 
what we don't use. So energy efficiency is actually our biggest 
energy resource if you look at our history since, you know, 
since the 1970s.
    And it--energy efficiency is crucial for taking the edge 
off of those bills, for making sure that households are not 
making those hard decisions about paying their medical bills 
versus their energy bills. It reduces the use of energies all 
over, and so, you know, where we have pollution concerns, that 
is going to lower that, and just the less energy we use, the 
less dependent we then may be on international providers of 
that energy.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. Transitioning to clean 
energy is not only necessary to protect human health and the 
environment, but it is also an enormous opportunity to create a 
more equitable economy.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit this report 
titled ``Improving Equity Outcomes for New Federal Investments 
in Clean Energy Infrastructure'' from the Bipartisan Policy 
Center into the record.
    Mr. Johnson. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Dr. Unruh Cohen, can you discuss how clean energy 
investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the 
Inflation Reduction Act will help build a more equitable 
economy?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Yes. In both of those bills and through 
the Biden administration's initiatives, you know, there is a 
huge focus on making sure that communities that are building 
out the clean energy, that those jobs are flowing there.
    Earlier, we were talking about the weatherization program, 
and one of the benefits there is not just to the people living 
in the house being more comfortable, but also the job training 
and getting, you know, skills--doing skilled training for those 
workers.
    I mentioned my mom benefited from that, and she loved 
talking to the young men who were there doing the work and 
learning about, you know, what--the skills they were building 
up in their hopes for the jobs that they would have in the 
future.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the 
time. I just want to add that I think this is an area where I 
have seen young people, older people, people of color, 
different communities come together and recognize that we have 
got a lot of opportunity here, and so I hope as a committee we 
take up this opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Curtis, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a delight to be 
here. A little warning to my staff: I am not delivering the 
remarks that we worked so hard to prepare, but rather my 
impressions of being here for several hours with all of you 
today.
    I couldn't help but think if an alien was listening to us 
today, they might conclude that those on my left hated fossil 
fuels and would stop at nothing to stomp them out. Likewise, 
they might surmise that those of us on the right want to go 
crazy with fossil fuels and do nothing else.
    To any alien friends that are listening, I have some good 
news and some bad news. First the good news. Despite the 
dialogue, there are many areas of agreement between those of us 
on the right and the left.
    Representative Peters has pointed out the need to deal with 
NEPA reform and permitting reform. Representative Ruiz has 
pointed out the rich natural resources--I have heard him talk 
many times--in his district that we will desperately need.
    Representative Duncan has addressed nuclear. Many of us 
agree that nuclear is part of our future and that we can't have 
a reliable, affordable, clean future without it.
    We all like emerging technologies like hydrogen fusion and 
better battery storage. We all agree, actually, that wind and 
solar are important. We may not agree on the mix, but we all 
agree that they are important. We all agree we don't want to 
lose to China.
    And, Ms. Cohen, we all agree energy efficiency is 
important.
    And, Ms. Jackson, I don't know anybody that would listen to 
you and would disagree that we have to take into account those 
who are least able to afford this.
    And rather than ask you all, I will just take your nodding 
heads in agreement that we are on the same page. This was a 
list quickly put together by me. I am sure there is much more.
    But now the bad news. We spend too much of our time in the 
areas where we disagree. And for those of us on the right, we 
feel there is too much misrepresentation of our position, and I 
have no doubt my friends on the left would feel the same way.
    I don't speak for either group, but let me say this: I 
don't know anyone in my circle--and I represent oil and gas and 
coal, I lead a group of almost 80 Republicans that talk about 
climate--I don't know anyone in my circle who doesn't want to 
leave a clean Earth better than we found it, who thinks it is 
OK to leave something for our grandchildren not as good as we 
found it. I don't know anyone who thinks that more pollution is 
better than less pollution.
    At the same time, those I hang around with think that it is 
wrong to demonize fossil fuels and those that produce them. As 
far as I know, all of us in this room are highly dependent on 
fossil fuels.
    I don't know any energy expert anywhere, right or left, who 
won't tell you that we will be using fossil fuels in the year 
2050.
    I think this is the problem: We too often mistake fossil 
fuels with emissions. We need to be clear. Do we hate fossil 
fuels, or do we hate emissions?
    I challenge my friends on the left to substitute their 
anger with fossil fuels with that of emissions, and then I ask 
this question: If fossil fuels can compete with other energy 
sources in cleanliness, why do we insist that they die? Why do 
we demonize the very people who have produced these for decades 
and decades? Why can't they be viewed as part of the solution 
and not the problem?
    On my side, we see hypocrisy like posing in an electric 
Hummer and bragging about it. The reality of it is, a gas Chevy 
Malibu produces as much greenhouse gas emissions, lifecycle, as 
an electric Chevy Hummer.
    We see hypocrisy of shutting down Federal lands. My 
district, seven of my counties are 90 percent federally owned, 
and yet the President then goes to other countries, in many 
cases our enemies, and asks them to produce more.
    To my colleagues who express they don't understand our 
approach, let me be clear: We believe we have been falsely told 
that we must sacrifice affordability, reliability, and national 
security so that we can be clean.
    I believe we can have it all. I believe we can be energy 
independent. I believe we can be reliable, affordable, and 
clean.
    Now, if we can get together and talk, I actually believe my 
colleagues on the left believe the same thing. And in the tiny 
30 seconds I have left, I don't know if any four of you want to 
weigh in on that.
    Ms. Cohen, you are the witness for the other side. Would 
you like to take my last 20 seconds?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. I will just add, Mr. Curtis, that in the 
select committee, across the aisle, we actually would often 
agree on the challenges that the country faced, and sometimes 
we agreed, as you said, on the opportunities to solve those. 
And other times, we had disagreements. And I encourage this 
committee to, as you said, focus on the things maybe you agree.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. Regrettably, I am out of time. I 
would love to have you all share your thoughts, but I yield my 
time.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Veasey from the State of Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and so glad 
that we are holding this important hearing today, particularly 
on energy security. I think that energy security, our 
environment, the air that we breathe is something that we can 
never, quite frankly, talk enough about.
    And one of the things that have really been worrying me 
lately is China. We know that China has been under very strict 
COVID lockdown. They are probably going to, quote/unquote, 
``reopen here'' sometime soon. And I was hoping that maybe Mr. 
McNally could tell me what he thinks China reopening is going 
to do as far as prices are concerned, what sort of upward surge 
in prices might that impose on the American public?
    Mr. McNally. Yes, sir. Congressman Veasey, thank you for 
the question. That is my bread and butter. So oil prices, or 
pump prices, have been in a tug of war between this Russian 
disruption risk, which makes them go up, and this macroeconomic 
weakness risk, which makes them go down.
    China was on the macro weakness side until the end of last 
year because, as you noted, they were in severe lockdowns, 
their demand was depressed, and very importantly, China is a 
big exporter of refined products like diesel and gasoline. That 
helped gasoline prices get to $5 a barrel.
    However, sir, to your question, as we come into this year, 
President Xi has decided to let COVID run rampant, burn 
through, so that by the second quarter we and most analysts 
think that China will be recovering back to its pre-COVID 
demand level. That means close to about 16 million barrels a 
day.
    The big chunk that has to come back is jet fuel if they let 
their citizens start to fly. So that would, all else equal, put 
upward pressure on prices. You have seen prices started to 
rise.
    Now we have to go back and look and see what happens with 
Russia because, like the boy who cried wolf, we didn't see the 
disruption last summer, but we might going forward.
    So China's return has sort of switched sides in the tug of 
war from being a downward price factor to being an upward price 
factor, sir.
    Mr. Veasey. Yes. And some reports are even saying that we 
could get to about 101 million barrels a day, which would be a 
record for the world.
    And so one of the things that I have heard a lot from my 
friends on the other side, on the majority side, is that we 
need to unleash all of this energy that we have, and, you know, 
I am proud to say that as a Texan, you know, we do a pretty 
good job of unleashing.
    Not only have we revolutionized things in the fracking 
area, but we have also been one of the world leaders when it 
comes to renewable energy. About 25 percent or so of ERCOT's 
grid is renewable energy. So I think that we are doing it right 
there.
    But when I hear about unleashing American energy and being 
energy independent, one area that continues to really hurt the 
U.S. Congress and we haven't been able to find any sort of 
compromise on is the issue of immigration.
    And if you talk to people in the Permian Basin and you talk 
to people that run the oil and gas companies, a lot of people 
don't realize this, but the permits that ranchers use, 
agriculture, the permits that hospitality use, those same 
immigration permits are not the ones that are needed for people 
to have temporary work visas in the oil and gas sector.
    And so, when you talk to people in the oil and gas field, 
you know, people that say, ``Hey, we need more swabbing units, 
we need more rigs,'' guess what? You ain't unleashing a thing 
unless you do something about immigration reform.
    And so, when you hear people talk about being able to 
unleash, you can't unleash anything if the dog don't have a 
handler. So, please, can you please tell me, how are we going 
to unleash all of this energy potential if the other side is 
not willing to work with us on immigration reform and will 
continue to use this as sort of a wedge between the American 
people and offer absolutely no sort of solution?
    Mr. McNally. Congressman, I will step around the land mine 
of immigration and the border and so forth and just concur, 
though, that when I hear the same thing from my clients 
drilling in your State and others, that its input costs are 
really high, and part of that is finding good people.We are 
scouring Sri Lanka now. All over the world they are trying to 
bring workers in, and steel tariffs have raised the cost of 
steel and casing and so forth.
    So there are real supply-side pressures that your 
constituents are dealing with, my clients are dealing with, and 
Congress ought to look across the board at how to alleviate 
those. But I am going to steer clear of immigration, sir, if 
you don't mind.
    Mr. Veasey. Yes. And before I get ready to turn back over 
my time, Mr. Chairman, I will just say that, if we really want 
to address this issue and we really want to unleash, we better 
do something about immigration reform because just saying 
``unleash'' and not addressing immigration reform means 
absolutely nothing.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona, Mrs. 
Lesko, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I am really excited 
to be on the Energy and Commerce Committee and on the Energy 
Subcommittee and talking about energy, because it is vital to 
every aspect of our lives.
    I represent the Phoenix, Arizona, area and its suburbs. And 
right outside of my district is the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant. 
It is the largest power producer in the Nation for almost the 
last 30 years.
    Recently last year, Palo Verde Nuclear Plant in Arizona was 
awarded funds from the Department of Energy to increase its 
flexibility by creating hydrogen when selling to the grid isn't 
economical.
    My question, Mr. Dabbar: What more needs to happen to 
increase the deployment of energy technology like hydrogen?
    Mr. Dabbar. So we awarded the money around increasing 
hydrogen production across the nuclear facilities. Hydrogen is 
a storage vehicle. So if you think about it, the comparison, 
you produce electricity and you can store it in chemical form, 
or you can store it in gaseous form, in hydrogen. Or you can do 
it in liquids, as I was talking about earlier. And so, hydrogen 
has a great opportunity for an additional storage.
    The other thing that is really exciting about hydrogen is 
that some industrial uses cannot really use electricity, OK? So 
the likelihood of electrifying certain industries is quite 
poor, right, around certain things like steel and concrete.
    So if you can take that electricity and put it into 
something that can produce a much higher heat rate for that 
manufacturing, it is going to create an opportunity for those 
industrial to, quote, electrify, but it is electrified via 
converting it to hydrogen.
    Mrs. Lesko. Exciting. That is the one thing I like about 
energy. A lot of new technology going on, exciting that I think 
can solve a lot of our energy needs in America.
    Mr. McNally, in your written and verbal testimony, you 
recommended the establishment of a national commission on 
energy transition realism, an expert nonpartisan commission of 
renowned energy experts to advise government officials and 
evaluate policy options for energy transmissions.
