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


                         H.R. 5482, H.R. 6474, AND 
                                H.R. 6481

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

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                           MINERAL RESOURCES

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                       Tuesday, December 12, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-84

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                              __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
54-447 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------           
          


                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                       PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
                     WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair
              ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Jared Huffman, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Kevin Mullin, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Debbie Dingell, MI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Susie Lee, NV
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Vacancy
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Vacancy
Mike Collins, GA
John Duarte, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                                                 
                                CONTENTS

                                                          
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, December 12, 2023.......................     1

Statement of Members:

    Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota.........................................     2
    Ocasio-Cortez, Hon. Alexandria, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New York.................................     3

    Panel I:

    Hageman, Hon. Harriet M., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Wyoming.......................................     5
    Steel, Hon. Michelle, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     6

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel II:

    Jones, Bryant, Executive Director, Geothermal Rising, Boise, 
      Idaho......................................................     8
        Prepared statement of....................................     9
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    11
    Sgamma, Kathleen, President, Western Energy Alliance, Denver, 
      Colorado...................................................    13
        Prepared statement of....................................    14
    Cha, J. Mijin, Assistant Professor, University of California, 
      Santa Cruz, California.....................................    16
        Prepared statement of....................................    18
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    22
    Hollie, Derek, Founder, Energy Poverty Prevention Project, 
      Stafford, Virginia.........................................    23
        Prepared statement of....................................    25

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Bureau of Land Management, Statement for the Record..........    54
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    55

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber

        Emma Wohlrab, Letter to Chairman Westerman...............    56

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Hageman

        Navajo Transitional Energy Company (NTEC), Letter dated 
          December 13, 2023......................................    57

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        National Parks Conservation Association, Statement for 
          the Record.............................................    61
        Southern Environmental Law Center, Letter to the 
          Committee..............................................    62
        The Wilderness Society, Letter to the Committee..........    70

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Ocasio-Cortez

        Department of Energy, Secretary Granholm, Letter to DOE 
          Stakeholders...........................................    31
        Section 5 of H.R. 5482...................................    50

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Kamlager-Dove

        The Guardian, July 2023 article titled, `` `We can't 
          escape': climate crisis is driving up cost of living in 
          the US west''..........................................    40
                                     


 
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 5482, TO PREVENT ENERGY POVERTY AND ENSURE 
  THAT AT-RISK COMMUNITIES HAVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE ENERGY, ``ENERGY 
  POVERTY PREVENTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 6474, TO 
AMEND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 TO EXPEDITE GEOTHERMAL EXPLORATION 
  AND DEVELOPMENT IN PREVIOUSLY STUDIED OR DEVELOPED AREAS; AND H.R. 
6481, TO AMEND THE MINERAL LEASING ACT TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE 
  INTERIOR TO REIMBURSE THE FEE FOR AN EXPRESSION OF INTEREST IF THE 
    EXPRESSION OF INTEREST BECOMES INACTIVE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, December 12, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in 
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Stauber, Graves, Fulcher, Tiffany, 
Duarte; Ocasio-Cortez, Huffman, Kamlager-Dove, and Lee.
    Also present: Representatives Hageman and Steel.

    Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources will come to order.

    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member.

    And I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from 
California, Mrs. Steel, and the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. 
Hageman, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.

    Without objection, so ordered.

    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you all for being here today to discuss 
these important pieces of legislation.
    Republicans on this Committee have continuously fought for 
increased domestic energy production this Congress. This 
started with H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Cost Act, which will 
accelerate all kinds of energy projects and enable an all-of-
the-above energy strategy. We have pushed this agenda because 
it is beneficial to the American people and the American 
economy. It provides good-paying jobs for Americans, including, 
in many cases, union jobs. It lowers energy costs for American 
families. It is better for our environment, and it improves our 
national security, making the world safer.
    While Republicans have been fighting for our all-of-the-
above American energy agenda in Congress, this Administration 
has continued to carry out a radical, anti-traditional energy 
agenda that has caused energy prices to skyrocket. In the first 
year of the Biden administration, U.S. consumers spent over 
$1.3 trillion on energy when adjusted for inflation, a 25 
percent increase from 2020.
    This trend worsened in 2022, as the average monthly 
electric bill for residential customers in the United States 
increased 13 percent from 2021 to 2022, rising from $121 a 
month to over $137 a month, the largest annual increase in 
average residential electricity spending since the data first 
was calculated beginning in 1984. Last winter, the number of 
households relying on government assistance to cover their 
energy costs rose by an estimated 1.3 million to more than 6 
million, the largest year-over-year increase since 2009.
    Additionally, when President Biden was elected in November 
2020, the average gasoline price in the United States was 
roughly $2.20 per gallon. Under President Biden's watch, 
gasoline prices reached a record high, breaking in 2022 with 
prices soaring to a nationwide average of over $5 a gallon. 
Increasing energy costs are especially devastating for American 
families who are living paycheck to paycheck.
    All three of the bills we have before us today will help 
increase domestic energy production and reduce energy costs for 
American families.
    H.R. 5482, the Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability 
Act, introduced by my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Ms. 
Hageman, would commission a government-wide study to review 
laws and regulations that impact energy access and 
affordability that make recommendations on how to reduce energy 
poverty in at-risk communities.
    The bill would also require CBO to include estimates for 
future legislation that would impact energy prices for at-risk 
communities, and would force agencies to demonstrate actions to 
lock up lands or slow energy permitting will not increase 
energy poverty. I personally appreciate this provision, as this 
Administration withdrew 225,504 acres in my home state of 
Minnesota, putting off limits the largest copper nickel find in 
the world, a move that would certainly affect at-risk 
communities across the United States.
    Lastly, the bill would require that all government 
regulations include an energy poverty statement on the first 
page of each rulemaking statement of policy or guidance 
document detailing how the action will not result in energy 
poverty in at-risk communities. I am proud to join my colleague 
from Wyoming in co-sponsoring this legislation, which will 
ultimately hold this Administration accountable for their 
policies that are raising energy costs and burdening at-risk 
communities across our country.
    H.R. 6474, introduced by my colleague and friend, Mrs. 
Steel from California, would expedite geothermal energy 
development by expediting the permitting process in areas with 
existing development and areas that have been recently studied 
under NEPA.
    Lastly, H.R. 6481, introduced again by Ms. Hageman from 
Wyoming, is a common-sense bill that would simply ensure that 
submitters of Expressions of Interest, EOI, for onshore oil and 
gas lease sales are refunded if the BLM refuses to lease the 
acreage in their submitted EOI.
    And I appreciate my colleagues' good work on these bills, 
and look forward to hearing testimony from our witnesses today.
    With that, I will now yield to the Ranking Member Ocasio-
Cortez.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, A 
     REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I thank you, Chairman Stauber.
    Today, we will discuss H.R. 5482, the ``Energy Poverty 
Prevention and Accountability Act.''
    Energy insecurity is a problem in the United States. In a 
2023 Census Bureau survey, more than one in four households in 
the United States said they had difficulty paying their energy 
bills. They have cut back on other essentials to pay for 
energy, or they have lived with unsafe temperatures to lower 
their bills. We see this in the Bronx all the time.
    We, in Congress, should be taking energy poverty seriously. 
But H.R. 5482 is far from the answer to this. While sponsors 
say this bill will help low-income and over-burdened minority 
communities, which is one that I represent, everything in this 
bill is structured to help one constituency, and that is fossil 
fuel companies and executives.
    H.R. 5482 would require very one-sided, so-called energy 
poverty studies to show the benefits of oil and gas production 
and slow down any Federal actions to transition away from 
fossil fuels. This bill takes a completely upside-down view of 
energy and security, tying fossil fuel production at one end of 
the supply chain to the energy prices we pay at the other end. 
It is a trickle-down assumption and approach. It basically says 
the more we produce fossil fuels, the more gas and oil that we 
extract, the lower energy prices Americans will have to pay.
    But needless to say, this is not nearly the full picture, 
and it drastically over-simplifies the problem. It is not hard 
to disprove, either. If more fossil fuel production meant lower 
costs, why is it that today, while American oil and gas 
production is at a record high, home energy costs continue to 
go up?
    For one, the oil and gas we produce does not stay in the 
United States. Our country is exporting more oil and gas than 
ever. Regulators, analysts, and utilities have repeatedly found 
that natural gas exports are driving up the cost for consumers, 
and that is because exports tie American gas prices to the 
volatile global market. Under the Trump administration, the 
Department of Energy commissioned a study on natural gas 
exports that concluded that exports are in the ``public 
interest'' because they would benefit Big Oil's American 
shareholders. Gas exports are still being approved based on 
this widely discredited study.
    And that leads me to my second point, which is that the 
money made from oil and gas production isn't even going to 
everyday Americans' pockets. It is lining the pockets of oil 
and gas executives. In the past year, Big Oil profits reached a 
record of $200 billion. Our public resources are not being 
developed for the public good; they are being developed for 
private profit.
    And when we also look at energy bills, we also need to 
consider the types of homes and appliances that people use. If 
you live in a mobile home with no insulation and decades-old 
appliances, that is also going to drive your energy bills up 
even higher, which already compounds on people who continue to 
be financially strained. You will have to pay more to heat or 
cool or cook than in a better-insulated apartment with energy 
efficient appliances.
    So, as we are here discussing the very real problem of 
energy insecurity and costs, I want to make sure that we are 
here to discuss real solutions. Because if one was looking to 
actually lower one's energy bills, one might look to cut 
private industry profits or to halt fossil fuel exports so that 
Americans can see the benefits of our energy production. One 
might set up a public trust so that profits from our energy 
production could be reinvested into our communities. But this 
bill does nothing to limit our fossil fuel exports, and it does 
nothing to redirect profits towards public good. Instead, it 
explicitly calls for studies that ``encourage private energy 
sector investment on Federal public land and tribal land.''
    If one was looking to actually address energy poverty, one 
might create programs that incentivize energy efficiency. But 
my colleagues across the aisle have repeatedly tried to cut the 
Inflation Reduction Act programs that help everyday Americans 
afford energy efficient appliances and other improvements.
    Lastly, if one were also looking to address the issue of 
energy insecurity, one would also not ignore the climate 
crisis. From rising temperatures to intensifying disasters, the 
rapidly changing climate is directly driving up home energy 
bills, making our energy system less reliable and communities 
more vulnerable to disaster.
    The fact is this bill does not address energy bills. 
Instead, my colleagues across the aisle are exploiting the 
language of poverty in order to enrich private oil and gas 
interests. If we actually want to reduce the energy burden on 
American families, we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels 
and our dedication to maximizing oil and gas profits, not 
double down on them. For that reason, I am encouraged to see 
H.R. 6474, a bill promoting geothermal energy development, on 
the docket today.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. We will now begin with 
our first panel of Members, who will speak respectively on 
their legislation.
    I now recognize Ms. Hageman from Wyoming's at-large 
Congressional District for her testimony.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very grateful 
for the opportunity to testify on two of my bills, the Energy 
Poverty Prevention and Accountability Act and my bill to amend 
the Mineral Leasing Act to make Expression of Interest fees, or 
EOIs, reimbursable.
    In April of this year, I had the opportunity to question 
Secretary Haaland in a Full Committee hearing on the 
President's budget. I specifically asked her if she was 
familiar with the term ``energy poverty,'' to which she replied 
that she was not. This was concerning to me, to say the least. 
But she finally did admit that it was self-explanatory, and I 
explained to her what it does mean, which is a situation where 
people have to choose between paying their heating bill, buying 
medicine, or buying food because of the high cost of energy.
    What was even more concerning to me was that Ms. Haaland 
refused to say that this Administration views energy poverty as 
a bad thing. And considering the fact that every decision they 
have made has either caused or exacerbated energy poverty, I 
must say that I believe that this Administration is furthering 
energy poverty as an affirmative policy for the purpose of 
controlling human behavior and pursuing a radical climate 
agenda.
    On Day 1 of his presidency, President Biden declared a war 
on fossil fuels, and has been responsible for promulgating 
rules that raise energy prices for Americans, starting with the 
cancellation of the Keystone Pipeline and expanding the use of 
the government-created social cost of carbon metric to 
artificially increase the regulatory costs of energy production 
of fossil fuels when performing their analyses.
    My bill does not focus on an artificial manufactured 
narrative, but rather looks at the cold, hard facts and the 
impacts on the pocketbooks of the people in America's most 
vulnerable communities. Energy poverty, as defined in my bill, 
is the condition in which individuals do not have access to 
affordable and reliable energy to maintain economic security. 
Countless Americans are dealing with energy poverty today as a 
direct result of bad public policy originating from the 
executive branch and from Congress.
    My bill requires a report on at-risk communities 
experiencing energy poverty and the barriers preventing at-risk 
communities from accessing affordable energy. It also instructs 
the CBO to identify if a proposed bill directs an agency to 
take actions that could affect access to affordable energy in 
any at-risk community.
    It also directs the Department of the Interior to conduct a 
study on how its proposed rules and regulations impact energy 
poverty strictly as it relates to price in at-risk communities, 
and it allows entities sponsoring energy, mineral, or 
transmission projects on Federal land to request a study from a 
lead agency on how a new lease or project on Federal land would 
impact job creation and energy prices.
    The left has perpetuated a false narrative that energy 
producers are somehow causing poverty. They cite price gouging, 
but then they attempt to centralize the energy market by 
raising royalty rates and bonding fees in an effort to cripple 
competition. Actions like this demonstrate that they are not 
serious, and they do not practice what they preach.
    Mr. Chairman, we should be encouraging development and 
self-reliance, not discouraging it, and the second bill I have 
today does just that.
    I think we all agree that it is wrong to pay an entity for 
services not provided, but that is what is happening right now 
with the oil and gas Expression of Interest fees. Companies pay 
$5 per acre every 3 years to express interest in an oil and gas 
lease. And as we all know, it has been the policy of this 
Administration to neglect or refuse to issue them. My bill 
would allow entities with inactive leases to get reimbursed, 
and to allow the term for which the EOI applies to be extended 
from 3 years to 5 years. This simply allows producers to get 
what they pay for, and to be reimbursed when leases are not 
issued.
    In summary, both of these bills are important for every 
American that has watched their heating bills rise and who are 
paying more at the pump because of DC's bad policies. I urge my 
colleagues to support my efforts to allow for greater 
transparency when it comes to issuing policies that impact the 
paychecks and prosperity of all Americans, and to support 
future development.
    I also request that the debate that we have today is based 
upon the facts and the language of the bill itself, rather than 
simply attempting to impugn our character because we are 
conservatives and believe that fossil fuels and energy 
production are a good thing for America, and have provided for 
the prosperity that we all enjoy, every single one of us 
sitting in this room.
    With that, I yield back.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now recognize Mrs. 
Steel from California's 45th Congressional District for her 
testimony.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHELLE STEEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, for inviting me 
today. You know what? I can talk about the gas price just a 
little bit before I start talking about my bill here.
    In California, the average gas price is over $6 per gallon. 
When gas prices go up, it really hurts middle- and lower-income 
families. In California itself, we have a lot of oil in the 
land. And in California, because of the toughest regulations, 
they have never given out even one permit approved since 1994. 
We have all these energies inside of the government, but we are 
not really working on what we have.
    Having said that, I just want to say thank you, Chairman 
Stauber, for hosting this legislative hearing on H.R. 6474, my 
legislation to expedite geothermal exploration and development. 
Geothermal power is the great renewable energy source.
    My bill is very simple and straightforward. It would 
expedite geothermal development by amending the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 to allow for a new categorical exclusion for 
geothermal under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 
Especially, it would allow for the categorical exclusion for 
geothermal drilling in situations where drilling has occurred 
within the last 5 years, or drilling will occur within an area 
for which an approved environmental document that considered 
drilling was completed pursuant to NEPA within the last 5 
years. This will allow for an expedited approval process for 
certain geothermal projects, and mirrors existing categorical 
exclusion under the NEPA.
    This important legislation will help my home state of 
California and the United States to have more sustainable, 
clean, and reliable energy. Geothermal power can be an 
important tool to make the United States energy independent and 
achieve a cleaner energy future. It is extensively available, 
and can contribute significantly to meeting U.S. energy needs. 
California has a sizable geothermal reservoir. Too much 
regulation prevents producing the energy that we already have 
in this country. Congressional action can make the United 
States a strong producer and my home state a domestic leader in 
the production of geothermal electricity.
    Geothermal energy will support local communities and will 
boost cities economically as production grows. It will create 
and maintain sustainable local jobs to strengthen congressional 
districts. It has a small footprint and near-zero carbon 
emissions. As I already mentioned, it is reliable and 
consistent, unlike other energy sources, and will support the 
already-existing energy grid. Most importantly, geothermal 
energy will insulate future market vulnerability and provide 
energy relief for decades.
    I look forward to my colleagues and the witnesses making 
the case for categorical exclusion for geothermal energy, and 
expediting the permitting process without reducing 
environmental standards.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. We will now move to 
introduce our second panel.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their 
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button 
on the microphone.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn 
yellow. And at the end of the 5 minutes, the light will turn 
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    Our first witness is Dr. Bryant Jones. He is the Executive 
Director for Geothermal Rising, and is stationed in Boise, 
Idaho.
    Dr. Jones, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF BRYANT JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GEOTHERMAL 
                      RISING, BOISE, IDAHO