    I love it. I think it is common sense. Sounds like a great 
idea to me.
    The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change, the UNIPCC, in a report issued last year pointed out 
that collectively the G20 members are not on track to meet 
their goals under the Paris Climate Agreement.
    The UNIPCC also states in its latest assessment that global 
warming at the end of the century is estimated at 2.7 degrees 
Celsius, not even close to the Paris Climate Agreement of 1.5 
degrees.
    The Biden administration is spending trillions of dollars 
on solutions that are not working, according to the UNIPCC. 
Don't you think it is time the administration has an honest 
conversation on spending trillions of dollars on ideas that 
according to the UNIPCC aren't working?
    Mr. McNally. Thank you, Congressman Lesko. I certainly do. 
I see a sound and serious climate policy as having a 
foundation, like a house has a foundation, and the quality of 
the foundation will determine whether the house is safe to 
build in and live in and so forth.
    And the foundation ought to be depoliticized transmission 
of science to nonexperts like all of us. And the concern with 
the IPCC reports, actually, and the summary for policymakers, 
the SPM, is the folks who are decoding the complicated climate 
science and explaining it to all of us are government 
officials, and they don't have the rigorous peer review and 
requirements to be transparent like you do in actual climate 
science.
    So I would respectfully suggest that perhaps your side of 
the aisle--and make it very clear you embrace climate science. 
The problem is not climate science, it is how it is transmitted 
to the rest of us, because it is pretty complicated, in these 
IPCC reports.
    And let's have reforms to make sure it is honest, peer-
reviewed, and a good foundation upon which for us to debate 
sound policies to address the problem.
    Mrs. Lesko. Fantastic. And in the 13 seconds I have left, 
thank you for being here once again and telling us--and 
representing low-income communities and minority communities 
and speaking up. Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlewoman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Soto from Florida for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. There are a few elephants in 
the room worth mentioning. The Washington Post reports today, 
``Oil companies post record-smashing profits as gas prices 
creep up.'' Record-smashing profits.
    ExxonMobil: $55.7 billion in 2022, a record.
    Chevron: $36.5 billion, 2022, another record.
    Inflation, corporate greed, record profit, share buybacks--
something this committee needs to keep in mind as we are 
navigating this.
    Elephant number 2: Climate change demands our attention. 
Intensifying hurricanes, massive floods, prolonged droughts, 
rising seas, extreme heat, extreme cold. Climate is changing, 
and it takes more than just saying the word ``climate'' or 
delay, delay, delay, delay, delay to actually solve it.
    The Inflation Reduction Act is now law. This committee 
should join the President and the Senate in shepherding the 
fair implementation of this landmark law, pursuing diversifying 
our energy production with clean renewable energy.
    Number 3: exporting oil abroad. There used to be a ban on 
that, and now oil is being exported and Americans are paying 
high prices at the pump. This isn't an America-first policy. 
This is the exact opposite.
    If you want to kick-start American energy dominance, we 
should start by looking at the exports that just started just a 
few years ago.
    Under Secretary Dabbar, what do you think we should do 
about record oil profits at the expense of the American people?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Congressman, it is almost ironic that 
when--a few years ago, when we were the energy dominant side on 
the oil markets and the gas markets, that the oil and gas 
companies were actually making very low profits, and the 
biggest problems when that was going on, when we had so much 
production, was that they were--the prices had been dropped so 
much for the consumer.
    And it is a funny dialogue, right, so that when we have 
been supportive of export terminals and pipelines and so on, 
that actually the oil and gas companies make less money and 
consumers actually pay less money.
    But when we put lots of restrictions on them and there's 
lots of turmoil, prices go up and then emissions go up, right? 
Emissions are because of coal plants coming online, especially 
in Germany. So it is a funny dynamic around those different 
issues.
    Mr. Soto. Well, thanks. I appreciate you describing the 
issue, but it would be helpful for some solutions on it.
    Dr. Cohen, a key role for this committee is implementing 
the $369 billion in incentives to boost renewable energy, boost 
conservation. What are some of the things you think this 
committee can do to help with that fair implementation?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Thank you for the question. We have talked 
a lot about the importance of the grid, and both the 
infrastructure bill and the Inflation Reduction Act have 
important provisions to help improve the resilience of the grid 
and expand it. I think that is an area that this committee can 
give some really close attention to.
    In addition, there are a number of other--we have also 
talked about nuclear power, and both the Infrastructure Act and 
the Inflation Reduction Act provide ways to keep our current 
nuclear power--to support currently operating nuclear power 
plants that are safe to operate. I think taking a look at that 
will be important, so we keep that carbon-free emission coming.
    And then, as we talked about, just the deployment, making 
sure the deployment of wind, solar, the electric vehicle 
infrastructure is happening.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you so much, Dr. Cohen. I, like many on 
this committee, agree it should be an all-of-the-above solution 
and we should look at different sources of energy.
    I hope the mistakes of the past with the Affordable Care 
Act of trying to eliminate it for many, many years, only for it 
to continue to be the law of the land--over 3 million 
Floridians now get their care from there--that we learn from 
those mistakes when we look at the Inflation Reduction Act 
knowing that it is the law and will be the law for the 
foreseeable future. And rather than trying to undermine it, we 
should work together on maximizing it.
    And under the Inflation Reduction Act, we do have 
incentives for things like modular nuclear and carbon capture 
in there. So for colleagues who are talking about it as if it 
is all just renewable energy, that actually is false. There is 
a great opportunity for us to work together to pursue these in 
this committee, and I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlemen yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Crenshaw from Texas for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for hosting 
this hearing. Thank you all for being here. You know, we heard 
earlier that Republican priorities were misguided, and that was 
a little shocking because I think our priorities are guided 
quite well and are very clear, and they are this: Provide 
energy to the American people that fits three criteria: 
reliable, affordable, and clean.
    I don't think that is very controversial. Reliability is 
number one, of course, it has to be, because energy production 
is pointless if it isn't reliable. A society cannot function if 
it cannot keep the power on.
    Affordability is second. Americans need to be able to 
afford reliable energy without massive government subsidies so 
they can drive to work, heat their homes, and benefit from a 
thriving economy.
    Third, Republicans want our energy to be clean, and yes, we 
can have energy that is reliable, affordable, and clean. It is 
possible.
    Also worth noting that America's natural gas revolution is 
the single largest factor in reducing America's carbon 
emissions. Switching from coal to gas accounted for 61 percent 
of emission reductions in the U.S. since 2005.
    If we cared about global emission reduction, we might note 
that the U.S. natural gas is 42 percent cleaner than Russian 
natural gas, which is why Republicans advocate for more natural 
gas exports to displace foreign coal, which, by the way, 
accounts for about 50 percent of total global power emissions. 
Seems that would be some pretty low-hanging fruit if carbon 
emissions was actually the goal.
    Also worth noting that Republicans are by far the strongest 
supporters of nuclear energy, which is both reliable and 100 
percent clean. Maybe our colleagues would join us in fixing the 
outdated permitting process that makes a 4-year project last 
for 15 years.
    My Democrat colleagues mostly just want to talk about wind 
and solar, which isn't reliable and only affordable if you 
subsidize it. They say we can just build a bunch of batteries 
to deal with the intermittency problem of renewables. They say 
we can clear hundreds of square miles of land for solar and 
wind farms and pay China to mine and process all of our 
critical minerals so that we can pretend that we aren't 
actually responsible for the environmental devastation of 
Chinese mining practices and the enormous amount of emissions 
that result from processing it all.
    So my question to my colleagues is simple: If the goal is 
actually reducing global emissions, then will you work with us 
to improve our absurd environmental permitting regulations that 
are choking off our ability to not only build pipelines, but 
also build the solar and wind farms and battery backup systems 
that you claim to care so much about?
    I know some of them are, because my friend Scott Peters was 
just talking about it. And surely my colleagues would find it 
troubling that something like the Ten West Transmission Line, 
whose groundbreaking ceremony was attended by Vice President 
Harris last year, won't actually be online until 2025. The 
planning actually started in 2016, just for a simple 125-mile 
transmission line on public land. So that is nearly 10 years 
from start to finish, nearly 4 years of which was just to get 
the environmental impact statement approved.
    We put a man on the moon in less time than that. Now, does 
that seem like a healthy permitting and regulatory system to 
anyone? Surely not.
    It is not just transmission lines, it is critical minerals 
too. In Nevada we couldn't build a lithium mine because of some 
useless plant called Tiehm's buckwheat. I am not joking. You 
can look it up.
    In Oregon we can't mine for lithium because of a sage 
grouse, which is basically just a fancy version of a chicken.
    In Minnesota this administration halted the Twin Metals 
Project over vague environmental concerns. Now, this mine would 
have produced taconite iron ore, copper, nickel, cobalt, all of 
which are needed for any renewable energy project.
    My point is this: The false narrative that we can 
transition smoothly to a wind-and-solar-only future is not 
based on anything that resembles reality. It is a fantasy, and 
it is a dangerous one that will quickly take us down the failed 
energy scenario that we now see in Europe.
    Wind and solar certainly have their place, but when energy 
demand will increase by 50 percent over the next 50 years, 
intermittent renewables will never, ever, ever be enough, and 
it is time to let that fantasy go.
    So am I promoting oil and gas? Yes, yes, I am. In fact the 
quickest way to reduce global emissions would be to ensure that 
our cleaner natural gas is displacing foreign, coal-fired power 
plants. That single feat would have a larger impact on global 
emissions than any other solution offered.
    In fact, the industry thinks we could quadruple gas exports 
in the next 10 years, if we let them. If that gas displaced 
foreign coal, it would reduce emissions more than the combined 
impact of doubling our wind capacity, installing solar panels 
on every home, and electrifying every vehicle in the country.
    So you want solutions for reducing global emissions, build 
pipelines, build export terminals, lease the land for drilling, 
and send some special trade reps to countries like India and 
Indonesia to make a deal. That is a realistic solution, and it 
is actually doable.
    Reality has to guide our solutions for the future. We 
cannot sacrifice energy reliability for radicalism. We must be 
rational environmentalists, not radical environmentalists, and 
we have to remember that the prosperity of the American people 
depends upon reliable and affordable energy. And I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota, 
Ms. Craig, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    I am going to focus my attention here this afternoon on our 
Nation's biofuel sector and its role in strengthening economic, 
environmental, and national security, and I am actually going 
to ask you a question, so get ready.
    As many of my colleagues know, I have been a champion on 
the Energy and Commerce Committee for expanding and enhancing 
this vital segment of our economy. For example, I was the first 
Member of Congress to pass year-round E15 through the House in 
the Lower Food and Fuel Cost Act last Congress, and I am eager 
to work with Chair Rodgers to pass an E15 fix again this year.
    We should take up and pass the Consumer and Fuel Retailer 
Choice Act, which is bipartisan, bicameral legislation, that 
would allow the year-round nationwide sale of ethanol blends 
higher than 10 percent, helping to lower fuel prices and 
improve stability and certainty in the U.S. fuel market.
    This bill was supported by the largest unified group of 
farming, biofuels, and oil companies to date, and I look 
forward to reintroducing the proposal in this Congress again.
    E15 creates opportunities for our family farmers, supports 
economic growth in rural America, and lowers prices at the pump 
for Minnesotans. With this sentiment in mind, I want to direct 
a couple of questions to the panel for your thoughts and 
observations on biofuels policy and where we go from here.
    Mr. McNally, you recently spoke, I believe, at the National 
Ethanol Conference about the future of liquid fuels and told 
the group to keep the faith, because there is no evidence that 
consumers or governments are on course to decarbonize as 
rapidly as the consensus expects.
    In a minute or so, I am hoping you can talk more about 
those comments and why you predict American drivers will still 
be filling up with home-grown biofuels for many years to come. 