    Dr. Jones. Hello and good morning, Representative Stauber, 
Representative Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the House Natural 
Resources Committee and Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's 
hearing and discuss the potential and opportunity for 
geothermal energy in our nation's energy mix.
    My name is Bryant Jones, and I am the Executive Director of 
Geothermal Rising, the world's oldest geothermal association, 
serving as the main professional organization for the 
geothermal community in the United States. Our members harness 
the heat beneath the Earth's surface for direct-use geothermal 
heat pumps, and to generate 24/7 carbon-free electricity 
critical to achieving reliable, affordable, fully-decarbonized 
buildings, industries, and stable power grids. Geothermal 
Rising's membership includes project developers, service and 
equipment providers, research groups, environmental and climate 
NGOs, government agencies, and other stakeholders.
    Inexhaustible geothermal energy offers a solution to some 
of the most pressing challenges such as energy reliability and 
emissions reductions. Frankly, it is an energy source we can't 
afford not to invest in.
    Our work at Geothermal Rising centers on decreasing energy 
costs, increasing efficiencies, promoting a strong geothermal 
workforce, and contributing to a sustainable planet and an 
energy-independent nation. As we continue to advocate for the 
responsible development of geothermal resources and compatible 
reductions of regulatory red tape, Geothermal Rising 
acknowledges the importance of environmental assessments and 
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.
    While new legislation creating categorical exclusions for 
geothermal activities would accelerate clean energy 
development, it must be approached with caution and 
responsibility. To ensure that efforts to streamlining 
permitting are responsible and effective, Geothermal Rising 
recommends that the Congress urge Federal agencies to issue 
categorical exclusions for activities with minimal 
environmental impact, based on long-standing data from past 
environmental assessments and environmental impact statements.
    Geothermal energy is often referred to as the invisible 
energy resource. It has the lowest carbon footprint of all 
renewable energy technologies, and it has the smallest 
environmental footprint of all energy technologies. There is a 
clear need for a more streamlined and balanced review process 
that can efficiently address environmental and community 
concerns while advancing the development of geothermal energy.
    Geothermal Rising supports the streamlining of NEPA reviews 
while maintaining scientific rigor and public participation. We 
support regulations that shorten review times for 
environmentally beneficial projects without significant adverse 
effects. We recognize that NEPA reviews, despite their 
necessity, can add significant costs, time, and litigation risk 
to projects. It is crucial that the process is refined to 
better accommodate the urgent development of clean geothermal 
energy projects which currently often fall into categories 
requiring detailed and multiple NEPA reviews.
    We advocate for a balanced approach that upholds 
environmental standards while enabling streamlined development 
of geothermal energy. This balance can be achieved through 
carefully-crafted categorical exclusions, pragmatic and tiered 
reviews, and other appropriate administrative efficiencies, 
while ensuring that any proposed action's environmental impact 
is thoroughly considered and transparently communicated.
    Geothermal Rising supports H.R. 6474, sponsored by 
Representative Steel, as it accomplishes what I have just 
presented.
    Furthermore, Geothermal Rising supports the release of 
guidance on permitting by the Department of the Interior, and 
suggests that the Congress encourage BLM to address industry 
concerns over geothermal leasing delays, requirements that 
geothermal permitting review workforce live in remote field 
offices, and the lack of geothermal technical knowledge in 
those BLM field offices.
    We are excited to see policy momentum supporting geothermal 
development on Capitol Hill, and we look forward to working 
with all of those in the executive branch and Congress to 
provide a framework to responsibly increase pathways to 
establish streamlined permitting processes for this unique and 
vast energy resource, while also ensuring environmental 
responsibility.
    The world is watching the United States for how it designs 
its portfolio in the energy transformation. Geothermal energy 
must be leveraged if we are to rapidly develop nationwide, 
robust power systems and a clean, sustainable fuel mix, all 
while creating jobs and bolstering innovative economic and 
industrial outputs.
    Thank you again for this opportunity, and I am happy to 
answer any questions you may have to the best of my knowledge.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Jones follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Dr. Bryant Jones, Executive Director,
                           Geothermal Rising
                              on H.R. 6474

    Good morning Representative Stauber, Representative Ocasio-Cortez, 
and Members of the House Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on 
Energy and Mineral Resources, thank you for the opportunity to testify 
at today's hearing and discuss the potential and opportunity of 
geothermal energy in our nation's energy mix.
    My name is Bryant Jones, and I am the Executive Director of 
Geothermal Rising, the world's oldest geothermal association, serving 
as the main professional and educational organization for the 
geothermal community in the United States. Our members harness the heat 
beneath the Earth's surface for direct use, geothermal heat pumps, and 
to generate 24/7 carbon-free electricity, critical to achieving 
reliable, affordable, fully decarbonized buildings, industries, and 
power grids. Geothermal Rising membership includes project developers, 
service and equipment providers, universities and research groups, 
government agencies, public utilities, and other stakeholders.
    Geothermal Rising's (GR) mission is to ``use the earth to save the 
earth'' by tapping into the extraordinary potential of our geothermal 
resources. GR's policy work supports this mission by advancing a 
comprehensive agenda of technology agnostic federal and state-level 
policies, regulatory work, and general initiatives to accelerate the 
deployment of all forms of geothermal energy.
    Inexhaustible geothermal energy offers a solution to some of our 
most pressing challenges such as energy reliability and emissions 
reductions. It is a resource that can generate 24/7 clean electricity, 
provide heating and cooling for homes and industries, and much more. 
Frankly, it is an energy source we can't afford not to invest in. Our 
work at Geothermal Rising centers on decreasing energy costs, 
increasing efficiency, promoting a strong geothermal workforce, and 
contributing to a sustainable planet and energy independent nation.
    Currently, in the United States, geothermal power plants have an 
installed capacity of 3,692 MW, however, this represents only 0.4% of 
total U.S. utility-scale electricity generation and accounted for 1.9% 
of electricity generation from renewable sources,\1\ underscoring the 
substantial opportunity we have to scale up geothermal energy as we 
enter this new generation of geothermal technologies and innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-
the-us.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The first geothermal power plant in the United States started up 
more than 60 years ago based on a now mature suite of technologies. 
Today's newer geothermal technologies leverage the expertise and 
experience of the North American oil and gas sector and are poised to 
unleash even more of the United States' geothermal potential. Other 
advantages of geothermal include the domestic co-production of critical 
minerals, existing supply chains, and high paying jobs that directly 
transfer from the conventional energy sector. Lastly, the United States 
is well poised to be the hub of technological development and 
deployment of geothermal energy that can be implemented at home and 
exported around the world. However, a critical hurdle stands in the way 
of realizing this potential--permitting.
    As we continue to advocate for the responsible development of 
geothermal resources and compatible reductions of regulatory red tape, 
GR acknowledges the importance of environmental assessments and 
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While new 
legislation creating categorical exclusions for geothermal activities 
would accelerate clean energy development, it must be approached with 
caution and responsibility, ensuring adequate safeguards and 
transparency. To ensure that efforts to streamline permitting are 
responsible and effective, GR recommends that the Congress urge federal 
agencies to issue categorical exclusions for activities with minimal 
environmental impact based on long-standing data from past 
environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements 
(EISs).
    GR supports the streamlining of NEPA reviews while maintaining 
scientific rigor and public participation. We support regulations that 
shorten review times for environmentally beneficial projects without 
significant adverse effects, emphasizing high-quality scientific 
analysis and considerations of climate change impacts and environmental 
justice. We recognize that NEPA reviews, despite their necessity, can 
add significant cost, time, and litigation risk to projects. It's 
crucial that the process is refined to better accommodate the urgent 
development of clean energy industries like geothermal, which often 
fall into categories requiring detailed NEPA review.
    A recent example is that of the Dixie Meadows Geothermal 
Utilization Project in Nevada, in which Ormat faced undue lawsuits and 
delays over concerns about toad habitat. Ormat was seeking to complete 
the project by a specific deadline to avoid losing $30 million due to 
the terms of a power purchase agreement for this 60-megawatt project. 
Another example is the Gerlach geothermal project, again in Nevada, 
which faced significant delays due to concerns over viewscapes. Given 
that geothermal is often referred to as the invisible energy resource, 
has the lowest carbon footprint of all renewable energy technologies, 
and has the smallest environmental footprint of all energy 
technologies, there is a clear need for a more streamlined and balanced 
review process that can efficiently address environmental and community 
concerns while advancing the development of renewable energy.
    GR sees an opportunity for improvement in our 6-8 year permitting 
timeline for geothermal projects.\2\ As noted in Young et al., 2015 
published by the National Renewable Energy Lab, a NEPA review can be 
triggered up to 6 times in the project development process which is 
less than ideal for capital management. We advocate for a balanced 
approach that upholds environmental standards while enabling 
streamlined development of geothermal energy. This balance can be 
achieved through carefully crafted categorical exclusions, programmatic 
and tiered reviews, and other appropriate administrative efficiencies, 
while ensuring that any proposed action's environmental impact is 
thoroughly considered and transparently communicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Young et al., 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, GR supports the release of guidance on permitting by 
the Department of the Interior (DOI) and suggests that the Congress 
encourage BLM to address industry concerns over geothermal leasing 
delays, requirements that geothermal permitting review workforce live 
in remote field offices, and the lack of geothermal technical knowledge 
in BLM field offices.
    In representing the geothermal community, GR strives to be a 
consensus organization, recognizing that our members may have diverse 
viewpoints on certain issues. Therefore, while we support the general 
direction of proposed regulations and legislative efforts to streamline 
permitting and the development of the geothermal industry, it's 
important to note that our members may have slightly deviating 
priorities and interests.
    Again, while we advocate for permitting reform in a broad sense, we 
also emphasize the need for a balanced approach, namely, environmental 
responsibility and public participation. With the values of responsible 
resource development at the forefront, the United States can lead the 
way in clean, renewable geothermal energy while safeguarding our 
ecosystems and communities.
    We are excited to see policy movement supporting geothermal 
development on Capitol Hill and look forward to working with all of 
those in our national agencies and Congress to provide a framework to 
responsibly increase pathways to establish streamlined permitting 
practices for this unique and vast energy resource, while also 
providing adequate safeguards and transparency.
    The world is watching the United States for how it designs its 
portfolio in the energy transformation. Geothermal energy must be 
leveraged if we are to rapidly develop a nation-wide robust power 
system and a clean sustainable fuel mix, all while creating jobs and 
bolstering innovative economic and industrial outputs.
    Thank you again for this opportunity, and I am happy to answer any 
questions you may have to the best of my knowledge.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Bryant Jones, Executive 
                      Director, Geothermal Rising

             Questions Submitted by Representative Dingell

    Question 1. Dr. Jones, Department of the Interior has a goal of 
licensing 25,000 MW of renewables on public lands by 2025. How could 
next-generation geothermal energy help DOI achieve these goals?

    Answer. Geothermal energy has several unique characteristics that 
set it apart as a clear ``winner'' to achieve DOI renewable energy 
goals.

     Unlike intermittent renewables, geothermal provides 24/7 
            baseload power, contributing to grid stability and 
            reliability.

     Geothermal plants have a small footprint, allowing for 
            significant power generation with minimal land disruption, 
            making them ideal for public lands.

     Geothermal energy has the smallest environmental footprint 
            of all energy technologies, including wind and solar, 
            according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

     Next-generation geothermal technologies can access deeper, 
            hotter resources more efficiently, increasing the potential 
            power output per project and the geological range of 
            geothermal projects. I.e., next generation projects can be 
            deployed virtually ``anywhere'' and not be constrained to 
            where conventional hydrothermal geothermal resources are 
            easily accessible.

     Geothermal energy's low carbon footprint aligns with DOI's 
            sustainability goals, providing a clean energy source while 
            preserving natural landscapes. Geothermal energy has the 
            lowest life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of all renewable 
            energy technologies, according to the National Renewable 
            Energy Laboratory.

    Question 2. Dr. Jones, deploying a significant amount of new 
geothermal projects on federal land will take collaboration and 
innovation. Just this fall, leaders from several industries and 
agencies, including federal, state, and local governments, came 
together to celebrate the groundbreaking of the Fervo Energy Cape 
Modern Geothermal Exploration Project in Beaver County, Utah. Mr. 
Jones, could you please tell us more about how your members are working 
with public lands managers to ensure there is community engagement and 
smart siting for geothermal projects.

    Answer. The Fervo Energy Cape Modern Geothermal Exploration Project 
in Beaver County, Utah, is indeed an excellent example of the 
collaborative efforts needed to deploy new geothermal projects on 
federal lands successfully--however, the permitting and tenure process 
was more arduous than necessary. It is a partnership between Google, 
Fervo, and Cyrq Energy, another geothermal developer with geothermal 
power plants and geothermal direct use systems in New Mexico, Utah, 
Nevada, and Oregon.
    Other examples of geothermal developers working to enhance grid 
reliability within a geothermal facility footprint include Calpine's 
development projects at The Geysers. The projects include a 25 MW North 
Geysers geothermal incremental development, two energy storage 
installations on repurposed geothermal sites totaling 38 MWs, and 
Calpine's partnership with Greenfire Energy to test a closed-loop 
geothermal system in conjunction with a California Energy Commission 
grant. Calpine continues to explore new geothermal technologies that 
will enhance its geothermal output and efficiency at the Geysers. Yet 
another example is Eavor Technologies testing closed-loop geothermal 
drilling technologies at Cyrq Energy's Lightning Dock power plant in 
New Mexico. Eavor successfully drilled and completed the deepest 
closed-loop geothermal well.
    In general, our members have had to be extremely patient in their 
efforts to get boots on the ground and projects started, contributing 
to undue stress, cost, uncertainties, and added risks. Our members are 
passionate about geothermal and willing to take such risks because they 
care about the environment and are seeking to do their part to draw 
down the climate crisis. The geothermal community is not seeking to 
skirt environmental law, but advocating that environmental adherence 
processes can be streamlined significantly. To aid our national 
environmental goals and interests, it is critical that emission-
reducing and environmentally low-impact clean energy projects are not 
unnecessarily (and ironically) stalled in the name of environmentalism.
    Our members prioritize community engagement, ensuring local 
stakeholders are involved and informed throughout the project life 
cycle. This involves public meetings, transparent communication, and 
addressing local concerns and interests. Geothermal Rising members also 
focus on smart siting practices. This includes identifying locations 
with minimal environmental impact, high geothermal potential, and 
community support. Collaborations extend beyond local communities, 
involving state and federal agencies, to streamline permitting 
processes and align projects with broader energy and environmental 
goals. These approaches exemplify how geothermal projects can be 
developed responsibly and sustainably, benefiting both the energy grid 
and local communities.

    Question 3. Dr. Jones, what else can the Bureau of Land Management 
do to advance geothermal energy and create jobs in rural communities?

    Answer.

     Simplify and expedite the permitting process for 
            geothermal development, especially for projects on 
            previously disturbed or studied lands. This includes 
            adopting categorical exclusions for geothermal exploration.

     Establish a geology and science fellows program between 
            BLM and a non-profit, perhaps Geothermal Rising, to augment 
            BLM's geothermal permitting review staff with independent 
            geologists and researchers from academia, retired 
            professionals, or national lab staff.

     Allow hybrid energy leasing on BLM lands so that other 
            renewables can development on BLM geothermal leases so long 
            as geothermal is also being developed as a means of sharing 
            transmission costs and potentially bring investment from 
            other renewables to geothermal.

     Allow BLM staff to work remotely rather than physically 
            relocating to spots such as Winnemucca, Nevada or Battle 
            Mountain, Nevada. This would attract more candidates to 
            help alleviate staffing issues that the geothermal industry 
            experiences at all BLM field and district offices. With the 
            new language in the debt ceiling bill around Environmental 
            Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement timelines, BLM is 
            going to need to hire new staff to meet the condensed 
            schedules.

     Equalize BLM decision making across offices/states with a 
            set of standard geothermal-specific operating procedures 
            for geothermal permitting would greatly speed up 
            development of geothermal resources on federal lands.

     Increase frequency on of BLM geothermal lease sales on 
            federal lands. Nevada is currently the only state holding 
            regular lease sales. All other western states are years 
            behind congressionally mandated geothermal lease sale 
            timelines.

     Provide technical support and resources to local BLM 
            offices, enhancing their capacity to manage and review 
            geothermal projects effectively. Hire more staff, train 
            them adequately in standard geothermal technical 
            vernacular, and allow them to work remotely so that rural 
            areas can be served effectively.

     Encourage partnerships between the private sector, local 
            communities, and BLM to develop projects that align with 
            local economic and environmental objectives. The BLM can 
            aid in this by supporting flexible financing structures and 
            mitigating exploration risks.

     Increase awareness and understanding of geothermal 
            energy's benefits, potential, and dispel misconceptions 
            through educational programs and community outreach.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Dr. Jones. Our next witness is 
Kathleen Sgamma, and she is the President of Western Energy 
Alliance, and is stationed in Denver, Colorado.
    Ms. Sgamma, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN SGAMMA, PRESIDENT, WESTERN ENERGY 
                   ALLIANCE, DENVER, COLORADO

    Ms. Sgamma. Good morning, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member 
Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the Committee.
    Thanks for the opportunity to testify today. I really 
appreciate the bill, Ms. Hageman, on the Expressions of 
Interest, one of my favorite topics.
    Western Energy Alliance represents oil and natural gas 
producers in Wyoming and across the Rocky Mountain West. The 
bill fixes a structural flaw in the EOI provisions, Expressions 
of Interest, or EOI provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. 
There are many structural flaws in the IRA regarding energy, 
since the language was hastily rushed in in the summer of 2022, 
and this legislation fixes one of them. So, I really appreciate 
that.
    Representative Hageman's bill would correct one of those 
flaws. The EOI language in IRA, if unchanged, requires 
companies to pay a $5-per-acre fee for acreage they nominate, 
regardless of whether that acreage is ever offered for sale.
    Based on the large proportion of acreage that BLM nominates 
and then historically sits on and never brings to sale, the 
government is in the inappropriate position of charging for 
nothing. The government takes the money, regardless of whether 
the service is rendered or not, something that certainly would 
not work in the private sector.
    I have a very simple fix. BLM should simply collect the EOI 
fee at the time the acreage is offered for sale. IRA language 
does not specify when the fee must be paid, so BLM has the 
flexibility, with its leasing rule, which it is now working on 
finalizing, to simply make this fix a reality. We, at Western 
Energy Alliance, offered that suggestion in our comments, and 
we hope BLM will accept that change.
    Further, collecting the fee at time of sale fixes another 
problem, and that is the situation of one company paying for 
something that another company receives. Nominating a parcel 
and paying that fee does not guarantee you will win the lease 
at auction. It merely starts the leasing process. By making the 
EOI fee payable at the time of sale, the winning bidder pays 
for the lease right received, not the losing bidder, who goes 
home empty-handed. It is inherently inequitable to compel one 
party to pay for something another party receives.
    My solution also addresses parcels offered at auction that 
receive no bids. In that case, the nominating company pays the 
EOI fee. Whether sold or not, the EOI fee is paid, and BLM 
pockets the fee to cover its lease processing costs. BLM could 
implement my solution as part of its leasing rule, but 
legislation such as H.R. 6481 is necessary in the likelihood 
that BLM does not choose to implement my practical solution.
    The push for the EOI fee came in response to the problem of 
too much acreage being nominated in Nevada. As far as I could 
tell, given publicly available information and conversations 
with people in Nevada, one or two persons inexperienced in the 
business of oil and natural gas were nominating millions of 
acres without having conducted any analysis of the geology, 
resource potential, or industry interest. The nominations would 
be submitted indiscriminately on bulk spreadsheets, listing 
hundreds of parcels of hundreds of thousands of acres at a 
time. This is something that real practitioners in the oil and 
natural gas industry in Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, and 
North Dakota simply do not do.
    The person or persons did this several times, and, of 
course, none of the acreage sold at auction. I argued publicly 
and to BLM at the time that they should simply ignore these 
bulk nominations. And indeed, BLM came to that same conclusion. 
So, that kind of was the problem solved. But you know, the 
problem basically went away, but, of course, the idea of an EOI 
fee went far beyond the problem.
    Therefore, I call on Congress simply to eliminate the fee. 
Even before the new IRA fee went into effect, the oil and gas 
industry returns $55 for every dollar BLM spends processing the 
oil and natural gas program in its entirety. In fact, the $8.6 
billion we return in royalties, rents, and bonuses more than 
covers BLM's entire budget.
    Given the likelihood of my first legislative suggestion 
being adopted, I think Representative Hageman's bill is very 
reasonable, and we do appreciate that and call on Congress to 
move forward with that bill.
    Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sgamma follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Kathleen Sgamma, President,
                        Western Energy Alliance
                              on H.R. 6481

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Committee 
Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 6481. 
The subject of the bill involves nominations for oil and natural gas 
leases, which are initiated by an Expression of Interest (EOI). EOIs 
are a specific detail of the leasing process governed by the Mineral 
Leasing Act (MLA), as amended by the inaptly named Inflation Reduction 
Act (IRA). Inaptly, as the EOI fee, along with other fees and tax 
increases as well as hundreds of billions in government spending, will 
ensure that fundamental energy inflation continues far into the future.
    Western Energy Alliance thanks Representative Hageman for 
introducing the bill. The bill does not rescind the fee, but rather 
fixes a structural flaw in the EOI provisions of IRA. There are many 
structural flaws in IRA regarding energy, since the language that 
Senator Manchin hastily developed as he rushed IRA into law over just a 
few weeks in the summer of 2022 was not vetted with industry experts 
nor with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Officials at BLM have 
commiserated with me over the lack of technical consultation on the 
language, which has resulted in impracticalities and confusion on how 
to implement several provisions such as those regarding EOIs, other fee 
increases, and the intertwining of renewable energy permits with oil 
and natural gas leasing. The proposed leasing rule, about which I 
testified before this Subcommittee in September, demonstrates the 
difficulties BLM faces in finalizing a legally defensible final rule. 
Likewise, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is struggling in 
multiple rulemakings to figure out technically how to implement the 
methane emissions fee mandated by IRA.
    We applaud Senator Manchin for recognizing--in a bill that included 
hundreds of billions of dollars in spending and subsidies for so-called 
green energy projects--that oil, natural gas, and coal provide 80% of 
the energy that Americans rely on and are not going away anytime soon. 
While research and development for alternative energy sources is a 
worthy government investment, excessive IRA spending that distorts 
energy markets confuses American energy policy and threatens grid 
reliability. But since IRA proceeds apace, at least Senator Manchin had 
the foresight to attempt to keep the Department of the Interior from 
completely crowding out reliable energy sources by focusing solely on 
wind and solar energy. He included provisions that require a minimum 
level of oil and natural gas lease offerings before wind and solar 
permits can be issued, an all-of-the-above energy approach we can get 
behind. However, again, since the language was not developed 
cooperatively, the wording is confusing and BLM is playing games with 
how it counts EOIs and acreage offered to meet neither the letter nor 
the spirit of these IRA provisions.

Regulatory Fix

    Getting back more directly to the subject at hand, Rep. Hageman's 
bill would correct one of the various flaws of the EOI provisions in 
IRA. First to identify the flaws. The EOI language in IRA, if 
unchanged, requires companies to pay a $5 per-acre fee for the acreage 
they nominate, regardless of whether the acreage is ever offered for 
sale. Based on the large proportion of nominated acreage that BLM 
historically sits on for years and never brings to sale, the government 
is in the inappropriate position of charging for nothing. The 
government takes the money whether or not the service is rendered, 
something that certainly would not work in the private sector.
    I have a simple fix: BLM should simply collect the EOI fee at the 
time the acreage is offered for sale. The IRA language does not specify 
when the fee must be paid, so BLM has the flexibility with its leasing 
rule to make this simple fix a reality. Western Energy Alliance offered 
that suggestion in comments on the rule, and we hope BLM will accept 
this common-sense fix.
    Further, collecting the fee at time of sale also corrects another 
problem: the situation of one company paying for something another 
company receives. Nominating a parcel does not guarantee you will win 
that lease at auction; it merely starts the leasing process. By making 
the EOI fee payable at time of sale, the winning bidder pays for the 
lease right received, not the losing bidder who goes home empty-handed. 
It is inherently inequitable to compel one party to pay for property 
that another party receives.
    My solution also addresses parcels offered at auction that receive 
no bids: the nominating company pays the EOI fee. Whether sold or not, 
the EOI fee is paid and BLM pockets the fee to cover its lease 
processing costs. BLM could implement my suggestions as part of its 
leasing rule, but legislation such as H.R. 6481 is necessary in the 
likelihood BLM chooses not to implement my practical solution.

Some History

    The push for the EOI fee came in response to the problem of too 
much acreage being nominated in Nevada. As far as I could tell, given 
publicly available data and conversations with people in Nevada, one or 
two individuals inexperienced in the business of oil and natural gas 
were nominating millions of acres without having conducted any analysis 
of the geology, resource potential, or industry interest. The 
nominations would be submitted indiscriminately on bulk spreadsheets 
listing hundreds of parcels of hundreds of thousands of acres at a 
time. In digging into the issue, I could not determine a true motive 
other than possibly naivete and a desire to convince gullible clients 
that one is a ``player'' in the business. But a nomination is nothing 
but a piece of paper if you never acquire the lease and determine its 
potential.
    This person(s) did this several times, and of course, none of the 
acreage sold at auction. I argued publicly and to BLM that it should 
simply ignore these bulk nominations. BLM indeed came to that same 
conclusion after a few null sales and did not move forward wholesale 
with these nominations. Problem solved.
    Meanwhile, in the Mountain West states where the vast majority of 
federal leasing and production occur, this simply does not happen. 
Companies spend too much time and money when assessing potential leases 
to nominate willy nilly. The majority of parcels offered generally 
receives bids. The percentage is not 100% because of inefficiencies in 
the leasing process and the long time periods between nomination and 
sale, which can discourage companies and cause them to give up. But 
bulk nominations of hundreds of thousands of acres simply do not occur.
Legislative Solutions

    Once BLM stopped processing the bulk nominations from Nevada, the 
problem went away. But of course, reality and evidence don't always 
drive the policy process, and the ``solution'' of an EOI fee lasted far 
beyond the problem. Therefore, I call on Congress to simply eliminate 
the EOI fee. Even before the new IRA EOI fee and all the others were 
put in place, the oil and natural gas industry returned $54.94 for 
every dollar BLM spent administering the federal oil and gas 
program.\1\ In fact, the $8.6 billion in onshore royalties, rents, and 
bonuses that oil and natural gas companies paid in 2022 cover BLM's 
entire budget appropriation of $1.6 billion. BLM does not lack 
resources to process EOIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) 2022 revenue data 
for oil and natural gas divided by BLM's $156,537,000 total FY2022 
actual appropriation, from Budget Justifications and Performance 
Information, Fiscal Year 2024, Bureau of Land Management, DOI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Given the likelihood of my first legislative suggestion passing, 
H.R. 6481 is a very reasonable solution. By removing the word 
``nonrefundable'' from the EOI fee definition in the Mineral Leasing 
Act, the bill fixes the important problem of BLM taking fees for 
acreage that it never offers for sale. After five years, if BLM has not 
offered the parcel, the EOI fee is refunded. That is reasonable.
    A third suggestion would be for H.R. 6481 to be amended along the 
lines of my easy regulatory fix above. The bill could specify that the 
EOI fee is to be paid at the time of sale by the winning bidder, or if 
the parcel does not sell, the nominating company is on the hook. My 
suggestion solves the potential problem of excess nominations, as 
profligate nominators are liable for unwanted lease fees. At $5 an 
acre, our naive friends in Nevada would be immediately priced out of 
the nominations process, were they still up to their tricks today.

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Sgamma. Our next 
witness is Dr. J. Mijin Cha, and she is Assistant Professor at 
the University of California, Santa Cruz Environmental Studies 
Department, and is stationed in Santa Cruz.
    Dr. Cha, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF J. MIJIN CHA, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF 
               CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA

    Dr. Cha. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member 
Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Mineral Resources. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. 
My name is Mijin Cha, and I am an Assistant Professor of 
Environmental Studies at the University of California, Santa 
Cruz. My testimony today is based on my research, and my views 
are my own. I join you today to discuss Representative 
Hageman's proposed legislation, H.R. 5482.
    First, I commend Representative Hageman for recognizing how 
energy poverty affects so many households across the country. 
The U.S. Energy Information Administration found that in 2020, 
34 million households, nearly one out of every three households 
nationwide, struggled to pay their energy bills or kept their 
homes at unsafe temperatures because of cost concerns.
    However, the bill's specific focus on protecting oil and 
gas extraction and exploration is counter to combating energy 
poverty. Pricing is one of the main drivers of energy poverty, 
but it is not the only one. Poor housing stock, lack of access 
to capital, and homeowner status all contribute to energy 
insecurity and high energy burdens. Focusing only on energy 
production misses these other drivers of energy insecurity.
    Moreover, the bill as introduced does nothing to reduce 
energy prices. To address the root causes of energy poverty, we 
must first reintroduce the ban on oil exports and expand it to 
include a ban on fracked gas exports to keep oil and gas 
extracted in the United States in the United States.
    Second, we must expand current Federal assistance programs 
that provide assistance to struggling households, such as the 
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, and the 
Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP.
    And third, we must plan for and advance a managed decline 
of fossil fuel extraction and use.
    Exports of U.S. fossil fuels rose dramatically after the 
ban on oil exports was lifted in 2015. Since that time, crude 
oil exports have grown nearly 900 percent; fracked gas exports 
increased by 507 percent. The United States is now a net 
petroleum exporter. Instead of providing for people in this 
country, the majority of oil and gas extracted in the United 
States is shipped around the world. Reinstating the ban on oil 
exports would keep American oil here and reduce fuel costs at 
home.
    Additionally, expanding the original ban on exports to 
include fracked gas would increase the domestic supply of gas 
available to be used for heating and for gas-fired power 
plants.
    A main reason bills remain high is the global demand for 
gas led to a substantial increase in exports of liquefied 
natural gas, LNG, from the United States. To prevent future 
price spikes driven by global considerations, banning the 
exports of LNG, in addition to oil, would keep gas in-country 
and ensure American resources benefit Americans.
    Second, we must expand current Federal assistance programs. 
Programs such as LIHEAP and WAP are crucial lifelines for 
struggling households. Expanding these programs would provide 
vital support at a time when many more families are struggling 
to pay their energy bills. LIHEAP provides assistance to over 6 
million low-income families, but need far outweighs current 
programmatic funding. LIHEAP, as currently funded, can only 
serve less than a third of eligible households. If fully 
resourced, LIHEAP could be a lifeline for all families in need.
    WAP is another energy assistance program that should be 
scaled up significantly. Weatherization can reduce heating 
bills by up to 30 percent, and WAP recipients save nearly $300 
per year, on average. Expanding WAP access and weatherizing all 
low-income housing would also make tremendous structural 
progress towards eliminating energy insecurity and poverty by 
reducing overall energy demand.
    If cost is a concern, expansion of LIHEAP and WAP could be 
funded by repealing the tax credits and subsidies the oil and 
gas industry receive. Conservative estimates calculate that oil 
and gas companies currently receive $20 billion a year in 
financial subsidies. These subsidies dwarf the amount allocated 
to LIHEAP, currently just $3.6 billion for Fiscal Year 2024.
    Ultimately, however, the biggest threat facing vulnerable 
communities is unabated climate change and the continued use of 
fossil fuels. To protect these populations, we must phase out 
the extraction and use of fossil fuels.
    More than 12 million people face health burdens from living 
within half a mile of an oil or gas well or a fossil fuel 
facility. Proximity to oil and gas sites has been shown to 
increase health conditions such as asthma, cancer, and pre-term 
birth rates. Continued fossil fuel use places enormous health 
burdens upon workers and communities across the country and 
across the world.
    In addition to the continuing health impacts, fossil fuels 
are the primary driver of the climate crisis. Without a fossil 
fuel drawdown, unabated climate change will lead to an 
uninhabitable planet. There is already evidence that low-income 
households and households of color do not cool their homes to 
comfortable temperatures because of the high cost of air 
conditioning, assuming they can afford air conditioning in the 
first place.
    Extreme heat also wreaks havoc on electricity grids. 
Increased blackouts and grid instability affects everyone, and 
continuing the use of fossil fuels will only exacerbate these 
dangerous conditions.
    To stave off the worst impacts of the climate crisis, we 
must have a managed and orderly decline of fossil fuel 
extraction and use. A timeline with set production reduction 
targets and resources for transition will provide stability and 
certainty for markets to adapt and provide stability and 
certainty for workers and communities.
    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your 
questions.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Cha follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. J. Mijin Cha, Assistant Professor, University 
  of California, Santa Cruz; Fellow, Climate Jobs Institute, Cornell 
                               University
                              on H.R. 5482