So why don't we go ahead and ask you to comment on that.
    Mr. McNally. I will have to talk very quickly, 
Congresswoman. Thank you very much for the question. The 
consensus has decided to believe that liquids fuel demand--so 
gasoline and ethanol, biofuels--is going to peak globally in 
about 10 years. This is a very controversial, in my view 
unjustified if perhaps attractive, vision.
    If you believe that, that means demand for biofuels and 
oil, because they go together, is going to plateau and go down. 
In my view, that consensus is wishful thinking, and that demand 
for energy is going to grow much stronger than that, including 
liquid fuels, which means there will be a bigger pie for 
gasoline and diesel, which biofuels complement.
    Ms. Craig. Thank you so much.
    And now, Dr. Cohen, the Select Committee on Climate Crisis 
recommended that Congress and specifically this committee 
develop a low-carbon fuel standard to build on the renewable 
fuel standard.
    I have been a cosponsor on the Next Generation Fuels Act, 
which would gradually ramp up the use of home-grown ethanol at 
gas stations across the country, making Americans less reliant 
on foreign oil and less vulnerable to the anticompetitive 
tactics of OPEC.
    I am wondering if you can speak a little more about the 
design of a low-carbon fuel standard and why the time is right 
to begin this important work here on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 
I actually was able to work on the 2007 energy bill where we 
did the renewable fuel standard, which is now in need of 
reauthorization. So the time is right for this committee to 
take a hard look at our biofuels policy.
    We recommended doing a low-carbon fuel standard. We have 
seen that work for transportation fuels, the agriculture 
community out in California. It would be a way to take the 
holistic view about our liquid fuels and provide that signal 
and that standard to move towards lower carbon fuels.
    I agree with Mr. McNally, we are going to be using liquid 
fuels. We invested in sustainable aviation fuels in the recent 
laws, and so we need to provide the signals to producers so 
that we are getting the type of transportation fuels we need to 
meet the climate pollution reduction goals that we know we need 
to achieve.
    Ms. Craig. Well, I would just like to end by saying thank 
you to all the panelists, I know it has been a long day for 
you. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the Environment, 
Manufacturing, and Critical Minerals Subcommittee, Dr. Joyce 
from Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all of the 
witnesses for being here today. Realize that Energy and 
Commerce, the first formal hearing that we are holding, is 
directed to energy and how that unleashing of American energy 
is so important.
    As we begin the 118th Congress, this hearing is the first 
chance for Energy and Commerce Republicans to begin tackling 
the issues that are facing all American people. It is great to 
be back together with my colleagues in one room to do the job 
that our constituents sent us to Washington to do.
    Our new Republican majority is ready to enact the 
commitment to America. A core piece of that plan is to ensure 
that our Nation has a robust and a reliable energy supply. 
Let's be clear--and you have heard us say it repeatedly--energy 
security is national security. Our physical and economic well-
being is tied to maintaining energy.
    Ms. Jackson, your words resonated with me. You messaged to 
us how important that energy sources at affordable prices are 
to all Americans and how the high cost of energy is certainly 
having more impact on lower socioeconomic Americans and how 
that impact affects each individual American every day of the 
week.
    American policymakers in front of you have recognized that 
reality, and it is why the Department of Energy was established 
in 1977, in order to decrease our reliance on foreign 
adversaries.
    After years of energy development under both Republican and 
Democrat Presidents, our Nation finally had achieved that goal. 
But under the last administration, energy had superceded that 
goal. We were an energy exporter. We were energy dominant--
energy dominant--supplying those necessary energy forms to our 
friends and to our allies.
    You know what, sadly, it is no longer true. The Biden 
administration has waged a war on American energy industry by 
creating restrictive and burdensome regulations that have left 
us less secure and more exposed to bad actors.
    It has focused on poor alternatives, like wind and solar, 
instead of baseload power capacity, has made our grid less 
reliable and less resilient. This becomes clear in my district 
in Pennsylvania when I heard from constituents that they were 
asked by their utility companies over the Christmas holidays to 
conserve energy or risk outages.
    I will tell you, it is shocking. It is shocking in the 
State of Pennsylvania, where we have strong energy portfolios--
we have coal, we have natural gas, we have nuclear, and they 
all play critical parts in the Commonwealth's electricity 
supply.
    Generations of Pennsylvanians have gone into coal mines to 
power America, and new drilling technology has enabled an 
explosion of natural gas production from the Marcellus Shale 
industry.
    It is unacceptable that in a State and in a nation as 
blessed as we are with natural resources for our citizens to be 
at risk of blackouts because of bad government policies.
    Now is the time to abandon these failed policies and 
unleash the reserves, the reserves that are under the feet of 
my constituents in Pennsylvania.
    With our new House majority, Republicans are ready to begin 
implementing policies that will allow new leases for oil and 
gas production, reform the permitting process for energy 
infrastructure, and prevent burdensome government regulation to 
reclaim American energy dominance.
    My first question is for you, Mr. Dabbar. Can you speak on 
how critical it is for grid reliability to have baseload power 
capacity, and how does the closing of coal and natural gas 
power plants in favor of renewables affect that grid 
resilience?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Congressman. Until, you know, relative 
recent past, during the last kind of 20 years, almost all the 
power plants in the country were dispatchable, whether it was 
hydro or gas or coal or nuclear. And the advent of wind and 
solar, which are great at emissions, has increased instability 
in the grid.
    Lithium-ion is great, but it is only good at the edges on 
the grid. It doesn't come close to having other peaking 
sources.
    Mr. Joyce. And how would--I am going to interrupt if I 
may--how would government policies forcing electric vehicle 
adoption further strain the grid?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Congressman. So, obviously, 
electrification overall, and EVs are certainly a big part of 
it, are adding more demand. And what we are seeing is that, on 
the supply side, more power plants are being shut down than are 
being built, and the ones that are getting built are less 
available.
    So that's increasing risks in our system and as a result is 
actually increasing prices. In New England the electricity 
prices were a hundred percent on the energy side above where it 
was a year ago.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I appreciate all of you being here, 
and I yield.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington, 
Ms. Schrier, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be 
back on this committee, and let me just also say that it is a 
special privilege to work with my fellow Member from Washington 
State, our new chairwoman of the committee.
    You know, I agree with my Republican colleagues here that 
high and volatile energy prices are a real problem. They are a 
problem for my constituents, who, by the way, are still paying 
in many areas over $4.50 a gallon for gas. Prices are coming 
down, but they are not down enough.
    My colleague, Mr. Soto, just talked about, he called it 
``record-smashing profits'' once again by the oil and gas 
industry, and so I would just like to continue to call out what 
sure feels like price gouging. And that is why last Congress we 
passed my bill, the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act, 
through the House, and I hope we will take that up again.
    I wanted to pivot to national security. I think Russia's 
war on Ukraine has really highlighted and refocused our 
attention on how tightly tied our energy independence is to our 
national security, as we are watching what is happening in 
Europe.
    National security is not just geopolitical, though. It is 
also security from the fire and the weather disasters that we 
are experiencing more and more frequently all across this 
country, and with that in mind, and also sort of conjuring up 
what Mr. Curtis said, like, I think we can all agree that we 
need to be bringing down emissions and we need to be 
transitioning away from fossil fuels toward cleaner sources of 
energy.
    And I would add, Mr. McNally, you mentioned that even with 
so much domestic production of gas and oil, we still have 
extreme price volatility. And so, there's many reasons--energy 
independence, where we need to transition, stability in energy 
prices, pollution prevention, climate action, national 
security. That all should make us want to redouble our efforts 
here to move away from 20th century energy sources to the 
energy sources of the future, and the U.S. needs to lead here, 
not China.
    We took tremendous action last Congress in really putting 
in incentives, economic incentives, to boost innovation here, 
hydrogen hubs, battery manufacturing. It really supercharged 
research.
    And by the way, I will also note that some of the things 
that were in that bill, Ms. Jackson, would help individual 
customers afford heat pumps and other innovations that will 
help with energy efficiency and to bring down those monthly 
bills.
    I also note it is because of clean hydropower that 
Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers and I pay some of the lowest 
electricity costs in the Nation.
    So I wanted to just ask, Dr. Cohen, in your testimony, back 
to national security, you noted that China leads the globe 
right now in clean energy investments. I think we all know that 
this is not because they are great environmentalists. They are 
doing it because that is where the future is, that is where the 
money is.
    Can you talk about why the United States needs to catch up, 
surpass, and lead in this area?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
    And just going back to your point on the consequences of 
the climate change, I mean, the western wildfires, they don't 
just stay in the West. Everybody, you know, has the health 
impacts that come from that, from the burning of those forests.
    But to your question about China, in 2022, you know, China 
invested about $546 billion in clean energy transmission, and 
the U.S. was a distant second at just $141 billion. That was 
pre--that doesn't count what we just passed, so we expect that 
to change very quickly.
    But as a number of people have mentioned, increasingly 
every country is looking for energy security, and so they are 
looking at what can they do domestically, which means they 
start looking at what can they produce from a renewable energy. 
And we--I quoted it, Congresswoman DeGette quoted it. BP's 
economist has said, you know, we are seeing that. And we have 
seen a huge change in Europe in the face of them realizing they 
can no longer rely on Russia for energy.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
    And that is why we need to be doing the innovation that 
this committee will do. We are at the crossroads right now 
where we can't depend on China for those resources. We need to 
do the mining, the recycling, and everything else that it will 
take to invest in ourselves here at home.
    Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mr. Curtis [presiding]. The gentlewoman yields.
    I recognize the gentleman, my colleague from North Dakota, 
Mr. Armstrong.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    We need to level set and be honest about the use of energy 
on the planet and its importance for economic growth and 
national security. Next year, regardless of any policies pushed 
by the Biden administration, the world will use more carbon 
energy than it did this year, and the year after that and the 
year after that.
    In the United States this administration has taken a whole-
of-government approach to dissuade development. But in Europe 
we are seeing a realignment accompanied by substantial long-
term investment in carbon energy as countries try to make up 
for Russian supply chains. The Norwegian Energy Ministry has 
proposed putting 92 new offshore oil and gas blocks on offer in 
its next licensing route. And Spain has laid the groundwork to 
become EU's national gas hub. They have the capacity to onboard 
it. They just need to move it. Germany is building an 
infrastructure to support up to 56 billion cubic meters of LNG 
import capacity, roughly the same amount imported by pipe from 
Russia in 2021.
    Given the right regulatory environment, these investments 
are for the long term. Despite past rhetoric, there is an 
awakening in Europe that energy security is essential to 
national security and economic growth.
    And there are lessons to be learned from Europe, and if we 
don't think the challenges there are relatable to the United 
States, we only have to look to the Northeast, where natural 
gas availability is threatened by an artificial supply crunch. 
Like Continental Europe, natural gas is shipped in from 
producing areas.
    However, unlike countries such as Spain and Germany, 
Northeastern States have yet to recognize the threat posed by 
unreliable access to energy, despite warnings from grid 
operators, industrial users, and utilities.
    At nearly every opportunity, the permitting and 
certification process for carbon energy infrastructure have 
been mired in legal and regulatory entanglements. And worse yet 
for my friends who support green energy, we have taught them 
how to stop those projects as well.
    You don't have to look any farther than the Northern Pass 
Pipeline, which is trying to bring hydropower from Montreal to 
Boston, and it cannot get built in any State on the Northeast 
corridor. Do you know who shut it down? Indigenous Tribes in 
Canada and the Sierra Club.
    From the defeat of the Constitution Pipeline to the 
cancellation of the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project, years 
of coordinated activists and environmental opposition have 
prevented the construction of 1,000 miles of interstate 
pipeline across the Northeast. Instead of expediting deployment 
of the necessary infrastructure to move abundant energy 
resources, Northeastern States, supported by an antagonist 
Federal regulatory environment, have done everything in their 
power to actually halt that development. Since day one, the 
Biden administration has taken that playbook and applied it on 
a national scale.