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, thank you for inviting me 
to testify today.
    My name is Mijin Cha and I am an assistant professor of 
Environmental Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, a 
Fellow at the Climate Jobs Institute at Cornell University, and a 
Fellow at the Climate and Community Project. I hold a JD and a PhD and 
am a member of the California Bar. My research focuses on the 
intersection of labor, climate, and inequality and how to advance a 
just energy transition. My testimony today is based on my research and 
my views are my own.
    I join you today to discuss Representative Hageman's proposed 
legislation--H.R. 5482, ``Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability 
Act of 2023.'' Coincidentally, while I am based in California now, I 
spent many of my formative years in Rep. Hageman's beautiful home state 
of Wyoming.
    First, I commend Rep. Hageman for recognizing how energy poverty 
affects so many households across the country. The U.S. Energy 
Information Administration found that in 2020, 34 million households--
nearly one out of every three households nationwide--struggled to pay 
their energy bills or kept their homes at unsafe temperatures because 
of cost concerns.\1\ Black and Hispanic households experience higher 
levels of energy insecurity and poverty.\2\ Energy security is a 
racial, economic, and social justice consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``In 2020, 27% of U.S. Households Had Difficulty Meeting Their 
Energy Needs,'' accessed December 7, 2023, https://www.eia.gov/
todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51979.
    \2\ Shalanda H. Baker, Sanya Carley, and David M. Konisky, ``Energy 
Insecurity and the Urgent Need for Utility Disconnection Protections,'' 
Energy Policy 159 (December 1, 2021): 112663, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2021.112663; Michelle Graff et al., ``Which Households Are 
Energy Insecure? An Empirical Analysis of Race, Housing Conditions, and 
Energy Burdens in the United States,'' Energy Research & Social Science 
79 (September 1, 2021): 102144, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.erss.2021.102144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I also commend this bill for proposing to study the impact that 
policies have on low-income communities, rural communities, and 
communities of color. It is imperative that we structure policy in a 
way that protects the most vulnerable.
    However, the bill's specific focus on protecting oil and gas 
extraction and exploration is counter to combatting energy poverty. 
Recent research shows that electricity shutoffs are driven largely by 
two issues: an overinvestment in fossil fuel infrastructure, which 
drives price volatility, and excessive profits and executive pay.\3\ 
While struggling families face ever increasing power bills and threats 
of cutoffs, utility executives received, on average, $5.9 million in 
pay in 2022. High oil and gas prices mean higher profits and therefore 
the incentive is to keep gas prices high.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ ``In 2020, 27% of U.S. Households Had Difficulty Meeting Their 
Energy Needs,'' accessed December 7, 2023, https://www.eia.gov/
todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, while pricing is one of the main drivers of energy 
poverty, it is not the only one. Poor housing stock, lack of access to 
capital, and homeowner status all contribute to energy insecurity and 
high energy burdens.\4\ Low-income households and households of color 
are more likely to live in housing in need of weatherization and 
energy-efficiency upgrades, but lack the capital to undertake these 
improvements. Inefficient and poorly weatherized housing creates poor 
health conditions and also requires more electricity and heating than 
necessary. These conditions result in excessively high utility bills 
even when rate pricing is lower. Moreover, low-income households and 
households of color are more likely to be renters, which means they 
cannot take advantage of most rebate and energy efficiency incentive 
programs. Rather, they must rely on landlords to do upgrades even 
though the impact is on their utility bills. Focusing only on energy 
production misses these other drivers of energy insecurity and high 
energy burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Diana Hernandez, ``Understanding `Energy Insecurity' and Why It 
Matters to Health,'' Social Science & Medicine (1982) 167 (October 
2016): 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed. 2016.08.029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To address the root causes of energy poverty, we must 1) 
reintroduce the ban on oil exports and expand it to include a ban on 
fracked gas exports to keep oil and gas extracted in the U.S. in the 
U.S., 2) expand current federal assistance programs that provide 
assistance to struggling households, such as the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program (LIEHAP) and the Weatherization Assistance Program 
(WAP), and 3) plan for and advance a managed decline of fossil fuel 
extraction and use.
Reintroduce Ban on Oil Exports and Expand to Include a Ban on Exports 
        of Fracked Gas

    While households across the country struggle to pay their heating 
and electric bills, the oil and gas industry is breaking production and 
profit records. This year, there was a record level of oil and gas 
production. And, 2023 is not an anomaly--this record-setting level of 
production is expected to continue until 2050.\5\ Not only is this 
incompatible with any and all measures to address the climate crisis, 
record-setting levels of oil and gas production have not reduced energy 
bills for Americans. While more and more oil and gas is being 
extracted, those profits are going to oil and gas companies and 
households across the country are not benefiting, not even one cent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Oliver Milman, ``US Oil and Gas Production Set to Break Record 
in 2023 despite UN Climate Goals,'' The Guardian, November 27, 2023, 
sec. Environment, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/27/
us-oil-gas-record-fossil-fuels-cop28-united-nations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Exports of U.S. fossil fuels rose dramatically after the ban on oil 
exports was lifted in 2015.\6\ Since the repeal of the ban, crude oil 
exports grew nearly 900 percent.\7\ Fracked gas exports increased by 
507 percent.\8\ In addition to being the world's top producer of oil 
and gas, the United States is now a net petroleum exporter. In 2022, we 
exported 9.52 million barrels of petroleum per day while importing 8.33 
million barrels per day.\9\ Instead of providing for people in this 
country, oil and gas extracted in the U.S. is shipped around the world. 
Increasing production levels has done nothing for household energy 
bills because the oil and gas extracted is being sent to other 
countries. Re-instating the ban on oil exports would keep American oil 
here and reduce fuel costs at home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Taproot Earth and Climate and Community Project, ``We Choose 
Now: Energy Policy Playbook,'' https://taproot.earth/wp-content/
uploads/23_05_04_WCN-ENERGY.pdf, May 2023, accessed December 6, 2023.
    \7\ ``U.S. Exports of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels per Day),'' 
accessed December 9, 2023, https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/
LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCREXUS2&f=M.
    \8\ ``Natural Gas Imports and Exports--U.S. Energy Information 
Administration (EIA),'' accessed December 9, 2023, https://www.eia.gov/
energyexplained/natural-gas/imports-and-exports.php.
    \9\ ``Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)--U.S. Energy Information 
Administration (EIA),'' accessed December 6, 2023, https://www.eia.gov/
tools/faqs/faq.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, expanding the original ban on exports to include 
fracked gas would increase the domestic supply of gas available for 
heating and for gas-fired power plants. This increased supply will 
decrease costs for households. One reason bills remain high, as made 
clear by utilities and regulators, is the global demand for gas led to 
a substantial increase in exports of liquified natural gas (LNG) from 
the U.S. Another reason is that when gas prices spike, the effect lasts 
for years. While there was a spike in gas prices in 2021 and 2022 due 
to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, wholesale gas prices fell in 2023 to 
roughly the level they were before the invasion.\10\ Yet, this decrease 
in wholesale gas prices was not reflected on utility bills. Residential 
gas prices, in fact, were at their highest levels in 10 states in 
August 2023. The reason is because utilities distribute the cost of 
fuel spikes in rate increases over years. Customers will continue to 
pay for the temporary high cost of gas from the Ukrainian war for 
several years to come. As a result of these factors, there is no relief 
for American utility customers even though retail gas prices declined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ ``LNG Exports Have Raised Natural Gas Prices for U.S. 
Households,'' accessed December 7, 2023, https://ieefa.org/resources/
lng-exports-have-raised-natural-gas-prices-us-households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To prevent future prices spikes driven by global considerations, 
banning the export of LNG, in addition to oil, would keep domestic gas 
domestic and ensure American resources benefit Americans.
Expand Current Federal Assistance Programs

    Federal programs, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program (LIHEAP) and the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), are 
crucial lifelines for struggling households. LIHEAP and WAP are 
critical to providing energy security to families across the country. 
Expanding these programs would provide vital support at a time when 
many more families are struggling to pay their energy bills.
    LIHEAP provides assistance to over 6 million low-income families. 
But need far outweighs current programmatic funding. LIHEAP as 
currently funded can serve only less than a third of eligible 
households. If expanded, the program could be a true lifeline and 
provide more support. Fully resourcing the program would allow it to 
reach all the households that need assistance.
    WAP is another energy assistance program that should be scaled up 
significantly. WAP provides crucial energy efficiency upgrades that can 
help households permanently lower their energy bills. According to the 
National Association for State Community Services Programs, 
weatherization can reduce heating bills by up to 30 percent and WAP 
recipients save nearly $300 per year on average.\11\ Expanding WAP 
access and weatherizing all low-income housing would also make 
tremendous structural progress towards eliminating energy insecurity 
and poverty by reducing overall energy demand. Efficient homes have 
lower energy bills. And, weatherization not only lowers utility bills, 
it makes housing healthier and safer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ ``LIHEAP and WAP: A Dynamic Duo for Reducing the Low-Income 
Energy Burden--NASCSP,'' accessed December 7, 2023, https://nascsp.org/
liheap-and-wap-a-dynamic-duo-for-reducing-the-low-income-energy-
burden/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If cost is a concern, expansion of LIHEAP and WAP could be funded 
by repealing the tax credits and subsidies the oil and gas industry 
receive. Conservative estimates calculate that oil and gas companies 
currently receive $20 billion a year in financial subsidies.\12\ These 
subsidies dwarf the amount allocated to LIHEAP--currently just $3.6 
billion for FY 2024.\13\ In 2022, the major oil companies made a record 
$219 billion in profits.\14\ Instead of using those profits to lower 
costs for consumers, Big Oil paid shareholders a record $110 billion in 
dividends and stock buybacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ ``Fact Sheet--Proposals to Reduce Fossil Fuel Subsidies 
(2021)--White Papers--EESI,'' accessed December 7, 2023, https://
www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-proposals-to-reduce-fossil-fuel-
subsidies-2021.
    \13\ ``LIHEAP and WAP Funding--The LIHEAP Clearinghouse,'' accessed 
December 7, 2023, https://liheapch.acf.hhs.gov/Funding/funding.htm.
    \14\ Ron Bousso, ``Big Oil Doubles Profits in Blockbuster 2022--
Reuters,'' February 8, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/
big-oil-doubles-profits-blockbuster-2022-2023-02-08/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Big Oil does not need tax payer dollars to further subsidize its 
record profits. Reallocating the tax dollars lost to Big Oil would more 
than fund LIHEAP at the levels it needs to provide support to all 
struggling households.
Plan for and Advance a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Extraction and 
        Use