    Last month, through an overly vague and expansive 
definition of waters of the United States, the Biden 
administration further empowered activist environmental 
entities within States to abuse the Section 401 certification 
process to stifle pipeline development for political reasons.
    Now, only a few weeks later, a new guidance from the 
Council on Environmental Quality will further muddy the waters 
as agencies evaluate greenhouse gas emissions and climate 
change when considering proposed actions under NEPA. Under this 
latest proposal the Council on Environmental Quality is pushing 
for agencies to use the NEPA process to link decisions with the 
national climate change agenda, connecting NEPA reviews to 
environmental justice, pushing arbitrary alternatives, and 
providing a new pathway to consider both upstream and 
downstream emissions.
    While it remains to be seen how this new guidance will play 
out, it almost certainly will further slow the development of 
much-needed energy infrastructure projects and drive capital 
away from the carbon energy resources.
    Under Secretary Dabbar--and I appreciate what you said 
about the lithium ion battery, because when we figure out a 
better way to store electric energy, it will have as great of 
an impact on our economy as the steam engine or the microchip. 
The problem is that the lithium ion battery ain't it.
    But in your testimony you talked about the need for reform 
of FERC as part of the permitting and approval process. Can you 
walk through how the activist capital, combined with FERC 
straying from its statutory charge, has distorted the 
marketplace for carbon energy infrastructure?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Congressman. So, as you laid out, the 
very, very long approval processes are effectively a tactic to 
never build, right, for the people who are building. That is 
what it is.
    And, you know, in the last administration, actually, you 
could see if you put a time stop, if you may remember. It was, 
like, it is not a yes or a no, but it is you got to get it done 
it in a certain period.
    Mr. Armstrong. I called it an unreasonable amount of time.
    Mr. Dabbar. And so I think some sort of--and Congressman 
Peters talked about NEPA reform. I think one of the key things 
that's holding up things from getting built is the incredible 
long time period from the time that you--that someone, a 
company tries to lay it out to the approval, plus the 
inflation, right, the inflation makes projects with a long 
delay undoable economically at the end of the day.
    So I think some sort of time stop on a NEPA review, you 
know, of the reform. That doesn't say it has to be built or it 
is going to be approved or not approved. It is just do 
something reasonable from a time period, I think, is good for 
everything.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Curtis. The gentleman yields.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, 
Mrs. Trahan.
    Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    So I don't think we can have a hearing about unleashing our 
domestic energy supply and not mention the record profits the 
big oil companies are about to announce from last year. Five 
massive oil corporations are slated to earn a combined profit 
of almost $200 billion.
    These same companies sat here before this committee last 
year, and they groveled for more drilling permits so that they 
could lower prices. Apparently, they couldn't use any of those 
profits to start drilling on the thousands of permits they 
already have, and they couldn't allocate another dime to 
restart the refineries that they shut down. But you bet they 
used those products for stock buybacks, to inflate their share 
price and make sure they got their multimillion-dollar bonuses.
    Mr. Chair, I agree with you and members of your party that 
we need to achieve energy independence. We need to stop relying 
on the whims of OPEC, but we can't swap foreign oil oligarchs 
for domestic oil barons. We can't trade Vladimir Putin for 
ExxonMobil if they are going to keep doing the same thing, 
influence the market to pad padding their profits while working 
families pay the price.
    Mr. Chair, the American people want lower energy costs and 
a planet that their kids can inherit. To achieve that goal, me 
must focus on sustainable alternatives, and we are close to 
having one, in particular, that will change energy as we know 
it.
    Recent breakthroughs, including most recently at Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory, have finally put fusion energy 
within reach. Unlocking this virtually unlimited source of 
clean energy will drive down costs for families struggling with 
gas and oil prices. It will reduce our carbon footprint and 
help ensure a healthy future of our planet for generations to 
come. But it won't happen without building on the public- and 
private-sector investments in research and development that 
have gotten us to this point.
    So, Dr. Unruh Cohen, first, thank you for your incredible 
work over the last two Congresses.
    In your testimony you mention that U.S. public-sector 
investment in clean energy trails other countries, including 
China. The Department of Energy is considering applications 
from private fusion companies for $50 million in public/private 
partnerships and a new milestone-based funding program that 
would support building fusion pilot plants. But according to 
the Fusion Industry Association, the funding opportunity 
announcement was significantly oversubscribed with applications 
requesting close to three times as much funding as was 
allocated.
    Can you just tell us why public investment in fusion energy 
is so critical for accelerating the impact of existing private 
investment in the United States?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Yes. Thank you for the question.
    And I spent a lot of my career working for Ed Markey, both 
in the House and the Senate. So I am very familiar with the 
great clean energy technology in Massachusetts and the 
companies that are spinning out from that, and fusion is one of 
those. Obviously, you have got a great one there. And, you 
know, the promise of fusion is amazing, and we have spent a lot 
of important research, Federal research dollars going into 
that. We have had these really exciting breakthroughs, and I 
know, you know, we are on the cusp of being able to understand 
the potential there more and, hopefully, move forward to 
commercialization. I hadn't realized it had been 
oversubscribed. I hope that is something that this committee 
and the Appropriations Committee can work on to see if there 
are more resources available for that.
    Mrs. Trahan. Same--did you want to add to that?
    Mr. Dabbar. So, Congresswoman, probably one of the leading 
fusion companies in the country or world is in or around your 
district in Devens. I think that plant is going to--when it 
comes on line in 2025 will well outperform what happened at 
Livermore. They don't like to talk about how much, but I have a 
pretty good idea.
    I ran a fusion energy program for the country. We decided 
when we were there to engage with the private sector where DOE 
had not engaged with the private sector before. We had to, you 
know, break a little glass on that.
    I think the milestone program that we started, that we 
started moving along needs to be expanded. And I know that some 
of the proposals in Build Back Better had made that larger. I 
would highly encourage that we take the momentum on technology, 
innovation in particular, in your State and your district but 
elsewhere, and I would recommend that everyone here look at 
expanding that.
    Mrs. Trahan. And I look forward to bipartisan work on that. 
I mean, I will leave the committee with this. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission recently released their options for 
licensing and regulating fusion energy systems which highlights 
the important safety and security benefits of fusion energy: No 
high-level nuclear waste, no chance of a meltdown, no special 
nuclear material like plutonium or uranium. But the paper also 
leaves some regulatory ambiguity suggesting that future fusion 
power plants may be regulated like fission, which is a very 
different energy process.
    So I look forward to making sure that we put the right 
regulatory in place, environment in place so that we don't 
stifle that innovation as it is coming to bear.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Curtis. The gentlewoman yields.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First I want to correct something that was said earlier by 
Scott Peters. He said in Texas 40 percent of our power is 
renewable. That is just not accurate. You go to EIA.gov, Energy 
Information Administration, look at that, and Texas is 50 
percent natural gas. It is 18 percent coal. Nuclear is 8 
percent. And that is 76 percent. I am not good in math, but 
that leaves about 24 percent: 20 of it is wind, and 4 percent 
is solar.
    So we appreciate renewables in Texas, we do. But the real 
important fact is that the renewables cannot be the leading 
actor. Renewables can be a supporting actor, but renewables 
cannot be the leading actor. We found that out in Winter Storm 
Uri.
    You all talked about pipelines, Mr. Dabbar. I think it was 
you and one of our Members. The Keystone Pipeline would have 
come into my district over by Beaumont, Texas. It carries 
830,000 barrels of oil a day. The Colonial Pipeline system that 
you talked about carries about 3.1 million barrels of product a 
day. The Keystone Pipeline is literally one-fourth of the 
output what feeds the entire Southeastern part of the United 
States. Why didn't the President come to Texas and beg us to 
drill for more oil? It has been a real mystery to us.
    Also, in my gulf coast district, I have Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. We house also about 59 percent, not quite 60 percent 
of the SPR in my district. I have been watching it for a long 
time. I served 4 years in the Texas House. I was on the 
Environmental Energy Subcommittee, and I will tell you that--or 
Environmental Reg Committee, and I will tell you that we paid a 
lot of attention. Texas has 225,000 miles of pipeline. The 
pipeline industry has a 99.925 percent safety rating. We can 
move product safer than anybody else. We can store it in the 
SPR. We can have it ready for emergency, not because the 
President wants to bring down gas prices in an election year. I 
mean, he is trying to help. Maybe he is storing classified 
documents in his garage to keep from paying storage fees. I 
don't know. He is just trying to help.
    But I just want to go to you, if I can, Mr. McNally. You 
made an interesting comment. You said an arsenal of energy is 
what we need. That is a great term. You talked about the things 
that we had--you talked about World War II attack, if I 
remember correctly. Americans need to know what is important 
and why we need to be energy dominant, energy independent. It 
is energy. It is absolutely energy safety. It is domestic 
safety. It is political safety. It is military safety. You 
just--economic safety. You just can't express how important it 
is.
    For the President to draw down the SPR in an election year 
is totally uncalled for. I am told you are an expert on the 
SPR, and you sound like you are pretty knowledgeable about it. 
So my question to you is, in your opinion--and you have 
probably gone back and looked. I think the SPR capacity--it 
depends on who you talk to--is about 714 million barrels, maybe 
730, depends on who you are reading.
    In your opinion, what is the proper use of the SPR? And 
what is the history of it, if you know that far back?
    Mr. McNally. Thank you, Congressman Weber.
    Yes, I think we topped out at about 725 million barrels. It 
is now down to about half that level. We are at a 40-year low, 
so it hasn't been since 1983 that we have seen it this low.
    And it is really unfortunate, because in a way, in my view, 
it is a bipartisan mistake to start to sell off the SPR just to 
pay sort of regular expenses in 2017. We did the same thing in 
the mid-1990s, and I worked for President Bush after 9/11 when 
we restocked the SPR at higher prices.
    So we kind of went around the circle once before. I was 
hoping we wouldn't have to do it again.
    But, in addition to the mandatory nonemergency sales, which 
I think are very unfortunate but starting to reverse, President 
Biden, especially in November of 2021 before the Russian 
invasion of Ukraine, used it purely for political reasons. I 
mean, there was no disruption. The IEA wouldn't go along, and 
he had to beg China, of all people, of all countries, to go 
along with us.
    And that is up there in the halls of infamy with the 
decision by President Clinton September 2020, 2 months before 
the election, to invite Al Gore to announce a release at that 
time too.
    So with the emergency release in March of last year, at 
least we thought we were going to lose Russia. When it started 
out, we had a real emergency, we thought. But within a couple 
of months, we realized Russian supply wasn't going off. They 
should have suspended the sales at that point.
    So we have a mixed history with the SPR. Fortunately, some 
Presidents have used it for purely political price control, 
very limited, by my count twice. We have had, no kidding, 
emergency releases. And I would again say the administration 
probably took the right decision initially, because we thought 
in March of 2022, the IEA said we are going to lose 3 million 
barrels a day of Russian supply in April, like 2 weeks later. 
Again, that wolf did not come into the village. We should have 
suspended those sales, but we did not.
    Thank you for the question.
    Mr. Weber. I thank you for that.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Curtis. The gentleman from Texas yields.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas, Mrs. 
Fletcher.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I join in welcoming our new Members and congratulating 
Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers on her historic chairmanship.
    And I am thanking our witnesses for being here today. It 
has been a long day, but I have been here and appreciated your 
testimony.
    As we have heard throughout the day, our country leads in 
energy production and innovation, and we lead in these areas 
because of the work that is done in my district and surrounding 
areas in Houston, ones where we touch every single segment of 
the energy industry, from exploration and production, 
transportation, transmission, marketing, technology, both 
traditional and renewable.
    And I am going to resist the congressional urge to spend 5 
minutes talking about how great my district is, although it is, 
but I want to share these data points because I think it really 
helps underscore both the importance of the issues to me and 
also the depth and breadth of knowledge of my constituents that 
I bring to the work of this committee.
    And it is with that in mind that I am glad to say I have 
heard a lot of things I agree with today from our witnesses, 
from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but I have also 
heard a few things I disagree with. And I can't go through all 
of them here, but I am disappointed to hear some of the attacks 
on the 117th Congress' energy policies rather than more ideas 
about how we can work together to build on the historic 
investments that we made in the last Congress.
    And, you know, we have talked about some today especially 
the focus on permitting issues that affects all sectors and 
which I very much look forward to working on. But I do think it 
is important to underscore that the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act that we passed 
last Congress are historic pieces of legislation that make 
energy and infrastructure investments that further strengthen 
American energy security and drive innovation for our energy 
future.
    At this moment we have an energy sector that is looking 
stronger than ever, with the EIA expecting U.S. domestic oil 
production to set a new record high this year of 12.4 million 
barrels a day, which would surpass the previous record set in 
2019. The red count is back up. It was 771 last week. Net 
exports are also expected to rise, further strengthening our 
energy security and, importantly, that of our allies. And this 
is happening while we are working to meet growing global demand 
for energy and reducing admissions.
    The bottom line is that we need to do all of the things we 
are doing and more, and we need a holistic approach. So I 
really look forward to talking about what that is and how we 
come together to do that on this committee this Congress.
    But for today I want to focus my questions on one of the 
programs that we passed in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: 
funding for the implementation and design of regional hydrogen 
hubs. And through this program, Congress authorized the 
development of multiple hydrogen hubs to advance the country's 
clean hydrogen sector. And the Department of Energy will select 
6 to 10 regions to establish these hydrogen hubs.
    Mr. Crenshaw and I recently wrote a letter to Secretary 
Granholm making the case, not surprisingly, for the Department 
to select Houston as a location for a hydrogen hub under the 
program.
    So I want to direct my question first to Dr. Unruh Cohen. 
In the interests of time, I am going to ask this, and I have a 
quick follow-up if we can get to it. If not, I will submit it 
to you for the record. But can you just talk a little bit about 
how this program will enhance hydrogen technology deployment 
and why Federal support is essential in emerging technological 
sectors like hydrogen?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Yes. And I will sing Houston's praises in 
the process because they are a great example of where industry, 
academia, the local government have come together to identify 
we need to take our strengths and talents in the industry and 
expand that.
    So I think you will be a good candidate for the hydrogen 
hub. The program will drive these types of partnerships between 
industry and the Federal Government to develop the new 
technology. And hydrogen is critical for also all of the 
petrochemical work that happens in the Houston area, because we 
are going to need clean green hydrogen to help decarbonize some 
of those processes so that we can, you know, benefit and have 
clean chemicals coming out of our domestic plants.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you for that.
    And with the time I have left, I do want--I may have to get 
your question for the record, and if anyone else wants to 
submit a response, I would appreciate that, because I think 
while this investment is essential to jump starting the 
technology, I worry there's still a lot of hurdles that 
Congress needs to address before we can see widespread 
adoption.
    DOE's 2020 Hydrogen Program Plan identified rights-of-way 
and permitting issues for hydrogen pipelines as challenges for 
hydrogen delivery infrastructure. And I think there's still a 
lot of unresolved questions regarding siting, political 
Federal/State jurisdictional conflicts, and the regulation of 
pipeline rates and terms of service that need to be resolved.
    So with the 12 seconds I have left--oh, have I gone over?
    Mr. Curtis. You are going the wrong direction.
    Mrs. Fletcher. I am going the wrong direction. So with 
that, that is my question. If you could respond to that for the 
record, I would appreciate it.
    And I will yield back the balance of my time that I have 
gone over. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for indulging me.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes. All right. Thank you. The gentlewoman from 
Texas yields.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, you know, energy security is national security. We 
have heard that over and over again. And when we were in the 
last--the last time we were in the majority, we passed the 
Congressional Review Act. And what it did was, you know, it 
revised a lot of the regulations, updated a lot of regulations 
around the oil and gas industry. And what we saw we couldn't 
believe. We became energy dominant, and we had the power to 
control the cost of a barrel of oil. That to me is maybe the 
greatest power that you can experience. In fact, we drove it--
you know, market price was $30, $40 a barrel. We created an oil 
war with $7 a barrel. And now we are, what, $90 to $100? It has 
been over $100. And, Mr. McNally, you said it was going to 
fluctuate even more than that.
    But, in fact, we did this throughout the economy. And, Ms. 
Jackson, everybody benefited. It was the greatest economy I've 
ever seen in my lifetime. So there is no secret that President 
Biden and his administration have declared a war on fossil 
fuels. I mean, he said, ``There will be no more drilling.'' I 
think that was a quote.
    And so we see what has happened now. In fact, back in the 
greatest economy, we had 1.26 percent inflation.
    And so, you know, Mr. McNally, how could we unleash the oil 
and gas industry and become energy dominant again? Is there a 
secret sauce?
    Mr. McNally. Did you mean me or Mr. Dabbar?
    Mr. Allen. I mean to both, yes.
    Mr. McNally. OK. Well, again, if I could rephrase my 
attempt to answer Congressman Eshoo's very good question: Get 
back to all of the above and get honest data and analysis. If 
we can just do that, we will be in a much better place.
    To his credit, President Obama--to his credit--helped get 
rid of the crude oil export ban, which directly threatened the 
shale oil boom, and recognized not only was that good for our 
energy production, but helped us offset the loss of Iran, which 
we were sanctioning and so forth. He understood that 
transitions are multidecade affairs, and he, to his credit, 
thought that gas was part of the clean energy future.
    But as you have pointed out, we have moved to keep it in 
the ground, to a war on fossil fuels, and that must end. And I 
think, honestly, if we could just get back to where we were in 
the last few Presidents, including President Trump, where it 
was all of the above, we can unleash, you know, our energy 
potential.
    Mr. Allen. Mr. Dabbar?
    Mr. Dabbar. So, Congressman, it started with great 
innovation by the Member of Texas. The Permian Basin cost year 
by year was dropping because of innovation. That allowed us to 
drive prices down globally as a result of that innovation. Then 
the Federal system and the State systems allowed things to get 
built to move that energy to where it needs to go----
    Mr. Allen. So let me ask you this: Would it be fair to 
assume that free market drives prices down, government 
intervention drives prices up?
    Mr. Dabbar. That is the irony of what we are seeing today.
    Mr. Allen. OK. So we have got--so what we have done--I was 
on the House Energy Action Team, and I met with a lot of--I was 
a small business owner. I met with a lot of small business 
owners who were in the business of drilling and refining. They 
are out of business. They were driven out of business.
    You know, if you have more demand than you have supply, 
guess what? The price is going to go up. Now, obviously, if you 
are one of the few companies remaining, you are going to 
benefit from that.
    Now, how do we reverse that? We have got to open up the 
free markets, and then you will drive down prices. I mean, you 
know, there is no secret to the way our economy works.
    As far as--also, I wanted to ask you a quick question--I 
have got about 45 seconds--about Russia being a leader in 
exporting enriched fuel. And, of course, the strategy was to 
urge for U.S. production of our own nuclear fuel. I have got 
Vogtle 3 and 4 hopefully coming on line. We have got plenty of 
electricity in Georgia. In fact, you are probably going to have 
to bring your car to Georgia to charge it at some point in 
time.
    But can you give me a little background on that?
    Mr. Dabbar. So Russia has almost half of the global 
enrichment market. The biggest exposed company to that is the 
United States. If Russia tomorrow decided to stop exporting 
their enriched uranium to us over the course of a couple 
refueling cycles, we might lose half of the fuel needed to run 
the nuclear power plants. That is 20 percent of the country. 
That is 10 percent of the power plants would be at risk of not 
having fuel.
    Mr. Allen. And I would hope that this Congress will do 
something about that.
    Thank you.
    Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mr. Curtis. The gentleman yields.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Barragan.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    When I received the Republican committee memo for today's 
hearing, what stood out to me was the complete absence of the 
need for U.S. energy policy to address climate change or 
environmental justice. Not a word.
    An effective U.S. energy policy must keep costs down, 
create the jobs of the future, and reduce the fossil fuel 
pollution that warms our planet and harms the public health of 
many communities, including my own Latino community and 
communities of color in my district.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen, let me thank you. Thank you for your 
tireless work in the last Congress with the select committee to 
make sure that we were doing everything we could to save the 
planet, addressing climate change, and doing the hard work of 
the select committee.
    Now, one important program from the Inflation Reduction Act 
the Democrats passed is $3 billion for climate and 
environmental justice block grants based off of my bill, the 
Climate Justice Grants Act.
    Can you tell us a little bit about how can this program 
help to reduce energy costs and reduce pollution in communities 
of color and other communities across the country?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
    That is one of the most exciting programs in the Inflation 
Reduction Act. That is going to provide funding to empower 
communities, to look at the challenges that they are facing 
when it comes to energy costs, climate costs.
    You know, as we have heard from Ms. Jackson and others, you 
know, there are challenges that constituents are facing. High 
prices are, you know, problems for everybody.
    And so this program is going to really empower communities 
to figure out the solutions that work the best for them, to 
help bring them affordable clean energy and respond to the 
climate crisis consequences that they are seeing already in 
their communities.
    Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you.
    My next question is also for you. I want to talk a little 
bit about geothermal, something that the chair and I are 
working on together, and how we invest in geothermal. The 
question is related to the Climate Crisis Action Plan that the 
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis worked on, highlighted 
the development of more geothermal energy as a building block 
of growing American clean energy production.
    Could you describe how increased development of geothermal 
energy in California and elsewhere would enhance U.S. energy 
security with 24/7 clean power?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Yes. Geothermal is tapping into the power 
of the earth and what is all around us. California has been a 
leader because of the particular geologic benefits and profile 
in California. But as the technology has improved from 
investment in DOE over the years, we are now at a place where 
we are close to commercialization of energy supply in areas 
that don't have quite the great resources that California and 
other parts of the West have.
    And so it will also--it will add to that need to provide 
dispatchable power to have--to fill in at times that we need 
it. And I think it is actually one of the most exciting 
opportunities coming our way.
    In addition, quickly, it also will use the skill set and 
training of many members who are working--or workers in the oil 
and gas industry right now. And so it provides an additional 
opportunity for them to take their skills and help to continue 
to provide this country with energy.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I would like to enter into the record a January 
30 Climatewire article titled ``China Invests $546 Billion in 
Clean Energy, Far Surpassing the U.S.'' This is China's 2022 
investment.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen, the Inflation Reduction Act passed by 
Democrats includes $369 billion in clean energy and climate 
programs. It is important to fight climate change and to 
compete with China for the jobs and industries of the future. 
More must be done to support clean energy.
    What are the most important steps that the U.S. can take in 
the next few years to keep pace with China on clean energy?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. I think we are seeing it already. You 
know, just since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, we 
have seen hundreds of announcements about bringing clean 
technology manufacturing to the U.S. and expanding what we have 
already. I had in my testimony, you know, nearly $90 billion in 
projects, and that is private capital coming in, you know, 
ready to partner and have that synergy with the Federal 
Government investments.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you. Thank you for your responses.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Curtis. The gentlewoman from California has asked for a 
document to be entered into the record. We are waiting for that 
document. Peter, we will reserve that until the end of the 
meeting.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Balderson.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for being here today. I know it has been a 
long day.