    Ultimately, the biggest threat facing vulnerable communities is 
unabated climate change and the continued use of fossil fuels. To 
protect these populations, we must phase out the use of fossil 
fuels.\15\ Fossil fuels create heavily polluted hotspots, also called 
``sacrifice zones,'' where inhabitants are subjected to heavy air, 
water, and land pollution. The vulnerable populations that live in 
sacrifice zones also face health risks associated with such high levels 
of pollution exposure. Sacrifice zones are disproportionately located 
in communities of color and poor communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Timothy Q. Donaghy et al., ``Fossil Fuel Racism in the United 
States: How Phasing out Coal, Oil, and Gas Can Protect Communities,'' 
Energy Research & Social Science 100 (June 1, 2023): 103104, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even outside of sacrifice zones, fossil fuels pollute and cause 
harm. More than 12 million people face health burdens from living 
within half a mile of an oil or gas well or a fossil fuel facility.\16\ 
Proximity to oil and gas sites has been shown to increase health 
conditions, such as asthma, cancer, and preterm birth rates.\17\ 
Continued fossil fuel use places enormous health burdens upon workers 
and communities across the country and across the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Zahara Hirji, `` `Threat Map' Aims to Highlight the Worst of 
Oil and Gas Air Pollution,'' Inside Climate News, June 16, 2016, 
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16062016/threat-map-aims-highlight-
worst-oil-and-gas-air-pollution-cancer-epa-earthworks/.
    \17\ Jonathan J. Buonocore et al., ``Air Pollution and Health 
Impacts of Oil & Gas Production in the United States,'' Environmental 
Research: Health 1, no. 2 (May 2023): 021006, https://doi.org/10.1088/
2752-5309/acc886.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the continuing health impacts, fossil fuels are the 
primary driver of the climate crisis. Without a fossil fuel drawdown, 
unabated climate change will lead to an uninhabitable planet. And, 
climate change is not a future concern--we are already living in a 
changing climate. Moreover, energy insecurity and the climate crisis 
are inextricably linked. Climate change will exacerbate energy 
insecurity, particularly as occurrences of extreme heat and extreme 
cold continue to increase.\18\ Among their many dangers, extreme heat 
and extreme cold cause spikes in energy demand that lead to higher 
utility bills. Extreme temperatures create dangerous conditions and 
households that cannot afford to adequate heat or cool their homes will 
face increased health risks, including heatstroke and exacerbation of 
pre-existing conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Michelle Graff et al., ``Climate Change and Energy Insecurity: 
A Growing Need for Policy Intervention,'' Environmental Justice, April 
19, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2021.0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is already evidence that low-income households and households 
of color do not cool their homes to comfortable temperatures because of 
the high cost of air conditioning, assuming they can afford air 
conditioning in the first place.\19\ The dangers of extreme heat are 
not limited to energy insecure households, though. Extreme heat also 
wreaks havoc on electricity grids.\20\ Increased blackouts and grid 
instability affects everyone and continuing the use of fossil fuels 
will only further exacerbate these dangerous conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Shuchen Cong et al., ``Unveiling Hidden Energy Poverty Using 
the Energy Equity Gap,'' Nature Communications 13, no. 1 (May 4, 2022): 
2456, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30146-5.
    \20\ ``Extreme Heat Makes Electricity More Expensive, More 
Polluting, and Less Reliable,'' The Equation, August 22, 2023, https://
blog.ucsusa.org/john-rogers/extreme-heat-makes-electricity-more-
expensive-more-polluting-and-less-reliable/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To stave off the worst impacts of the climate crisis, we must have 
an energy transition away from fossil fuels to a renewable energy 
future. There is an abundance of research that shows how renewable 
energy will lower and stabilize energy prices \21\ but I want to point 
to the testimony of Erin O'Neill, Chief Economist of Colorado's Public 
Utilities Commission.\22\ In discussing the causes of the increase in 
utility bills during the Winter of 2022-2023, gas bills were identified 
as the main driver of high utility costs. O'Neill identified several 
other factors, including the cost of gas and the increased demand for 
gas due to a relatively colder Winter. Notably, however, investments 
and use of renewable energy were identified as not responsible for 
higher utility bills. In fact, ``[T]o the extent Colorado has invested 
in renewable generation for electricity production, that has helped 
insulate electric bills from the impact of high and volatile gas 
commodity prices.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ See e.g. Amol Phadke et al., ``2035 The Report: Plummeting 
Solar, Wind, And Battery Costs Can Accelerate Our Clean Electricity 
Future,'' 2020, https://www.2035report.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/
2035-Report.pdf; ``North American Renewable Integration Study,'' 
accessed December 9, 2023, https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/naris.html.
    \22\  https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/?les/images/
puc_presentation_3.7.23.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phasing out fossil fuels will require substantial management and 
coordination.\23\ Without a managed decline, we risk a chaotic 
transition that could lead to further economic and social instability. 
The volatility of energy prices is empirical evidence of how an 
unmanaged use of resources creates instability and insecurity. An 
orderly and managed decline of fossil fuel extraction and use can 
provide workers and communities a just transition to a carbon-free 
future. A timeline with set production reduction targets and resources 
for transition will provide stability and certainty for markets to 
adapt to decarbonization and provide stability and certainty for 
workers and communities to diversify economies and tax bases.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Johanna Bozuwa et al., ``Chapter 8--Democratic Governance of 
Fossil Fuel Decline,'' in Energy Democracies for Sustainable Futures, 
ed. Majia Nadesan, Martin J. Pasqualetti, and Jennifer Keahey (Academic 
Press, 2023), 73-82, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822796-1.00008-
5; Emily Grubert and Sara Hastings-Simon, ``Designing the Mid-
Transition: A Review of Medium-Term Challenges for Coordinated 
Decarbonization in the United States,'' WIREs Climate Change 13, no. 3 
(2022): e768, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.768.
    \24\ For more research on what a just transition would entail, see: 
J. Mijin Cha, ``A Just Transition for Whom? Politics, Contestation, and 
Social Identity in the Disruption of Coal in the Powder River Basin,'' 
Energy Research & Social Science 69 (November 1, 2020): 101657, https:/
/doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101657; J. Mijin Cha and Manuel Pastor, 
``Just Transition: Framing, Organizing, and Power-Building for 
Decarbonization,'' Energy Research & Social Science 90 (August 1, 
2022): 102588, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102588; J. Mijin 
Cha, Madeline Wander, and Manuel Pastor, ``Environmental Justice, Just 
Transition, and a Low-Carbon Future for California,'' Environmental Law 
Reporter 50 ELR 10216 (March 2020), https://elr.info/news-analysis/50/
10216/environmental-justice-just-transition-and-low-carbon-future-
california.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The federal government could go even further and build publicly 
owned renewable projects that would help provide more stable energy to 
the grid and reduce costs to consumers. As we see in the Building 
Public Renewables Act recently passed in New York state, it is easier 
to have more oversight and management of a public power authority than 
the private utility system. A blueprint for how the federal government 
could provide a public option for electricity can be found in the 
Climate and Community Project's Building Public Renewables in the 
United States, report.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Johanna Bozuwa et al., ``Building Public Renewables in the 
United States'' (Climate and Community Project, March 2023), https://
www.climateandcommunity.org/public-renewables-in-the-us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

    To conclude, I applaud the Representative's recognition of energy 
poverty and how it hurts communities across the country. In order to 
address the root causes of energy poverty and protect vulnerable 
households, the legislation should call for a ban on oil and gas 
exports, expand existing assistance programs, and plan for and advance 
a managed decline of fossil fuel resources.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. J. Mijin Cha, Assistant 
            Professor, University of California, Santa Cruz

             Questions Submitted by Representative Dingell

    Question 1. Dr. Cha, does increasing fossil fuel production lead to 
lower energy costs?

    Answer. Not necessarily. Without re-instating the ban on oil 
exports and expanding it to include banning gas exports, the fossil 
fuels produced domestically are being exported and sold in other 
countries. So while oil and gas production in the U.S. is at record 
levels, this increase in production is not leading to more domestic 
supply. As a result, energy costs are not lowered even though 
production levels are at record levels. Without the export ban, 
increasing fossil fuel production will not materially decrease energy 
costs.

    Question 2. Dr. Cha, can you expand on some of the root causes of 
energy insecurity?

    Answer. The root causes of energy insecurity are general economic 
insecurity, poor housing stock, lack of access to capital, and 
homeowner status. General economic insecurity causes families to not 
have enough income or wealth to pay basic utility bills. Low-income 
households and households of color are more likely to live in housing 
in need of weatherization and energy-efficiency upgrades, but lack the 
capital to undertake these improvements. Inefficient and poorly 
weatherized housing creates poor health conditions and also requires 
more electricity and heating than necessary. These conditions result in 
excessively high utility bills even when rate pricing is lower. 
Moreover, weatherization and energy efficiency incentives are generally 
targeted at homeowners so renters, which low-income families are more 
likely to be, cannot take advantage of those programs.
    The climate crisis is also a driver of energy insecurity as more 
extreme weather events disrupt power supplies and systems. These 
disruptions are often worse in low-income communities and communities 
of color leading to more energy insecurity among these populations.

    Question 3. Dr. Cha, do you believe H.R. 5482 ``Energy Poverty 
Prevention and Accountability Act of 2023'' addresses those issues?

    Answer. No, H.R. 5482 does not address any of these issues. To the 
extent that H.R. 5482 protects the fossil fuel industry by providing 
skewed analysis of the benefits of expansions of fossil fuel activity, 
while ignoring the many costs and dangers, it will exacerbate the 
climate crisis further increasing energy insecurity.

    Question 4. Dr. Cha, can you elaborate about the importance of 
LIHEAP and whether current funding levels are enough to meet American 
families' needs?

    Answer. LIHEAP provides vital support at a time when many more 
families are struggling to pay their energy bills. LIHEAP provides 
assistance to over 6 million low-income families. Currently funding 
levels are far below what is needed to support American families. 
LIHEAP as currently funded can serve only less than a third of eligible 
households. LIHEAP funding would need to be tripled, at the minimum, to 
provide assistance to all the families in need. The Weatherization 
Assistance Program (WAP), which helps low-income households weatherize 
their homes, is also a crucial lifeline that would structurally reduce 
energy costs by reducing energy usage. WAP is also severely 
underfunded.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. Our final witness is Mr. Derek 
Hollie, the Founder of the Energy Poverty Prevention Project, 
who is stationed in Stafford, Virginia.
    Mr. Hollie, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF DEREK HOLLIE, FOUNDER, ENERGY POVERTY PREVENTION 
                  PROJECT, STAFFORD, VIRGINIA

    Mr. Hollie. Thank you. Greetings, Chairman Stauber, Ranking 
Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the Committee. Thank you 
for the opportunity of allowing me to speak today.
    I am not going to mince my words. By destroying America's 
energy independence, the Biden administration directly is 
making Black Americans more poor and less independent than 
ever.
    Since Biden's first day in office, with the shutdown of the 
Keystone Pipeline projects and his ongoing war on a key pillar 
of our economy, we have all experienced skyrocketing energy 
costs that punish the very people he claims to care about.
    I am Derek Hollie, Founder of the Energy Poverty Prevention 
Project. I founded the organization to enable us to continue 
leading the charge to expand awareness of energy poverty in the 
United States and its implications on at-risk communities like 
minorities, senior citizens, rural, and Native Americans.
    The mission of the Energy Poverty Prevention Project is to 
create equal access to affordable and reliable energy for all 
Americans. We are committed to changing energy regulations that 
fail to provide American citizens with access to affordable and 
reliable energy needed to maintain personal health and economic 
security.
    Since 2019, I have had the opportunity to appear before 
Congress six times to give witness testimony on energy poverty 
and other related issues impacting at-risk communities. My 
experience addressing energy poverty includes authoring over 50 
op-eds and editorials, and developing education and outreach 
campaigns.
    My passion for American energy is deeply rooted in my own 
story, stemming from my grandfather, who was a Black coal miner 
in southwest Virginia and my time serving as a brakeman for 
Norfolk Southern Railways, where we transported coal and other 
natural resources here and abroad.
    Energy poverty occurs when individuals and families are 
unable to afford basic heating, electricity, and gas needs. 
High energy costs and the lack of energy services negatively 
impact a household's well-being and limit opportunities. 
Vulnerable populations like minorities, senior citizens, and 
Native Americans are most often disproportionately affected by 
energy poverty, as other people have said today. These 
inflationary pressures and terrible consequences are not the 
result of a free market at work, but overzealous policy pushed 
by paternalistic lawmakers who think they know what is best for 
everyone with a one-size-fits-all approach.
    Energy is a fixed cost for families and large entities 
alike, and we know when the price of energy increases, so does 
everything else: it costs more to drive, it impacts the cost of 
groceries, and, most critically, come winter, it costs more to 
heat your home. Rising energy costs make it harder or next to 
impossible for Black families to make ends meet.
    Tragically, the pause on new oil and gas leases on Federal 
land and over-regulation accompanied with an aggressive green 
agenda by the Biden administration has many Americans 
experiencing energy poverty for the first time. There is no 
reason anyone in our country should be without affordable 
energy. The United States is abundantly rich in natural 
resources including gas, petroleum, and coal, and America is 
more capable than ever of providing affordable energy to its 
citizens.
    The United States was energy independent in 2019 for the 
first time in decades, producing more energy domestically than 
we consumed. This, along with a booming shale industry, helped 
America overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the No. 1 
exporter of petroleum and natural gas globally.
    Now, according to the U.S. Energy Information 
Administration, fossil fuels accounted for 81 percent of our 
U.S. energy production in 2022. Renewables reached their 
highest production in 2022, and only accounted for 13 percent 
of our energy production. More figures from the EIA show that 
renewables received $15.6 billion of subsidies in Fiscal Year 
2022, compared to $3.6 billion for fossil fuels. Per the EIA 
report, renewable energies received nearly five times as much 
in Federal subsidies than fossil fuels, despite having such a 
small impact.
    Renewable projects are also very costly. In an article by 
Energy Wire in September, the Alliance for Clean Energy New 
York told regulators in June that, due to cost, canceled or 
delayed projects would drastically derail the schedule for 
renewable development and cause the state to miss its mandates 
under the law.
    Eliminating energy poverty should be a goal that we are all 
interested in achieving. And working towards that goal, we need 
to be mindful of how environmental policies will impact the 
vulnerable communities that need our support. Radical 
environmentalists and the Biden administration like to frame 
this as a fight against big energy. But all they are really 
doing is pushing back Black Americans and other at-risk 
communities further into poverty.
    When the government creates policy, its priority should be 
the welfare of the people, especially those who are impacted 
the hardest. We need market-oriented energy policy that will 
allow America to safely keep exploring and developing our own 
natural resources for a more secure and prosperous future for 
all Americans. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hollie follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Derrick Hollie, Founder of Energy Poverty 
                           Prevention Project
                              on H.R. 5482

    Greetings Chairman, Pete Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez and 
Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity and for 
allowing me to speak today.
    I'm not going to mince words here. By destroying America's energy 
independence, the Biden Administration is directly making Black 
Americans more poor and less independent than ever. Since Biden's first 
day in office with the shutdown of the Keystone pipeline project and 
his ongoing war on a key pillar of our economy, we've all experienced 
skyrocketing energy costs that punish the very people he claims to care 
about.
    I'm Derrick Hollie, founder of the Energy Poverty Prevention 
Project. I founded the organization to enable us to continue leading 
the charge to expand awareness of energy poverty in the United States 
and its implications on at-risk communities like minorities, senior 
citizens, rural and Native Americans. The mission of the Energy Poverty 
Prevention Project is to create equal access to affordable and reliable 
energy for all Americans. We are committed to changing energy 
regulations that fail to provide American citizens with access to 
affordable and reliable energy needed to maintain personal health and 
economic security.
    Since 2019, I have had the opportunity to appear before Congress 
six times to give testimony on energy poverty and other related issues 
impacting at-risk communities. My experience addressing energy poverty 
includes authoring over fifty op-eds and editorials and developing 
education and outreach campaigns. My passion for American energy is 
deeply rooted in my own story, stemming from my grandfather, who was a 
black coal miner in Southwest Virginia, and my time serving as a 
brakeman for Norfolk Southern Railways, where we transported coal and 
other natural resources here and abroad.
    Energy poverty occurs when individuals and families are unable to 
afford basic heating, electricity, and gas needs. High energy costs and 
the lack of energy services negatively impact a household's well-being 
and limit opportunity. Vulnerable populations like minorities, senior 
citizens, and Native Americans are most often disproportionately 
affected by energy poverty. These inflationary pressures and the 
terrible consequences aren't the result of a free market at work, but 
overzealous policy pushed by paternalistic lawmakers who think they 
know what's best for everyone with a ``one size fits all approach.''
    Energy is a fixed cost for small families and large enterprises 
alike, and we know when the price of energy increases, so does 
everything else. It costs more to drive, it impacts the cost of 
groceries, and most critically, come winter, it costs more to heat your 
home. Rising energy costs are making it harder or next to impossible 
for Black families to make ends meet. Tragically, the pause on new oil 
and gas leases on Federal land, and overregulation accompanied with an 
aggressive green agenda by the Biden Administration has many Americans 
experiencing energy poverty for the first time.
    There is no reason anyone in our country should be without 
affordable energy. The United States is abundantly rich in natural 
resources, including natural gas, petroleum, and coal. America is more 
capable than ever of providing affordable energy to its citizens. The 
United States was energy independent in 2019 for the first time in 
decades, producing more energy domestically than what we consumed. 
This, along with a booming shale industry, helped America overtake 
Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the top exporter of petroleum and 
natural gas globally.
    According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, fossil 
fuels accounted for about 81% of U.S. energy production in 2022. 
Renewables reached their highest production in 2022 and only accounted 
for 13% of all energy production. More figures from EIA show that 
renewables received $15.6 billion of subsidies in fiscal year 2022, 
compared to $3.6 billion for fossil fuels. Per the EIA report, 
renewable energy industries received nearly five times as much in 
federal subsidies than fossil fuels despite having such a small impact. 
Renewable projects are also very costly. An article by ENERGYWIRE in 
September, the Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACENY) told 
regulators in June, due to cost, ``canceled or delayed projects would 
drastically derail the schedule for renewable development'' and cause 
the state to miss its mandates under the law.
    Eliminating energy poverty should be a goal we all are interested 
in achieving. In working towards that goal, we need to be mindful of 
how environmental policies will impact the vulnerable communities that 
need our support. Radical environmentalists and the Biden 
Administration like to frame this as a fight against big energy, but 
all they are really doing is pushing Black Americans and other at-risk 
communities further into poverty. When the government creates policy, 
its priority should be the welfare of the people, especially those 
impacted the hardest. We need a market-oriented energy policy that will 
allow America to safely keep exploring and developing our own natural 
resources for a more secure and prosperous future for all Americans.