    Mr. Dabbar, my first question is for you. It is no secret 
that the shale revolution in the United States has brought 
immense economic benefits. In Ohio, natural gas and oil 
development contributes more than $50 billion to the State's 
GDP and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs.
    In addition to the economic benefits, we have also seen 
clean environmental benefits from increased use of natural gas. 
According to the Department of Energy, use of natural gas for 
electric power production has led to a 57 percent reduction in 
domestic emissions of airborne particles such as soot. This has 
resulted in an estimated $17 billion in annual health benefits.
    And in 2021, U.S. natural gas exports were the highest on 
record, and the United States has been an annual net exporter 
of natural gas since 2017.
    Can you discuss the public health and environmental 
benefits America has seen as a result of the shale revolution?
    Mr. Dabbar. So, as you pointed out, the big shift from coal 
to natural gas has had a big impact. Another thing that has 
been kind of underreported--and, actually, this is kind of 
efficiency when it comes to natural gas--the natural gas power 
plants that you produce in your State, the combined cycle gas 
plants, are about 50 percent more efficient than they were. And 
so they are running on natural gas, and they are 50 percent 
more efficient. That means it takes less BTUs, it takes less 
energy to make the same amount of electricity, and it produces 
50 percent less emissions.
    So the emissions have been driven down in large part 
because of your State, because of both the natural gas 
production, but the turbine improvements. The combination of 
those two has dramatically reduced emissions as a result.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
    In followup to that, can you discuss the possible global 
environment benefits in exporting our cleaner natural gas to 
developing nations?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes. So the developing nations--if you go to 
any international conference, you go to especially the African 
nations, they are very upset today, OK, because they say that 
the IMF and the World Bank and saying, like, ``You can't get 
any money to build energy. You guys did it, but we are not 
allowed.''
    And it is pretty stark when you go out to these 
international meetings and listen, in particular to the African 
nations. Right now they burn coal being made by Chinese 
companies, coal-fired power plants. They don't produce much 
natural gas in China. They have to import.
    So our ability to export natural gas to those countries and 
do what we did in this country versus what the Chinese are 
doing to the world is quite--it is quite obvious.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
    When green-at-all-costs advocates in Europe shut off 
nuclear and fossil fuel power generation years ago without 
concern for their own baseload needs, they found themselves 
beholden to the likes of Putin for oil and natural gas.
    What has happened in Europe is certainly not a path my 
constituents want our country to follow.
    Mr. Dabbar, you referenced the problems facing Germany 
earlier, and I would like to expand on that. Do you have 
concerns that this administration is putting the cart before 
the horse when it comes to the transition to renewables? That 
is the first question.
    And instead of picking winners and losers, why is it so 
important this administration and Congress promote all forms of 
energy production?
    Mr. Dabbar. If you want to see the worst-case energy 
policies is look at Germany. They decided to shut down nuclear 
when it was perfectly safe because of what happened in Japan. 
They decided to increase their risk with an autocrat in terms 
of their energy exposure, and they expanded renewables where 
Germany is not particularly sunny and it is hard to site 
because it is a relatively crowded country.
    I think one of the starkest things you can see on the 
internet was when the former President was at the U.N. saying 
to the Germans that they were going to be increasing their risk 
of energy exposure to Russia and they better stop it. And there 
was a picture of the Germans at the U.N. laughing at him. I 
think we know where things actually turned out.
    Mr. Balderson. Agree.
    Mr. McNally, I would also like to hear your thoughts on how 
we can ensure energy policies don't lead us into the same 
situation much of Europe has found itself in.
    You have 30 seconds. Thank you.
    Mr. McNally. Yes. So, again, do not let China dominate the 
supply lines for renewable power and electric vehicles should 
those really take off in scale into the future. Maintain our 
strategic stockpiles. Remain to become an arsenal of energy, 
remain that. Stay open to exports. Keep diversity and global 
energy and be at the center of it.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. The gentleman from Ohio yields.
    The Chair recognizes the very patient gentlewoman from 
Illinois, Mrs. Schakowsky.
    Mrs. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is my own fault. You know, the rule is, if you miss the 
gavel, then you go to the end of the line. I didn't realize 
that. That wasn't true when we were in the pandemic.
    Anyway, I am happy to be on the committee and happy to be 
here today, and I am really looking forward to the rollout of 
the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure and Jobs Act 
because I think it is really going to make a difference. It is 
going to make a difference to communities all over this 
country, and it is going to make an unprecedented investment 
into America's clean energy future, creating millions of good, 
clean jobs and lowering the prices of people at home on their 
energy, on their energy bills, and finally, really addressing 
the climate crisis.
    And I agree with a previous Democrat here saying that I 
don't hear enough about that. You know, we have all--we should 
put in the same level all of the energy options. This is an 
existential issue right now dealing with the climate, and I am 
so happy that we are going to be addressing that as well as 
maintaining and I think even enhancing the economy of our 
country.
    One of the things that was in the bills that we passed 
would be an investment in a historic $15 billion for the 
removal of lead service lines, a problem in my community and in 
so many communities where we are not drinking clean water 
because of these lead service lines, but also billions of 
dollars that are going to help communities that are most 
affected: low-income communities, communities often most 
populated by people of color.
    But I also want to mention that over almost 100 years 
Americans have been subsidizing the fossil fuel industry to the 
tune, even today, of billions of dollars. And I think it is 
important just to mention that, that somehow spending the 
amount of money that we are on addressing the climate crisis is 
certainly as important.
    I wanted to--meant to ask Dr. Unruh Cohen the question 
similar to the one that was asked earlier. We haven't rolled 
out the kind of programs that are going to deal with 
environmental justice communities, communities that are 
suffering right now.
    What are some of the important things that we are going to 
be doing that will serve those communities and address the 
absolute relevant issues that Ms. Jackson raised?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Thank you for the question.
    And I think, you know, we are in a really exciting time. So 
for, you know, the first--these were the first laws that we 
really have been able to put money forward in specifically 
environmental justice programs. The Biden administration is 
focusing in its investments and has committed to fulfilling the 
Justice40 so that we see these benefits flow to these 
communities that have been underinvested in, that have 
experienced, you know, the impact of pollution that comes from 
fossil fuel development and refining.
    Mrs. Schakowsky. Aren't there also workforce opportunity 
benefits that might accrue?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Yes, absolutely. And I think we will see 
as these clean energy programs roll out, there will be a focus 
of developing jobs for people in the community and getting them 
the training. You know, we talked about earlier workforce is a 
place that I think we need to have more focus from the Congress 
and this committee. And so I hope, while we will see some 
improvement, that this committee can work on some of those 
issues going forward.
    Mrs. Schakowsky. Let me ask you this. Instead, it seems to 
me in working to pass what I think is an effective legislation 
that had to do--that was passed that had to do with--am I over? 
I think I am.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes, a minute over.
    Mrs. Schakowsky. OK. I will write that and send it to you.
    Thank you.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. I look forward to it. Thank you.
    Mrs. Schakowsky. I appreciate it.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Curtis. I don't mean to be aggressive----
    Mrs. Schakowsky. No, you're right.
    Mr. Curtis [continuing]. But we are going to have to get 
everybody in before votes.
    So the gentlewoman yields.
    The Chair calls on the gentleman, Mr. Fulcher, from Idaho.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just need to respond to a comment a few moments ago from 
my friend from California that indicated that the United States 
somehow needs to follow China's lead on clean energy 
investment. And I just want to state for the record that, if 
anyone believes that that is a model that we want to follow, 
pay China a visit, and I think they may change their mind.
    But on to my specific topic. This is going to be a question 
for Mr. Dabbar. But it is in regard to geothermal energy. And 
in my State, Idaho, we have been a little bit of a pioneer on 
that front. There is--the first district heating system in the 
country was in Boise, Idaho, in 1892, and we have got a very 
good resource there. It is carbon free. It is baseload. And we 
are a little bit familiar with it there, but it doesn't seem to 
get a lot of attention.
    And you made a comment, Mr. Dabbar, earlier today that 
caught my ear that these--you need to be technology neutral, I 
think was the term you used, when making decisions on these 
sources and not some political idea and try to drive it with 
subsidies.
    And so, with that comment, I wanted to just get your 
opinion. I have got a--I have had a bill that I have run for 
several years called the Enhancing Geothermal Production on 
Federal Lands Act that basically allows geothermal exploration 
and production on Federal lands where there's already existing 
leases, oil and gas leases.
    It hasn't made it very far, but I wanted to just get your 
opinion. Does this satisfy the tech neutral argument that you 
laid out before? What are the opportunities and challenges for 
geothermal in this country?
    Mr. Dabbar. Congressman, I think expanding geothermal is 
absolutely something that we should be looking at. And not 
knowing every detail of the bill, I think facilitating lands 
that are already being used for energy production that have the 
geology already mapped out is going to drive down costs and 
increase the likelihood of finding the right formation. And 
further investment in driving down costs of geothermal 
equipment, right, and the thermal efficiency, it gives great 
baseload generation, right. It is great baseload generation 
wherever it is at. And I would think any place that it is 
available, we should be aggressively attacking that.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
    And I need to pivot and just utilize my time as best as 
possible. I am going to shift, and I have a question for Mr. 
McNally here.
    It does go to the nuclear arena. And also in my State we 
have the Idaho National Lab, and there is a lot of research 
there with small modular reactors. And one of the arguments 
that we hear is that, in addition to the efficiency of the 
energy production, there could also be some upside when it 
comes to grid security, specifically because we are threatened 
with sabotage, we are threatened with cyber attacks on our 
energy systems so much now.
    By having an energy source that you can isolate--for 
example, one reactor could potentially power the City of Boise, 
Idaho. By isolating that and staying off ultimate connectivity 
of an overall grid, that could help with a cybersecurity or 
cyber attack threats.
    Your comments on that? Is that true or is it false? Is it 
benefited--is it a benefit to be isolated off the grid, or is 
it a negative to do that?
    Mr. McNally. Congressman Fulcher, on that question, that is 
outside my area of expertise. I would defer to my panel mate, 
Mr. Dabbar, if you might have a view on that. But that is 
outside my area of expertise, I am afraid.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK. Mr. Dabbar?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes. So I think nuclear power is absolutely 
supportive of grid security. First of all, it is really hard to 
penetrate a nuclear reactor in terms of security, and I think 
that has a lot of value. And then, at the end of the day, the 
availability of it is unparalleled in this system.
    Mr. Fulcher. But the isolation of staying off of a greater 
grid, do you think that is a good thing or a bad thing?
    Mr. Dabbar. The ability to separate in times of any 
challenges in the grade, including an attack, has great value.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Curtis. The gentleman yields.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pfluger.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to thank the witnesses as well. Most of the 
good questions have been asked today. Thank you all for being 
here.
    I represent the Permian Basin that has been mentioned 
several times. This is literally the heartbeat of America's 
energy. It is the heartbeat of the shale revolution. I am so 
proud of the men and women in the Permian Basin, Midland and 
Odessa and throughout that part of the country, that have 
innovated to a point where we have literally helped raise a 
billion people out of poverty throughout the world. We have 
literally lowered the cost of living for every American family 
to the tune of $2,500 per year. We have allowed this economy, 
prior to January of 2021, to soar, to absolutely take off.
    And I am trying to figure out right now, the discussion 
about the climate crisis, what--who is saying that this is the 
greatest threat we face with any sort of facts?
    And, Mr. McNally, to your point, I want to see the analysis 
here. I want to see the data. You all have made some incredible 
points on that.
    I go back to some of the campaign promises that the 
President made. And I quote: ``We are going to get rid of 
fossil fuels. There will be no more coal plants. We are going 
to phase out fossil fuels.''
    Those were three quotes that he made. I got to hand it to 
him, he has done everything he possibly can with every tool to 
assault the 2 million Texans who are in this industry who are, 
like Dr. Cohen's family in Corpus Christi, who are doing the 
things cleaner and more efficiently and better than anywhere 
else on the planet. He has assaulted this industry in a way 
that is directly attacking--and thank you, Ms. Jackson, for 
your testimony today--the most vulnerable in our country.
    I appreciate the regulatory and the permitting discussions.
    Mr. Dabbar, if we continue with the policies that this 
administration is pushing, what is our country going to look 
like? What is our economy going to look like? What is our--you 
know, we are expecting, what, 45 percent increase in demand 
over the next 30 years in electricity. What are we going to 
look like?
    Mr. Dabbar. I think the key word you just mentioned there, 
Congressman, is demand. So I think, no matter how you approach 
this topic, as long as there is a demand for a product, then it 
has to be supplied from someplace.
    And taking aside all the other debates, if we are still 
going to be needing petrochemicals to make this pen or to drive 
some cars because they are not all electric vehicles, someone 
has to provide it. I think we can all agree on that from both 
sides.
    And so, if it is not produced in Midland or Odessa, it is 
going to be produced in Caracas or outside Tehran. So that is 
it. That is it.
    So if we restrict it because of ESG, if we restrict it 
because of siting in this country, it will be produced 
overseas. It will emit more. It will be more environmentally 
hurtful for the world. It will be less jobs. It will be jobs in 
Tehran, not jobs in Odessa. I think it is relatively 
straightforward.
    So even if you have this debate on this topic, you know, 
about demand, you know, as long as the demand is there, you 
know, for national security and the economy and the 
environment, it is better to be produced in America than it is 
in Russia or someplace else.
    Mr. Pfluger. Yes. Right now in San Angelo, Texas, my 
hometown, which is about 120 miles to the east of Midland/
Odessa, it is 27 degrees. It is snowing. There is no wind at 
all, and the sun is not going to shine until Friday morning. 
And it will be 27 degrees on Friday morning. I just looked at 
the weather forecast.
    I asked Mr. Kerry, the climate--I don't know what his 
official position is. They call him the climate czar. But I 
asked him if renewables provide baseload capacity. And I will 
ask, Dr. Cohen, the same to you. We have a ton of wind energy. 
In fact, we are so proud of the wind energy we have, which is 
more than the State of California in my district.
    Do renewables, whether it is solar or wind or another form 
I am not familiar with, provide baseload capacity for my family 
right now?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Renewables provide predictable electricity 
for your family and families all across the country.
    Mr. Pfluger. And predictable is, I think, not always 
reliable.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Predictable means predictable. We know 
when the sun will shine. We know when the wind will blow. Smart 
grid operators can then provide--make the energy decisions they 
need to keep the lights on.
    I just happened to look at the Texas electricity map 
yesterday, and I noticed there is a lot of stranded electricity 
down in my part of the world. So if Texas could continue its 
leadership in building transmission, they actually would be 
able to free up some of that renewables that's blowing between 
Corpus Christi and San Antonio and get it up to other parts of 
the State.
    Mr. Pfluger. It takes every form of energy, every amount of 
energy, and every bit of energy to service the demands. I could 
talk for another 10 minutes, but I don't have that much time.
    I yield back.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Well, maybe we can talk again another 
time.
    Mr. Pfluger. But they won't let you. Thank you.
    Mr. Curtis. The gentleman from Texas yields.
    The Chair calls on the gentlewoman from Tennessee, Mrs. 
Harshbarger.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you all for being here. You are tired. I am 
tired. So I am going to make a couple of comments, and then I 
will go to my question for Mr. Dabbar.
    Ms. Jackson, I want you to know that I represent a rural 
district with two distressed counties. The average median 
income is 49,000, so I understand exactly. I get calls every 
day from constituents--who I call my friends and family, by the 
way--and they tell me, ``If I pay my power bill, I am going to 
have to make decisions about, do I buy groceries or do I buy my 
medication?''
    So I want you to know I totally understand; OK.
    And, Mr. McNally, your statement about foreign and domestic 
actors beginning to attack our domestic energy infrastructure 
has never been more evident than with the Colonial Pipeline 
attack. I was on Homeland Security last Congress on the 
Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Subcommittee, and it 
was very frightening to hear how that attack occurred and that 
it could happen again.
    And it hit me because I drive from my district in East 
Tennessee all the way to Washington, DC, every weekend, and I 
had to stop at every gas station along the way to make sure 
that I had fuel just to come here and do my job. So that hit 
home.
    And you saying--I agree with you that Congress needs to be 
better prepared for more cybersecurity attacks, and we need to 
hold those bad actors accountable. That is a big deal.
    And, Mr. Dabbar, your comments about Russia having the 
largest overall HEU stockpile in the world and your statement 
that the U.S. needs to work on our uranium enrichment 
capabilities is on point.
    And just so you know, I have nuclear fuel services in my 
district, and I have talked to many of those people there, and 
they absolutely understand the importance of this very issue, 
why we need to do enriched uranium.
    So with that said--and I will continue to talk to them, so 
stay tuned--I agree that we absolutely need a higher baseload 
of power because we have seen how fragile we are to these 
disruptions.
    And my question is this. I am from East Tennessee, the 1st 
District, and just before Christmas, East Tennesseeans 
experienced rolling blackouts after the Tennessee Valley 
Authority was unable to meet those energy demands required to 
heat your homes during Storm Elliott. We know that natural gas 
facilities can come fully on line around 30 minutes and our 
best option for wrapping up energy production in a pinch.
    My question is this: How much additional investment in 
natural gas will we need to combat these unexpected increases 
in energy demands in the future?
    Mr. Dabbar. So, Congresswoman, you know, TVA shut down 
baseload just like other places have.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes, they did.
    Mr. Dabbar. And that is the reason why I think you ran into 
those problems, was that TVA was shutting down more plants. 
They are coal plants. You can kind of understand it, but you 
are going to need to replace them with something. You need to 
replace them with something that can be dispatched.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
    Mr. Dabbar. And natural gas is the obvious place to go, 
subject to some of your nuclear power plants, which would be 
wonderful for East Tennessee.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
    Mr. Dabbar. So the gas pipelines in general are not there 
to replace plants that used to be coal and rail and so on. So 
things are getting more unreliable in the whole TVA area, 
including in your region. That is the reality.
    And if gas pipelines are not built, you are going to run 
into that problem more and more. As your great economy grows--I 
know East Tennessee well from being at DOE----
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Oh, yes.
    Mr. Dabbar [continuing]. You are going to have additional 
problems because your economic growth is so strong.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. You know, the scary thing was that they 
didn't give notice--TVA didn't--to emergency management 
services. The emergency broadcast systems went down because of 
the rolling blackouts. There was equipment damage. We are 
trying to track that too as we go along, to see how long they 
were down, how much notice did they get, how much damage was 
done monetarily, because there was one industry that lost $3.5 
million just from the shutdown and had to work through the 
weekend.
    And I have a question, and anybody can answer this in the 
amount of time I have left. You know, the American people tell 
us, ``Come up here and work, do your job, and get results.'' 
But, like so many other projects, whether it be energy 
production or highway improvements, they get stalled in the 
NEPA process, and I guess my question is, What would a rerun of 
NEPA look like, and how that would allow for us to build 
natural gas production so that environmentalists can't stall 
those projects into nonexistence? Anybody?
    Mr. McNally. How about a bipartisan agreement to have 
legally enforceable deadlines for NEPA decisions? Clean energy, 
conventional energy, everything, just say you got a certain 
amount of time, you got to get it done here, and you cut back 
on the litigation risk that we have heard today, and it is for 
all energies, all businesses and so forth. I sense maybe there 
is bipartisan agreement behind that.
    And then we might want to think about critical national 
security infrastructure, where there you supersize it, you say, 
``NEPA,'' you know, ``you got to go even faster.'' But I would 
hope there is--I am sensing bipartisan agreement, we got to 
improve permitting for all energy here.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Fantastic.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. Chairman, I would just underscore that the 
Inflation Reduction Act had nearly $1 billion for agencies to 
fund their permitting work.
    Mr. Curtis [presiding]. Thank you. The gentlewoman yields.
    Take us home, the gentlewoman from Iowa, Dr. Meeks.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much, Chair Curtis, and 
thank you to all of our witnesses. Iowa is an energy State, so 
that may surprise people. Usually I don't need this, but Iowa 
is an energy State, and let me also say, unequivocally, that 
all of us, I think, bipartisan agree that we want a cleaner, 
healthier planet for our children and our grandchildren.
    But we also want to be able to have an economy that can 
compete in a global economic environment. Energy demand that I 
learned at COP26 and COP27, to my surprise--I thought energy 
demand was increasing--I was surprised to hear at COP26 and 27 
that they thought energy demand is increasing. What I have yet 
seen from this administration is a way to transition with 
reducing emissions.
    So let me tell you a little bit about Iowa. Iowa has 50 
percent of its energy from renewables, so that is wind, solar, 
biodiesel, ethanol, biomass, bio char, manure. We have this 
entire slew, and up until 2 years ago, we also had nuclear. We 
have an entire slew. Fifty-eight percent of our electricity is 
generated by wind.
    And we were told this year that we would potentially have 
rolling blackouts. Why? Because we are an energy exporter. So 
why should a State that generates massive amounts of renewable 
energy be subject to rolling blackouts? And it is because there 
is not enough energy production.
    On average, it takes 6.5 years to prevent transmission 
projects in this country. There are some examples of projects 
taking over 10 years, and they are still not fully 
transmitted--or permitted.
    If we are serious about improving our grid security, 
modernizing our grid infrastructure, and diversifying our 
energy mix, we need permitting reform.
    Last Congress, I introduced the Stay Off My Line Act, which 
seeks to address some of these permitting challenges. And just 
very briefly, if you can, because I have got a couple of 
questions, what other steps can we take to improve our Nation's 
permitting process when it comes to transmission?
    So if you would, Mr. Dabbar, if you could take a swipe at 
that.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Congresswoman. I keep coming back to the 
time clock. People don't want to have things built and use the 
time clock----
    Mr. Curtis. Excuse me. Your microphone, please.
    Mr. Dabbar. The time clock of approvals under NEPA is 
basically preventing things from getting built. I think that is 
the biggest thing that could get fixed.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. I would add that, in Senator Manchin's 
permitting legislation, the language that dealt with 
transmission, I think, is a good place for this committee to 
look about going forward.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Ms. Unruh Cohen, and you had 
mentioned that earlier as well.
    Iowa is also the Nation's largest fuel ethanol producer, 
and it accounts for about one-fourth of U.S. fuel ethanol 
production capacity. I have heard a lot from this 
administration and from people about electrifying our 
transportation sector.
    So I want to bring up a little different source of energy 
than what we have talked about throughout this 4 hours. I am 
very supportive of ethanol-based aviation fuels or sustainable 
aviation fuels. According to the Department of Energy, 
replacing existing jet fuels with sustainable aviation fuels 
has been recognized as an effective strategy to help the 
aviation industry reduce greenhouse gas emissions, diversify 
fuel supply, and enhance energy security.
    The technology needed for SAF production already exists, 
including ethanol-to-jet-conversion technologies. Compared to 
petroleum jet fuels, sustainable aviation fuel produced from 
today's corn ethanol offers a 15 percent lower carbon intensity 
and, as we have heard, can even be carbon negative.
    This is, in part, because the technology to produce ethanol 
from corn is improved. In fact, lifecycle emissions of corn 
ethanol have decreased by roughly a quarter in the past 15 
years.
    What sort of R&D incentives and coordinated efforts would 
be needed to speed up the deployment of SAF in commercial 
aviation? Mr. McNally?