    Thank you.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Hollie, you are spot on.
    The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes of 
questions. I now recognize Mr. Fulcher for his questioning.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And to the panelists, thank you for taking the time and 
coming to speak to us today, and for your input. And I do learn 
from the information that our expert witnesses bring, and a 
number of you I have met before.
    Ms. Cha, I don't think we would agree on very much, but one 
thing we may agree on is geothermal energy.
    And to Mr. Jones, I have a question for you. First of all, 
welcome from my hometown of Boise. And you may be aware, but I 
am running complementary legislation on expanding geothermal 
exploration on Federal lands. And I have long believed, in part 
because of our history in Boise and what has happened there 
with geothermal energy and working in the capital, which is, as 
you know, influenced very heavily by that, but it is clean, it 
is efficient, it is reliable, plentiful, cheap, and a very 
minor disturbance to the land. So, this is something that I 
think that we need to continue to espouse.
    But in your testimony, Mr. Jones, you referenced that 
geothermal projects currently take 6 to 8 years in terms of 
permitting. Not days, not weeks, not months, years. Did I get 
that right, first of all?
    And secondly, why years?
    Dr. Jones. Yes. Well, thank you for the question, 
Representative Fulcher, and it is great to be here and 
representing Idaho, or being from Idaho.
    But yes, you are correct that it can take 6 to 8 years or 
more for a geothermal project to go from exploration to being 
in development. Part of that reason is that a geothermal 
developer has to go through multiple NEPA reviews to get to the 
development stage. A traditional hydrothermal system will have 
to go through NEPA to get their first approval for exploration. 
And then, if they find a promising heat anomaly, they will have 
to go through a second NEPA process for permitting the drill 
testing and gradient wells. Then they will have to go through a 
third NEPA process to drill a slim hole or a confirmation well 
of that resource. And then a fourth NEPA process to develop the 
exploration to develop the well field itself. And then a fifth 
NEPA process to build the power plant. And that doesn't include 
that if there is a BLM lease auction involved, there is another 
NEPA review.
    So, those several different NEPA reviews cause the length 
of time that geothermal development has to go through. And NEPA 
reviews can sometimes last 300 days or 800 days. It depends. 
So, that is what is preventing geothermal development in the 
United States.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that. And we do get confronted 
with that frequently.
    But this is a fabulous source, a fabulous source of energy. 
And for anybody who likes electricity, you have to find 
something to produce it. And I have yet to find anyone, I will 
bet even Dr. Cha and my friend from California, Mr. Huffman, 
that these are things that we can probably circle the wagons on 
at a time when a lot of other things there is controversy with.
    I think I understand some of these things, but I would like 
you to help me convince maybe some of the others listening 
here. What are some of the other economic benefits that come 
along with this, in terms of development, jobs, other 
ramifications that come as positive geothermal development?
    Dr. Jones. Yes, thanks for that question, Representative 
Fulcher.
    Geothermal has an incredible amount of synergies with the 
oil and gas industry. It requires drilling, it requires 
subsurface reservoir managers, it requires engineers, 
geologists. These synergies between the oil and gas workforce 
and the geothermal workforce are tremendous and deep. We do not 
have to re-educate a population to bring that workforce into 
the geothermal industry.
    And as I have already mentioned, geothermal has an 
incredible amount of potential to not just decarbonize the 
power grid, but also the built environment. We can decarbonize 
industries that rely on natural gas right now to process dairy 
or cheese. We can dehydrate vegetables and other produce using 
geothermal instead of fossil fuels. We can use geothermal to 
create clean, carbon-free electricity. So, the applications of 
geothermal are quite vast.
    Mr. Fulcher. I thank you for that. Thank you for your 
expertise.
    Madam Chair, I am going to just close by saying that we 
have a winner here. And I, for one, am promoting spending some 
time on the things that we agree on for a change, and this is 
one of them. I yield back.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. The Chair will now 
recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, for 5 minutes 
of questioning.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Chair. I agree with my 
colleagues across the aisle that it is essential for 
policymakers to take seriously how energy policies are going to 
affect the energy prices that are faced by everyday Americans.
    But, unfortunately, the Energy Poverty Prevention 
Accountability Act takes a very narrow view of which energy 
policies and which impacts we should consider. Among other 
things, this bill requires the Department of the Interior to 
review energy ``activities'' to see if these activities would 
impose disproportionate costs on at-risk communities, or 
increase the likelihood that at-risk communities will 
experience energy poverty and job losses. On its face, that 
seems like something we might agree with. But we should be 
taking a closer look. In this bill, the following activities 
would require review.
    One, a declaration of a moratorium on the leasing of 
Federal land for the drilling, mining, or collection of oil, 
gas, or coal, or related activities. That would require review.
    The other thing that requires review is any action that 
prohibits or delays the issuance of new oil and gas lease 
sales, or the withdrawal of Federal lands from forms of entry, 
appropriation, or disposal under the public land or mining 
laws.
    What we are seeing here is that the drafters of this bill 
make it very clear which industries they are concerned about. 
They are requiring that these studies are exclusively for 
activities that would limit oil and gas production or mining, 
but they don't really pertain to those that wouldn't.
    Dr. Cha, do you believe that these narrowly-focused studies 
would provide an accurate assessment of a community's risk of 
energy insecurity or poverty?
    Dr. Cha. I do not.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I also find it interesting that 
individual fossil fuel or mining project sponsors can request 
an energy study to show, and I quote, ``how the project is 
likely to alleviate energy poverty in at-risk communities, 
including by creating jobs, reducing energy prices, or other 
relevant measures.'' So, an individual fossil fuel or mining 
project can request a study to validate or boost their own 
project.
    Dr. Cha, how could these criteria and this project-by-
project approach create a misleading picture of the costs and 
benefits of extractive projects?
    Dr. Cha. Well, I think, first, it does do exactly as you 
said, Representative, which is project by project, and doesn't 
take into account the cumulative impact of all of these 
projects on a community.
    It also only looks at the benefits. It doesn't look at any 
externalities that are caused, the air pollution that is 
caused, the poisoning to land, air, and water for those 
communities, and it really just paints the most positive view 
of the fossil fuel project and not taking into consideration 
also the contribution that it could have to the climate crisis, 
which is one of the greatest threats to vulnerable households.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, this isn't even about a cost benefit 
analysis at all, correct?
    Dr. Cha. It is like a benefit analysis.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. It is just a benefit analysis. So, a 
fossil fuel company or project can come in and say, tell me all 
the good things that can happen by me drilling in someone's 
backyard, but don't talk about any of the polluting that can 
happen, any of the dumping that can happen, any of the cancer 
that can be caused in this area, any of the poisoning that can 
happen on local constituents. Just tell me about the good 
things. Correct?
    Dr. Cha. Exactly.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Now, in your opinion, would a project 
sponsor request this kind of study for their project if they 
thought there was any chance that the study would reflect 
poorly on what they are proposing?
    Dr. Cha. I can't imagine.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, we have seen over and over again how 
these unbalanced studies, and I think at this point it is hard 
to even call it a study because it is not objective, it is not 
comprehensive, it is really not too far from propaganda at that 
point, how they over-promise on the benefits of extractive 
projects, and then they under-estimate or completely neglect 
harm to local communities, places like Cancer Alley, Asthma 
Alley, and so on.
    Dr. Cha, if you were to design a study to measure how 
likely a Federal action was to affect energy poverty or 
insecurity in an at-risk community, what do you think are the 
most important factors to include?
    Dr. Cha. I think one factor that is really missing is time. 
Something that has a much bigger burden over years than just in 
a few months. It doesn't look at, as you mentioned, cumulative 
impacts. It doesn't look at other alternatives that could be 
proposed, for instance, like energy efficiency or 
weatherization or other factors that really lead to energy 
poverty. It really only looks, basically, at what can be the 
best-case scenario for fossil fuel use.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Great, thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Graves 
for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair. I find the line of 
questioning and even some of the testimony especially 
concerning. We have a witness who is advocating that we 
actually shut down or stop oil and gas production, yet if we 
look at comments of the International Energy Agency, the 
Director has stated that the largest reduction in energy 
history is a result of the United States' transition to natural 
gas.
    So, if the greatest threat to the planet is climate change, 
and the greatest success in world history is the United States' 
transition to natural gas, how can those two things co-exist?
    Dr. Cha. Are you asking me?
    Mr. Graves. Yes.
    Dr. Cha. Well, I think history is not yet written, so it 
may have been the greatest----
    Mr. Graves. Wait a minute, hang on, hold on. History is not 
written? We have already banked the savings.
    Look, you are an Associate Professor. It is just incredibly 
concerning to me that you are out here teaching the next 
generation things like this that simply are not true, they are 
not based upon facts and statistics.
    The greatest reduction in emissions have already been 
banked. The strategies that you are talking about are dream 
world, they are dream world. What ends up happening--you are 
sitting there talking about distorted economic considerations, 
distorted economic considerations.
    So, what are we doing? We are taking things like social 
cost of carbon and factoring it into our cost analysis. Social 
cost of carbon? What happens when you don't produce energy in 
the United States?
    We have had witnesses--I say this every time--my friends 
across the aisle continue to repeat this incorrect information. 
And I want to note, Ranking Member, I submitted for the record 
a statement from the parishes representing the so-called Cancer 
Alley refuting the science proving that that statement is 
wholly incorrect.
    But social cost of carbon considerations completely ignores 
the fact that when we are not producing the energy in the 
United States, we are getting it from sources that have higher 
carbon intensity. Do we not care about the planet?
    Look, this is math and science. This isn't people's 
opinions. This is absolutely math and science. And do you know 
what math and science shows out of this Administration, this 
Administration? Their EIA energy outlook shows you are going to 
have an increase in demand for both oil and natural gas 
globally. So, why would you not produce it in the countries, in 
the areas that have the lowest carbon intensity, if you are 
going to have an increase in global demand, if we care about 
the environment?
    It is critically important that as we are moving forward, 
if we truly care about climate change, and we care about this 
environment and we care about this planet, that we are moving 
forward based on decisions that actually make sense.
    Mr. Hollie, I appreciate you being here, and I appreciate 
you citing the fact that when you look at the taxpayer 
subsidies that are going to companies, noting the total 
distortion, you have technologies that have been around for 40 
and 50 years that we are subsidizing to the tune of $0.50 on 
the dollar in some cases, and we are watching, even with those 
incredible amounts of subsidies, watching prices go up and, as 
you noted, energy poverty having a profound impact on American 
families.
    Can you talk about basically what you believe a strategy 
moving forward would make sense in light of, I hope, your 
sensitivity to climate and the environment, while also being 
sensitive to energy poverty and the impact this is having on 
families?
    I have read study after study, inability to afford 
groceries, health care, rental and mortgage payments, and 
things along those lines.
    Mr. Hollie. You pretty much said everything right there. 
But it has been proven.
    And like I said in my testimony, we don't have to look any 
further than back to 2019, when we were energy independent for 
the first time, and look at the cost of gas prices and where 
they were, and people were paying less.
    And there was a study done by Shell Crescent USA back in 
2019, 2020, I believe it was, where it showed, here it is, 
right here. ``Shell Crescent USA natural gas end users, which 
include American households, businesses, and manufacturers, and 
electric power generators, have realized $1.1 trillion in 
savings since 2008 as a result of increased natural gas 
production in the Shell Crescent USA region of Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.''
    So, that study already shows what you are just saying. It 
has proven what natural gas will do for Americans. It will 
lower the cost of energy for them.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you very much.
    I want to make note of the October 2023 EIA International 
Energy Outlook by the Biden administration: 57 percent increase 
in global oil demand projected, 58 percent increase in global 
demand for natural gas. Biden administration figures.
    We want to talk about social cost of carbon? For every one 
ton of emissions we have reduced in the United States, China 
has increased by four.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Madam Chair, I have a unanimous consent 
request.
    Ms. Hageman. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I would like to seek unanimous consent 
to enter this open letter from Secretary Granholm into the 
record. It details how the Department of Energy is focused on 
underserved, over-burdened, and front line communities, and 
making sure that they are receiving economic benefits from the 
Administration's energy investments.
    Ms. Hageman. So ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                        The Secretary of Energy
                          Washington, DC 20585
                             July 25, 2022

    Dear Department of Energy Stakeholders:

    On November 15, 2021, President Joseph R. Biden signed the historic 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (the BIL), kickstarting a once in a 
generation effort to overhaul our Nation's energy infrastructure and 
strengthen America's competitive edge in clean energy for years to 
come. The BIL includes more than $62 billion for the Department of 
Energy (DOE) to deliver a more equitable clean energy future for the 
American people.

    DOE has adopted the following priorities for DOE's work, including 
BIL implementation:

     Modernizing and upgrading American energy infrastructure;

     Driving quality job creation, including the opportunity 
            for good-paying union jobs;

     Delivering reliable, clean, and affordable energy to more 
            Americans as we tackle the climate crisis, pursuing a zero-
            carbon electricity system by 2035 and a net-zero emission 
            economy by 2050;

     Advancing justice and equity and ensuring stronger 
            economic and environmental benefits for disadvantaged 
            communities;

     Increasing domestic manufacturing and protecting energy 
            supply chains;

     Growing private sector uptake of clean energy technologies 
            through DOE-led demonstration and deployment programs.

    As we launch this historic investment in American communities, I 
want to reiterate a major priority set forth by the Biden 
Administration that will be integral to our successful implementation 
of the BIL--Justice40 in line with existing statute.

    On January 27, 2021, the White House issued Executive Order 14008 
(E.O.), establishing a goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits of 
certain Federal Government investments, including in climate and clean 
energy, flow to disadvantaged communities (the Justice40 Initiative). 
DOE intends to implement the Justice40 Initiative throughout all its 
BIL efforts, wherever authorized by law, and within well-established 
DOE programs that fall within the climate and clean energy investment 
categories covered by Justice40. Together these efforts comprise part 
of the agency's effort to ensure that communities historically left 
behind in Federal programs and spending are able to access the benefits 
of this energy transition. This is how we view energy justice. Our deep 
commitment to its principles will help to ensure that underserved, 
overburdened, and frontline communities (disadvantaged communities or 
DACs) receive transformative benefits as we make investments that will 
transform our Nation's energy infrastructure.

    In April of this year, DOE's Office of Economic Impact and 
Diversity released the Department's Justice40 framework (https://
www.energy.gov/diversity/justice40-initiative). The framework 
identifies Justice40 communities and outlines the agency's approach to 
the President's transformative initiative, as summarized below.

     Justice40 Implementation. Applicants for new funding 
            opportunity announcements (FOA) will be asked to consider 
            how project benefits can flow to DACs. Moreover, FOA 
            applicants will also be asked to articulate how DACs can be 
            meaningfully considered, identified, and benefited in plans 
            submitted to DOE. Funding recipients will also be asked to 
            track and report how these identified benefits flow to 
            DACs. Specific requirements will vary by program, including 
            which Justice40 benefits (see below) are applicable and how 
            DACs are to be identified for purposes of a given program. 
            DOE will provide general guidance on Justice40 
            implementation, but program-specific funding and guidance 
            documents will be the source for definitive requirements.

     Identifying Justice40 covered programs. Today, the 
            Department is releasing a comprehensive list of current 
            programs covered by the Justice40 Initiative. This list was 
            developed by applying the criteria in OMB's Interim Justice 
            40 Implementation Guidance M-21-28. These programs include 
            new and expanded BIL programs critical to building the 
            energy infrastructure of the future, as well as well-
            established DOE programs that fall into the categories of 
            climate change, clean energy and energy efficiency, clean 
            transportation, affordable and sustainable housing, 
            training and workforce development (related to climate, 
            natural disasters, environment, clean energy, clean 
            transportation, housing, water and wastewater 
            infrastructure, and legacy pollution reduction, including 
            in energy communities), remediation and reduction of legacy 
            pollution, and critical clean water and waste 
            infrastructure. The list of DOE Justice40 Covered Programs 
            is available at https://www.energy.gov/diversity/justice40-
            initiative.

     Identifying DACs. Pursuant to E.O. 14008 and the Office of 
            Management and Budget's Interim Justice40 Implementation 
            Guidance M-21-28, DOE has developed a definition and tools 
            to locate and identify DACs. These resources can be located 
            at https://energyjustice.egs.anl.gov/. DOE will also 
            recognize DACs as defined and identified by the White House 
            Council of Environmental Quality's Climate and Economic 
            Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), which can be located at 
            https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/.

     Identifying benefits that flow to DACs. Benefits can be 
            thought of as direct or indirect investments or positive 
            project outcomes--such as job creation or enterprise 
            creation--that flow to DACs. DOE's ``General Guidance for 
            Justice40 Implementation'' identifies policy priorities the 
            agency sees as critical to advancing an equitable clean 
            energy future, which are: (1) decreasing energy burden; (2) 
            decreasing exposure to environmental hazards and burdens; 
            (3) increasing clean energy jobs, job pipeline, and job 
            training; (4) increasing clean energy enterprise creating 
            and contracting (e.g., minority-owned or disadvantaged 
            business enterprises); (5) increasing energy democracy; (6) 
            increasing access to low-cost capital; (7) increasing 
            parity in clean energy technology access and adoption; and 
            (8) increasing energy resiliency. Depending on the DOE 
            program or funding, recipients will be asked to consider 
            how certain activities, such as direct dollars invested, 
            stakeholder engagement, jobs and workforce development, 
            energy burden reduction, and the amelioration of 
            environmental harms, can benefit DACs.

      Benefits can be highly specific to each project or program, with 
            some categories not relevant depending on the technology or 
            economic sector involved, and we encourage funding 
            applicants to collaborate with Department staff and 
            resources to explore all the ways Federal funding can lift 
            up the communities in our Nation in most need of 
            assistance.

      That said, in keeping with principles of energy and environmental 
            justice, DACs should not be identified solely to meet 
            Federal goals, and Federal funding should not create or 
            exacerbate harm to communities.

    I am honored to lead this Department through a historic re-
investment in our country's energy infrastructure. Justice will serve 
as our North Star as we fight climate change and bring economic 
prosperity to our great Nation. I hope you will join us in our efforts 
to ensure that the benefits of BIL, DOE climate and clean energy 
programs, and other Federal efforts build a better future for all 
Americans.

            Sincerely,

                                       Jennifer M. Granholm

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Huffman for 5 
minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a little 
housekeeping before we go further.
    Mr. Hollie, it is good to see you again. You have been a 
frequent flyer at some of our hearings that I have been a part 
of. And I am naturally wondering, since you have been such a 
prolific advocate in support of the fossil fuel industry, if 
maybe we have one of those moments where a witness and perhaps 
the funder of the witness are on the same panel. Yet, when I 
looked at your disclosure form for this Committee, the 
questions about disclosure of funding for your advocacy were 
unanswered. In each case, it says N/A. So, I wonder if you 
could just tell me. Do you receive, either wearing the hat of 
the Energy Poverty Prevention Project or the other advocacy 
hats that you wear, do you receive fossil fuel industry 
funding?
    Mr. Hollie. No, I do not.
    Mr. Huffman. Why don't you tell us that? Why don't you 
complete the form?
    Mr. Hollie. Because I thought non-applicable meant that no, 
I do not. But I could say for the record I do not receive any 
funding from the oil and gas industry. My thoughts and my 
opinions are what I believe, and what I live every day.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, sir.
    I want to talk about my colleague from Wyoming's bill, 
because this narrative that our Republican colleagues are 
suddenly champions for the poor, and trying to address the 
burdensome costs that they deal with every day, does require 
one to suspend a bit of disbelief.
    But we have seen this pattern, where our colleagues across 
the aisle were miraculously transformed into champions for NEPA 
when it was proposed that asylum seekers might seek emergency 
shelter on National Park Service land. We saw something similar 
when it comes to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act. When folks are proposing offshore wind 
projects, they are suddenly great champions to save the whales. 
Yet, for the oil and gas industry in the Gulf, they are very 
happy to watch the Rice's whale proceed further down the path 
towards extinction.
    The common thread in all of these kind of whiplash 
experiences with our colleagues across the aisle is that 
whatever serves the interests of Big Oil and Gas is where they 
go.
    Look, energy insecurity is a real problem. The question is, 
what do we do about it? And we know that there is a suggestion 
in our colleague from Wyoming's bill that we can drill our way 
through this problem. The problem is we have done that. We are 
the No. 1 producer of oil and gas in the world. We are a net 
exporter. We have achieved fossil fuel energy dominance in a 
big, big way. Yet, you would think we would have really cheap 
energy prices if that was the ticket to cheap energy. 
Obviously, it is not, because the market for fossil fuels is 
always rigged.
    Yet, when Democrats propose things that will get American 
consumers off of this fossil fuel roller coaster, things like 
home and building efficiency, weatherization, things like 
renewable energy, which is not subject to all of the crazy 
vicissitudes of the fossil fuel market, we have opposition from 
Republicans every single time.
    And, of course, one of the factors driving increased energy 
costs are high temperatures and climate disasters that are 
driven by this deadly fossil fuel addiction. And our Republican 
friends oppose us every single time we try to address that.
    So, there are two things that our colleagues across the 
aisle could do, very specific and effective things that they 
could do to drive down energy costs. And it would, I guess, be 
a test of whether they are serious about tackling energy 
poverty. And Dr. Cha, you mentioned them. It would be a ban on 
crude oil exports and all of these fracked gas LNG exports that 
our colleagues across the aisle are so enthusiastic to support. 
We do it all the time in this Committee.
    Am I right? My understanding is all the data suggests that 
these two specific things would bring down energy costs.
    Dr. Cha. Absolutely.
    Mr. Huffman. Yet, we won't see our colleagues across the 
aisle take that obvious step to confront energy poverty because 
they never go against the fossil fuel industry.
    Now, Dr. Cha, what primarily causes big swings in peak 
demand? Because I understand the state of Wyoming, for example, 
a place where fossil fuels are king, recently announced that 
they were raising energy prices, electricity prices, because of 
problems, not with renewables or climate action or anything 
like that. They have told us, these utilities themselves, that 
they are having peak demand problems. What is the cause of 
that?
    Dr. Cha. It is usually extreme weather events like extreme 
heat or extreme cold.
    Mr. Huffman. And what is causing spikes in energy costs for 
those utilities?
    Dr. Cha. The gas market is very volatile. And as global 
demand for gas rises, most of our gas gets exported.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Dr. Cha.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber [presiding]. Thank you very much. Next up is 
Representative Hageman.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hollie, you mentioned your work organizing education 
and outreach campaigns to help accomplish your stated mission, 
which is to create equal access to affordable and reliable 
energy for all Americans. Bureaucrats in Washington, DC, 
however, are trying to tell vulnerable communities, such as the 
communities you have worked with in the past, what their 
problems are. They often highlight public health and 
environmental justice as the main areas of concern when it 
comes to American energy policy.
    Mr. Hollie, in your experience, what are the main concerns 
of communities facing energy poverty?
    Mr. Hollie. Thank you, Representative Hageman. I would say 
the biggest thing in these communities is people just trying to 
make ends meet. I mean, people are struggling right now. And 
just speaking to them, when you see the price of gas go down, 
immediately it has a psychological impact. You know, I have a 
few more dollars in my wallet to spend. So, like I said, just 
trying to make ends meet, and just seeing some impact and 
relief at the pumps.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, in your opinion, does the Biden 
administration share the same priorities as the communities you 
have worked with in the past?
    Mr. Hollie. At this point, I would say no.
    Ms. Hageman. Dr. Cha, in your testimony you said the bill's 
specific focus on protecting oil and gas extraction and 
exploration is counter to combating energy poverty. My bill, 
however, simply requires that actions taken by the Federal 
Government to regulate energy, including oil and gas and 
transmission lines, take energy poverty into account. 
Understanding the economic impact these regulations have on 
vulnerable communities is important to them, and it should be 
important to all of us.
    Mr. Hollie, in your opinion, do the communities you have 
worked with care more about keeping the lights on and furnaces 
working, or do they care more about eliminating fossil fuels as 
an energy source?
    Mr. Hollie. I would say they would be more wanting to keep 
the lights on in their home, for sure.
    Ms. Hageman. And Dr. Cha, you said in your testimony that 
the two main causes of rising energy prices are over-investment 
in fossil fuel infrastructure and excessive profits and pay to 
executives. With all due respect, this claim is extremely out 
of touch with reality.
    The cold, hard fact is that we are experiencing rising 
energy costs due to a forced energy transition in Wyoming right 
now, as mentioned by Mr. Huffman. The Federal Government is 
pumping millions of dollars into green energy projects in our 
state, and the result has been the highest rate increase 
proposal we have ever seen, as much as 30 percent.
    Fortunately, the Public Service Commission has pushed back 
against some of the proposed rate increases, but it is no 
thanks to this Administration. If it were completely up to 
them, we would be forced to wholly rely on weak, intermittent 
sources instead of depending on reliable sources such as coal 
and oil and gas.
    Your testimony reminds me of the old adage that government 
is always trying to fix its last solution. This Administration 
has adopted energy policy that is intended to increase the cost 
of energy, and then they want to turn around and provide 
additional welfare payments to the people who suffer for those 
policies. That isn't the way that we can keep the lights on or 
provide the energy that we need.
    Ms. Sgamma, in your testimony you mentioned that the market 
can be destabilized when we eliminate reliable sources and 
instead dedicate our funding into just a few sources like we 
did in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. You said 
excessive IRA spending that distorts energy markets, confuses 
American energy policy, and threatens grid reliability. Could 
you please elaborate on how Federal spending and subsidies 
distort energy markets and threaten grid reliability?
    Ms. Sgamma. I think we only need to look to California to 
see how high energy prices are in California.
    One of the leaders on green energy policies, Germany, is a 
great example. Over the last 20 years, they have poured 
billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, into wind and solar, 
and they have had to rely more on coal because the energy 
policy just hasn't worked. They have destabilized their grid.
    We are facing the same situation. The FERC commissioners 
just testified to the destabilization of the grid recently this 
summer.
    So, as we see places like California and Germany put in 
place more unreliable energy, their prices have gone up. 
Whereas, I mean, let's talk basic economics, which I haven't 
heard a lot of on this panel. We, by producing more oil and 
natural gas and exporting it around the world, we have helped 
keep prices down, and we have helped keep the lights on in 
Europe with our LNG exports. Prices are down exactly 64 percent 
to the day from 20 years ago in natural gas. And we are 
exporting it abroad, we are producing more of it here, and we 
have decreased prices considerably.
    So, we are not only reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as 
Mr. Graves pointed out, but we are helping our allies keep the 
lights on.
    Ms. Hageman. And I think another important point to make is 
that Germany has destroyed their industrial base. And I don't 
think we want that visited on the American soil.
    With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Next, Representative Lee, 
you are up for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member Ocasio-
Cortez. I also want to thank our witnesses for being here, and 
I want to thank Representative Steel for bringing her bill 
before us this morning, championing an energy resource in 
geothermal that, despite its immense promise both economically 
and environmentally, remains largely and shockingly untapped.
    Seventeen years ago, a DOE-backed MIT-led panel concluded 
that most of the key technical requirements to make enhanced 
geothermal systems work economically over a wide area of the 
country are already in effect. When a Vox reporter followed up 
this year with the expert who chaired that panel to ask why 
surprisingly little progress has been made on this front, the 
panel's chair pointed specifically to the continued need for 
accelerated permitting and licensing of enhanced geothermal 
projects.
    Dr. Jones, does your own experience back up the recent 
findings of the Congressional Research Service in September 
2022 that the permitting process for enhanced geothermal result 
in development timelines that are longer than any other power 
production projects?
    Dr. Jones. Yes, it does, and geothermal does not have a 
technology problem, it has a policy problem.
    Ms. Lee. And is it your opinion, Dr. Jones, that 
Representative Steel's bill would help accelerate geothermal 
development in a way that maximizes the positive impacts for 
energy and the environment, while minimizing any negative 
impacts on the ground at development sites?
    Dr. Jones. Yes, absolutely.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Nevada is the nation's second-largest 
producer of geothermal electricity in the United States, and 
second only to California. And this Nevadan looks forward to 
joining my friend from California to make this a bipartisan 
bill.
    Turning quickly to H.R. 6481, Ms. Sgamma, prior to the 
passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 how much did it 
cost speculators to file EOIs nominating Federal lands for oil 
and gas leasing?
    Ms. Sgamma. Nothing.
    Ms. Lee. That is right. The answer is zero, which 
perversely tracks with the 0.3 percent of Federal lands ever 
actually leased in Nevada over the last 70 years that have 
produced oil or gas. The incredibly modest $5-per-acre 
nominating fee instituted by the IRA now provides a bare 
minimum of protection from this kind of unrestrained and 
unproductive speculation that has long plagued both Nevada's 
public lands and the American taxpayers who have had to 
subsidize this wasteful practice.
    H.R. 6481 would roll back the progress made in the IRA and 
reincentivize such speculation, which is why I encourage 
taxpayer advocates on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
opposing this bill.
    And with that, I yield.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Next up, Representative 
Tiffany from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
do want to associate myself with the remarks by Mr. Huffman 
that all of a sudden Republicans are concerned about energy 
shortages, the whole energy poverty thing, people being poor as 
a result of not having abundance of energy, which we should 
certainly have, and saving the whales. And I associate myself 
with that because we conservatives that believe in producing 
energy however we can, we have always wanted to do that.
    In particular, I would point out to my friends across the 
aisle that after oil was found in Pennsylvania, we were able to 
reduce the amount of whale hunting that went on because the 
blubber from whales was used in street lamps in the 1800s to 
light streets, to light homes, and things like that. It was one 
of the greatest conservation measures for wildlife that we will 
ever find in the history of the United States of America. By 
finding oil, we were literally saving the whales. And it 
continues to this day.
    And I really enjoy the term that Mr. Huffman used, 
``vicissitudes.'' It is a wonderful word, and he used it in 
context of the vicissitudes of the marketplace. And should we 
be subject to that? I would much rather be subject to that than 
the vicissitudes of a government that is trying to decrease the 
amount of energy that we produce in America.
    Dr. Cha, is it better for Western Europe to get their gas 
from us or Russia?
    Dr. Cha. I think it is better for Americans to have their 
energy bills lowered using American gas.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you think it is better for Western Europe 
to get their gas from us or from Russia?
    Dr. Cha. I don't have the expertise to answer that 
question, but I do have the expertise to know that it is better 
for American energy prices to decrease for utility customers.
    Mr. Tiffany. I appreciate you saying that you don't have 
the expertise. I hope the young people that you are teaching 
out there in California--that you do become knowledgeable on 
that because it is an important component when we talk about 
how we produce energy and how important it is to have 
affordable energy for people, in particular for the poorest out 
there.
    Mr. Hollie, Representative Hageman brought up the subject 
of welfare payments. In your testimony, you talked about 
subsidies for unreliable and intermittent renewable energy. If 
those subsidies were eliminated, do you think those renewable 
energy projects would be profitable? Would they even be built?
    Mr. Hollie. They wouldn't be built, would not exist. It 
could not happen without the subsidies.
    Mr. Tiffany. Why is that?
    Mr. Hollie. Because they need the subsidies to work. And in 
a free market, if the renewables were that good, they should be 
able to stand on their own without the subsidies.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, for example, not only are we paying more 
for the electricity that is produced by wind and solar, but the 
taxpayers are on the hook for that also. Is this correct?
    Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir. Yes, they are.
    Mr. Tiffany. And would that be contributing to our national 
debt, which exceeds over $33 trillion now?
    Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir. It would.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, we are getting it both ways as Americans. 
Is that right?
    Mr. Hollie. That is correct.
    Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Sgamma, it is good to see you back here. 
You mentioned in regards to the IRA that both industry experts 
as well as the Bureau of Land Management were not consulted in 
regards to the IRA. What impact is that having? What impact did 
that have in the writing of that bill by not doing proper 
consultation with people who knew what was going on?
    I believe you stated in here the Bureau of Land Management 
said there were a lot of technical parts of how this will be 
implemented that were not thought through thoroughly. Is that 
somewhat accurate, that characterization?
    Ms. Sgamma. Yes. BLM has mentioned to me several times, and 
I think even in testimony, that they are struggling to 
implement some of those provisions.
    Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Sgamma, if we reduce fossil fuels--I 
believe it was back in the Obama administration, they cited by 
the reduction of fossil fuels, how much temperatures would 
decline. Do you recall what that number was?
    Ms. Sgamma. No, but I know that our climate envoy, John 
Kerry, has said many times that we could eliminate all 
greenhouse gas emissions from the United States and it would 
make no difference to climate change.
    Mr. Tiffany. Or certainly de minimis. Is that correct?
    Ms. Sgamma. It is 0.00 whatever percent or degree of 
Celsius.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, we could shut down affordable energy here 
in America, and it will do nothing on the issue that is before 
us.
    Are we going to destroy the climate? We will not destroy 
the climate as a result of the reduction of fossil fuels. So, 
let's produce and have prosperity, because this has always been 
at the heart of American success, hasn't it, is having 
affordable energy.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Stauber. Thanks for your testimony and comments. 
Representative Kamlager-Dove, you are up for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Hollie, I share your concerns about energy poverty, 
because no one should have to choose between paying their 
energy bills and essentials like paying for food, child care, 
health care, job training, affordable housing, WIC, SNAP, 
climate-resilient construction, all programs that Republicans 
have been trying to cut. No one should have to choose between 
those things or have to keep their homes at unsafe temperatures 
because their bills are too high or their energy is unreliable.
    But I do disagree that the legislation we are discussing 
today will help our most vulnerable communities. Contrary to 
the assumptions in H.R. 5482, fossil fuels are not the most 
cost-effective option for a lot of American bill-payers. Mr. 
Hollie, are you aware that the Chief Financial Officer of 
Southern Company, one of the largest utilities in the United 
States, recently called solar the most viable technology for 
the Southeast?
    Mr. Hollie. No, I was not aware that he said that.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Are you aware that Georgia Power, a 
subsidiary of Southern Company, has reported that solar is the 
most cost-effective energy resource addition available in 
Georgia?
    Mr. Hollie. I don't see how, but I am not aware of that, 
either.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. Are you aware that efforts to 
support a household in reducing its dependence on the 
electricity grid are often the most cost-effective energy 
resource when compared to energy supply-side investments?
    Mr. Hollie. When you utilize natural gas, I can see how it 
could be more effective.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. Are you aware that there are dozens 
of existing Federal programs to offer relief from energy 
burdens?
    Mr. Hollie. Yes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK.
    Mr. Hollie. But I don't think they make a difference.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Do you support these Federal programs?
    Mr. Hollie. Sure, if they are going to make a difference, 
but they haven't proven to make a difference.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Or do you only support policies to 
protect the fossil fuel industry?
    Mr. Hollie. I support any policy that is going to reduce 
energy for Americans.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK, including Federal programs that 
offer relief from energy burdens?
    Mr. Hollie. Absolutely.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK, great. Because, unfortunately, my 
colleagues across the aisle have been aiming to defund some of 
these very programs. And we also know that there are many costs 
associated with fossil fuel energy that aren't reflected in the 
utility bills that we pay. These costs fall disproportionately 
on low-income communities and communities of color.
    So, Mr. Hollie, a question for you. It is a yes or no 
answer. Does the proposed legislation take into account climate 
impacts from fossil fuel development?
    Mr. Hollie. I don't think it does.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. Another yes or no question, does the 
proposed legislation take into account the disproportionate 
health impacts and health costs associated with increased 
fossil fuel production?
    Mr. Hollie. I think it would, yes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. You think it does?
    Mr. Hollie. I think it would.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. I look through the legislation. I 
couldn't find that. And coming from my district, which has one 
of the largest urban oil fields in the country, I can tell you 
that my communities that are in close proximation to the oil 
field suffered disproportionately around issues of asthma, 
cancers, respiratory illnesses. And I have never seen any of 
those things discussed in this Committee in legislation around 
increased fossil fuel production. Those issues cannot be 
separated for my constituents at all when it comes to energy 
production and also energy poverty.
    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 
this report from the Guardian from July 2023, entitled, ``We 
can't escape: climate crisis is driving up the cost of living 
in the US west.''
    Mr. Stauber. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