    Mr. McNally. I hate to--I learned a long time ago working 
for President Bush, you either know the answer to the question 
or you say, ``I don't know and I can find out.'' So I am going 
to pass to any other of my colleagues who might have views on 
SAF. It is not something in research and development.
    Mr. Dabbar. We funded quite a bit of this at DOE, and as 
you mentioned, it is a big area of focus. The conversion of 
wind energy into sustainable aviation fuel, through a series of 
chemistry steps, is completely doable. You can turn wind into 
aviation fuel. And so--it takes a few steps of energy, and some 
efficiency needs to be improved. But Iowa is in an excellent 
position to help drive that innovation.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much. And I would agree 
with our, you know, Ames Laboratory, with what we are doing in 
the renewable space, and then also continued innovation in 
nuclear fusion, as we have just seen some landmark things 
occur, and then in hydrogen as well. I think we have a bright 
future if we focus on where we have agreement and that we all 
want a cleaner, healthier planet. Thank you.
    Mr. Curtis. The gentlewoman yields, and the Chair calls on 
the gentlewoman from Florida.
    Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our 
witnesses for being troupers. We are in hour 6 of this 
committee. So thank you for your diligence, persistence, and 
endurance.
    But speaking of endurance, our economy needs some 
endurance, and that can only be provided through a reliable, 
domestic production of energy. So I am so excited this is our 
first hearing, our first topic.
    It goes without saying, I think, regardless if you are 
Republican or Democrat, we are an energy economy. Everything 
begins and ends with energy. So I am excited for all the 
discussion that we have had today.
    I am the author of the REINS Act, which seeks to rein in 
the regulatory environment, which costs our economy $2 trillion 
a year. You can look no further than the work that is being 
done at DOE or at FERC, or others, where this has been an ever-
growing presence.
    So I am going to go down the line. If you guys can keep 
them short because I do have a follow-up question. To all our 
witnesses, but I will start with you, Mr. McNally: Give me one 
regulation that we can take off the books that would help 
unleash domestic production of energy and bring down cost of 
energy in America. Just one.
    Mr. McNally. Take off a reform, it would be NEPA. NEPA is 
the taproot of all the problems. Fix NEPA and you fix a whole 
lot of things.
    Mrs. Cammack. Dr. Cohen?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. I think we have talked about unleashing 
some of the clean renewable energy that is tied up, and we need 
more transmission for that.
    Mrs. Cammack. What regulation specifically?
    Dr. Unruh Cohen. That--I think FERC is doing some 
rulemaking right now that will look at their regional planning, 
and I think that improvement will bring a lot of new 
transmission building----
    Mrs. Cammack. OK.
    Dr. Unruh Cohen [continuing]. To our country.
    Mrs. Cammack. Thank you.
    Ms. Jackson? Which, by the way, you have had remarkable 
quotes today. I have actually written a number of them down, so 
thank you for your testimony today.
    Ms. Jackson. Well, I am going to say, and I don't know if I 
have the regulation correct, but I would say, make the 
permitting reform so that we can have more energy production. 
It doesn't matter how many leases you have if you can't get the 
permits. It is useless.
    Mrs. Cammack. Certainty. Certainty in government, it is a 
novel concept, I know.
    Ms. Jackson. Yes.
    Mr. Dabbar. I will also go with NEPA. I think we need to 
clear out the litigation that has backed the standards that 
have been built up, and only you could clear out all that.
    Mrs. Cammack. Perfect. Thank you. And it goes right back to 
you, Mr. Dabbar. We need to put energy security back at the 
center of our energy policy, both for our international 
security but also for our allies.
    My question to you is an element of IP theft and China. You 
were at the Department of Energy during the Thousand Talents 
Program crackdown concerning Chinese researchers gaining access 
to intellectual property and other sensitive security 
information. And now you are also involved in a cutting-edge 
quantum technology exploration.
    What specifically can we do, should we do, to protect our 
secrets and other sensitive information from the Chinese 
Communist Party, and how will this effort benefit our own 
technological development?
    Mr. Dabbar. Well, with the spin out of Cal Tech, that a 
certain Member here, I think, also may have went to earlier, 
the reality is that the Chinese have a vast amount of effort 
for stealing technologies from National Labs at ICOT.
    When I showed up at DOE, there was a significant amount of 
technology that was being appropriated legally because we had 
no regulation on the interaction, but also at universities.
    And so when I was at DOE, we rolled out four orders to 
limit that, and I will give you one example of something that I 
think should be applied to other areas in addition to DOE, is 
that we banned grant money, the American taxpayer money, going 
to university researchers who were also, at the same time, 
talent program members for the Chinese Communist Party. We said 
the American taxpayer money should not go to those people who 
are also working for them.
    Mrs. Cammack. Seems a little too commonsense, if you ask 
me.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
    Mrs. Cammack. And I am sorry I cut you off, but to that 
point, I mean, you have the Thousand Talents Program, you have 
the Confucius Institutes on college campuses. I mean, is there 
something specifically a database that we are tracking, or is 
it simply just not on the books, or has it been done by 
Executive order on the connection between Thousand Talents and 
issues of national security programs that we are working on?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, it has basically been a few agencies that 
have done it, and that is it. I would recommend that this 
Congress take a look at the best practices for what has been 
done at DOE and some others, at DoD, because at NSF, at NIST, 
the Federal Reserve has Chinese----
    Mrs. Cammack. Wow. I appreciate your feedback----
    Mr. Curtis. The Chair greatly wants to excuse our 
witnesses. If you can endure it, we have got one more, and the 
Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank all of our witnesses. You have done an amazing job. I 
know it has been a very long day. For you, it is almost over. I 
want to thank you for hanging in there with us.
    Mr. Dabbar, you said something in your testimony that 
really resonated with me when you highlighted the fact that we 
are removing baseload generation from our grid at a much faster 
rate than we are adding intermittent power sources.
    And as I am sure you know, that is a particularly acute 
problem in my home State of California. Because of that, we are 
having a situation where there are times when the sun is 
shining and the wind is blowing where we are having to pay 
adjacent States to take our excess energy because we have so 
much of it.
    And then we have other times when we have brownouts, or we 
have to ask people to curtail demand because we don't have 
enough baseload. So the question for you is, What should be 
done about that? You know, what do you think we ought to be 
doing differently to solve that problem?
    Mr. Dabbar. So, the only entity that is trying to pay 
attention to this, and I think they are doing a poor job, is 
the Cal ISO, and that is because FERC has allowed them to do 
what they are doing on what you just described.
    I think that FERC should be under the--that you all should 
look at a reform of the Federal Power Act to guide FERC to 
actually do their job to order the California ISO to 
effectively set up efforts that would reinvigorate building of 
baseload.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right. I agree with you on the Federal side. 
On the State side, I actually put the blame more with the 
California State legislature, where I served for 6 years. I 
think the folks at Cal ISO do their best but sometimes are 
constrained by the State law that is imposed on them.
    And that is one of the reasons why my constituents pay 
twice as much for residential electricity as neighboring 
States, three times as much for commercial electricity, four 
times as much for industrial. You know, it really puts a hard, 
heavy burden on the people in California.
    Mr. Dabbar. Commissioner Bernie McNamee, former FERC 
Commissioner, has written a couple papers about how these 
layers of State, RPS standards, and tax incentives have turned 
what was an efficient market model that was anticipated under 
the Federal Power Act into very convoluted systems which does 
exactly as you described, sir.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right. So, you know, talking about baseload, 
I wonder if we could have a discussion about what a potential 
path forward would be. So, obviously, we are trying to rekindle 
some interest in fusion energy--I am sorry--fission energy, but 
there have been very promising developments in fusion energy. 
And I know we had a question on this from my cochair on the 
Fusion Caucus, Mrs. Trahan.
    Could you talk about the future you see for fusion and 
maybe your level of optimism that that could be part of the 
solution to the problem?
    Mr. Dabbar. So for a couple of decades, there was not much 
innovation in the material science and other areas around 
fusion. There was a lot of innovation in batteries and wind and 
solar.
    But as of about 5 or 6 years ago, there were some big jumps 
in terms of innovation in fusion, in particular around material 
science that allowed for the magnetic fields to get stronger, 
that really makes the possibility of an add-out fusion 
possible.
    The NIFT announcement at Livermore was great, but that was 
not made to be a power plant. That was dealing with the weapons 
program. So it wasn't made to be a power plant. But I think 
that there are a number of fusion companies, including in 
Southern California, including in Northern California, as well 
as Massachusetts, that are much farther down the road than even 
NIFT at Lawrence Livermore.
    I would recommend that, given all--fusion has all the 
positives of all the other energy sources and literally almost 
none of the negatives. And so, given the advances in 
technology, I would recommend further, additional investment by 
the country into this now kind of beginning-to-break-through 
area.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right. Yes, I agree with you. I think it has 
the potential to really revolutionize this space and solve a 
lot of these big, hairy, societal problems that we have been 
grappling with. But I see I am out of time. I would ask you 
another follow-up question about this, but let it suffice to 
just say that I think it is going to require more than just 
investment. We are going to have to take a look at some of the 
regulatory framework that we have created that is appropriate 
for fission but might not be appropriate for fusion. I think we 
are going to have to amend the Atomic Energy Act to try and 
create a framework that works and that really catalyzes the 
growth of that industry.
    But I want to thank you for your testimony. Thank you to 
all of our witnesses. I really enjoyed the hearing today. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Curtis. The gentleman yields back. The witnesses have 
made it, and I want you to know you were worth everything that 
you were paid to be here today. And I am going to talk to the 
committee about building in bathroom breaks in the future. 
Thank you so much to our witnesses and to all of our Members.
    Without objection, I would like to request the following 
documents be entered into the record for today's hearings: a 
letter concerning the lack of natural gas infrastructure from 
Industrial Energy Consumers of America; a letter concerning 
energy regulations and productions from the American 
Exploration and Production Council; a statement concerning 
regulations and baseload generation retirements from America's 
Power; a paper entitled, ``Creating an Arsenal of Energy'' from 
Forum for American Leadership; a paper entitled ``Blueprint for 
Serious and Sound Climate Policy'' from the Forum for American 
Leadership; a paper entitled ``Eight Necessary Steps to Defend 
U.S. Critical Energy Infrastructure from Cyber Attacks'' from 
the Forum for American Leadership; a paper entitled ``Congress 
is Key to Restoring Realism in U.S. Energy Policy'' from the 
Forum for American Leadership; a paper entitled ``Setting U.S. 
Climate Policy Straight: Recommendations for the 118th 
Congress'' from the Forum of American Leadership; a paper 
entitled ``Restoring U.S. Energy Security: Recommendations for 
the 118th Congress'' from the Forum for American Leadership--by 
the way, the witnesses can leave--a report entitled ``Restoring 
America's Competitive Nuclear Energy Advantage'' from the 
Department of Energy; a report entitled ``Reducing Russian 
Involvement in Western Nuclear Power Markets'' from Columbia 
University Center on Global Energy Policy; an article entitled 
``Russia's State Nuclear Company Aids War Effort, Leading to 
Calls for Sanctions'' from The Washington Post; an article 
entitled ``Ukraine War to Accelerate Shift Away from Fossil 
Fuels'' from E&E News; a report entitled ``Energy, Justice, and 
Climate, Change: Key Concepts for Public Health'' from the 
American Public Health Association; and a report entitled 
``Improving Equity Outcomes for New Federal Investments in 
Clean Energy Infrastructure'' from the Bipartisan Policy 
Committee; and finally, an article from Climatewire on China 
clean energy investment.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the 
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Department of Energy report has been retained in committee 
files and is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/
20230131/115356/HHRG-118-IF00-20230131-SD014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Curtis. I remind Members that they have 10 business 
days to submit questions for the record, and I ask the 
witnesses to respond to questions promptly. Members should 
submit their questions by the close of business date, February 
14th.
    Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]