`We can't escape': climate crisis is driving up cost of living in the 
US west

The Guardian, July 21, 2023 by Maanvi Singh

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/21/climate-crisis-cost-of-
living-energy-water-california#::text=11%20months%20old-
,'We%20can't%20escape'%3A%20 
climate%20crisis%20is%20driving,living%20in%20the%20US%20west&text=Miner
va %20Contreras%20can't%20keep,costs%20rose%20to%20about%20%24500.

                                 *****

Extreme weather, fueled by global heating, is affecting energy, water, 
insurance premiums and food and housing costs. Minerva Contreras can't 
keep up with the bills.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4447.009


    .epsPedestrian uses an umbrella to shield themself from the sun 
while walking past power lines in California. Photograph: Frederic J 
Brown/AFP/Getty Images

Recently, after a series of extreme heatwaves in California forced her 
family to run the AC, her monthly electricity costs rose to about $500. 
Her water bill averages around $100, but because the water is 
contaminated with pesticides from nearby agricultural fields, her 
family spends an additional $140 each month to purchase jugs of 
drinking water. Her grocery bills have gone up as well, after a spate 
of winter storms disrupted harvests across the state.

``Practically, about one week's paycheck goes toward rent, the next 
week's toward the electrical bill, and the third week's toward the gas 
and water bills and the remaining for everything else,'' said 
Contreras, a farm worker who lives with her husband and two children in 
the small, agricultural town of Lamont. ``We just can't keep up.''

Here, in what is already one of the most expensive states in the US, 
the climate emergency is driving up the cost of living. Extreme 
weather, drought and drastic swings in temperature, all fueled by 
global heating, are affecting utility costs and insurance premiums, 
exacerbating housing shortages and causing food prices to go up.

These issues are echoed throughout the US and the globe, as relentless 
heat and smoke pollution from wildfires push communities across the 
southern US, Europe and Asia to their limits. The health and economic 
impacts of the spate of extreme weather will become clearer in the 
months to come.

But in California, the cost imposed by the disquieting recurrence of 
climate-related disasters that more and more countries are faced with 
have already become untenable for many. Nearly half of the state's 
residents say they struggle to save money or pay for unexpected 
expenses, according to a recent poll by a consortium of local non-
profits. Many families are just one fire or flood away from financial 
ruin.

``We don't see a future here, and it's a shame we can't escape 
either,'' Contreras said. ``Where would we go?''

`We put up with a lot of heat'

As temperatures in Lamont this week topped 113F (45C), Contreras 
worried about how much her family might have to run the AC. ``We are 
usually very careful and try not to,'' she said. ``We put up with a lot 
of heat before we turn it on.''

Each summer for the past few years, Contreras's family has fallen 
behind on their electricity bills. Each year, they sign up for 
repayment plans and manage to pay down their arrears by February or 
March, only to fall behind again as the warmer season begins.

Her family is not alone. California residents are increasingly facing 
higher electricity prices, at a time when extreme weather is making 
energy demands go up. Utility rates in the state are already among the 
highest in the US, with California's Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) 
finding that since 2013, rate increases have outpaced inflation.

One major reason is that electricity companies have faced increasing 
wildfire mitigation expenses like clearing vegetation around power 
lines and higher wildfire insurance costs and they have passed the 
charge on to consumers. Meanwhile, utility companies such as PG&E have 
also been allowed to pass on the liability costs of sparking some of 
the state's most destructive wildfires.

For many households, the price increases mean dire choices, said 
Michael Mendez, assistant professor of environmental planning and 
policy at the University of California, Irvine. A survey by researchers 
at Columbia University found that nearly 30% of households in 
California kept their homes at a temperature that was unhealthy or 
unsafe to save on energy costs. ``When you overlay existing social, 
economic and health disparities with climate change and extreme 
weather, that exacerbates inequalities,'' Mendez said.

``People are not only facing a rise in costs, but also increased 
variability in costs,'' said Alan Barreca, a professor at the Institute 
of the Environment & Sustainability at UCLA.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4447.010


    .epsSan Bernardino county firefighter wipes his head as the Oak 
Fire burns near Fontana, California. Photograph: David Swanson/AFP/
Getty Images

Barreca and his colleagues have found that for each August day when the 
temperature was 95F or higher, the chance that a low-income family 
would fall behind on bills and have their power disconnected increased 
by 1.2%.
A new proposal to adjust electricity fees based on their income could 
help, Barreca said. Researchers and advocacy groups have also proposed 
offering adjusted rates and discounted electricity during extreme 
weather events and establishing a rental right to cooling.
High water costs `deepening the inequities'

Climate change is taxing the water supply as well as the electrical 
grid. One in eight households across California are behind on their 
water bills, owing about $1bn altogether, as cycles of lengthy drought 
dwindle water supplies. A survey by the state's water board found that 
households in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods were more 
likely to be in arrears.

``With water, the existing system was already not working,'' said 
Rachel Cleetus, a climate and energy program director at the Union of 
Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy organization. ``And now it's 
really falling apart in the face of the pressures from climate 
change.''

Due to a complex and outdated water rights system that in many areas 
favors big agriculture over communities and ageing, ailing 
infrastructure, many of the state's poor and rural communities have 
struggled to access adequate drinking water, she said. Then, in recent 
years, long stretches of drought have caused shortages and spiked 
prices. Wildfires and a series of catastrophic floods this winter have 
caused further complications, tainting water supplies and damaging 
critical infrastructure.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4447.011


    .epsFloodwaters after a very wet winter destroyed crops and fields 
in California. Photograph: Caroline Brehman/EPA

Contreras and her family, who have lived in Lamont for about 12 years, 
have been informed year after year that the stuff coming out of their 
taps isn't safe for consumption due to a legacy of pesticide pollution 
seeped in the groundwater system. In other parts of the Central valley, 
chronic overpumping has depleted water, and left homeowners with dry 
wells. Hundreds of families in the San Joaquin valley continue to 
receive water deliveries by truck, despite a winter of record-setting 
precipitation.

``California already has a huge challenge with inequity,'' said 
Cleetus. ``It has a high poverty rate. There's already an affordable 
housing crisis in the state. And these kinds of climate risks are just 
adding an additional layer of risk, and deepening the inequities.''

`Felt really vulnerable about losing my home'

In the small, rural town of Midpines, at the south-western edge of 
Yosemite national park, Beth Pratt says she has seen the climate crisis 
reshape her community. Last year, the explosive Oak Fire burned nearly 
100 homes here.

``In my work as a conservationist, I advocate for wildlife who are 
threatened because of climate change. Now we're starting to feel that 
same vulnerability,'' said Pratt, who is the regional executive 
director of the National Wildlife Federation. ``This is the first time 
I felt really vulnerable about losing my home.''

Last month, the state's largest property insurance companies--Allstate 
and State Farm--announced that they will no longer sell new policies in 
California, citing the growing risk of catastrophes. The news came as 
renters and homeowners across the state were quietly dropped by 
insurance companies, or were facing unaffordable premiums.

This month, not long after Allstate announced it would halt new 
policies in the state, Pratt got notice that the company would not be 
renewing her existing policy.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4447.012


    .epsA collapsed house in Rolling Hills Estates in Los Angeles, 
California. Photograph: Etienne Laurent/EPA

That was despite the fact that Pratt had spent about $100,000 to harden 
her home against fire. She invested in fire-rated metal siding for the 
house, redid her redwood decks in ember-resistant laminate and metal 
railings. She purchased a 2,500-gallon tank with a fire hose hookup, 
and this year, she spent $10,000 to hire a crew to clear trees and 
overgrowth.

When the letter from Allstate came, telling her that even all that was 
not enough to keep her home insured, Pratt was flabbergasted. ``I mean, 
$100,000 is not something the average person has,'' she said. ``I don't 
really have it--on a non-profit salary. I had to refinance my mortgage 
to afford this.''

Most of her neighbors are facing the same issue, she said--they've 
either lost their insurance already, or expect to lose it soon. After 
the record-breaking 2020 fire season, the number of Californians who 
were told by their insurer that their policy wouldn't be renewed 
increased by about 30%.

The only remaining option for Pratt and her neighbors is the state's 
Fair plan, a limited insurance plan for those who cannot find coverage 
through a private company. It will cost Pratt double what she was 
paying Allstate.

Moving and buying elsewhere isn't financially feasible--and besides, 
Pratt said, she's lived in this small community for 25 years. ``We 
can't just move away from the climate crisis.''

`Everywhere in California is the same'

In fact, many poor and middle-class families are being forced to move 
to areas that are feeling the impact of climate crisis more intensely. 
``The housing affordability crisis in California is pushing people out 
of cities and increasingly out, into locales with a higher risk for 
extreme heat, higher risk for drought and wildfires,'' said Mendez.

In the towns of Planada and Pajaro, farm workers without flood 
insurance or access to unemployment aid saw their homes and life 
savings wiped out by floods this winter. Aid from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) wasn't enough to cover the cost of materials, 
let alone labour, to rebuild.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4447.013


    .epsVehicles and homes engulfed by floodwaters in Pajaro, 
California, in March 2023. Photograph: Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images

Agricultural workers in the central coast and Central valley, who 
harvest the bulk of produce grown in the state and in the country, were 
out of work for weeks. Planted fields of summer fruit were wiped out 
and shortages drove up already inflated grocery prices this year.

In Lamont, where daily highs are predicted to remain above 100F (37.7C) 
through the end of the month, the Contreras family has resigned to 
another year of debt. Because it is unsafe to work in the fields after 
11am on most days, Contreras's husband has had his work hours cut. 
Normally he would pick up extra work in the tangerine or grape fields, 
but the weather has disrupted those harvests as well.

Recently, the family had to sign up for a second repayment plan for 
their electrical bills. ``It's depressing,'' Contreras said. ``The 
bills just keep accumulating.''

The family thinks about moving, but can't think of where they could 
live affordably. ``Everywhere in California, we see that it's the 
same,'' she said.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. And I quote, ``Extreme 
weather, fueled by global heating, is affecting energy, water, 
insurance premiums, and food, and housing costs.''
    So, we must and are entirely capable of addressing these 
issues together, all at once. And the false advertising that is 
H.R. 5482 falls far short.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now recognize 
myself for 5 minutes of questioning. But before I do, I do want 
to make a statement.
    My friend and colleague, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, 
states this, the energy poverty bill, only supports one 
industry. I want the Ranking Member to know it supports all 
energy projects, including transmissions. And that is on page 
13 of the bill itself. So, all energy projects are included in 
this.
    Ms. Sgamma, in May and June of this year, BLM held lease 
sales in New Mexico and North Dakota, respectively. In the New 
Mexico lease sale, the BLM offered 45 parcels, 37 of which were 
nominated. When the lease sale occurred, the only parcels 
receiving bids were those that were nominated. In North Dakota, 
the BLM offered 32 parcels, 14 of which were nominated, and it 
was the same story. All of the nominated parcels were bid on, 
and the parcels that weren't nominated were completely ignored.
    Are you seeing this as a trend by the BLM, in that they are 
offering a lot of non-nominated acreage?
    Ms. Sgamma. BLM is playing games with how the numbers of 
leases are counted, and that is because of another, I think, 
worthy provision of IRA, which was Senator Manchin's intention 
of all-of-the-above energy. And he tied wind and solar 
permitting to oil and natural gas leasing. A minimum number of 
nominations, minimum acreage requirements brought to sale were 
required before wind or solar permit could be issued. And as a 
result, BLM is trying to pad its numbers with acreage that 
nobody wants so that they can say it was offered.
    Mr. Stauber. Well, where are these parcels coming from, if 
they aren't nominated by the operators?
    Ms. Sgamma. BLM just moves forward with them.
    Mr. Stauber. What kind of impact is that having on lease 
sales with respect to revenues generated?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, it doesn't return anything. There is no 
nomination fee, there are no royalties that result, there is no 
leasing revenue that results. So, it is just playing games with 
the numbers.
    Mr. Stauber. And how will these lackluster lease sales 
impact energy prices long term, and how will that impact energy 
poverty?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, it does nothing for reducing energy 
poverty.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
    Dr. Jones, you mentioned in your testimony a geothermal 
project can be subject to six rounds of NEPA reviews. Why is 
that the case for a single project?
    Dr. Jones. It is because there are several different stages 
of a geothermal development project: exploration, then you have 
to confirm the resource, then you have to drill the production 
well, and the monitoring wells. And each of those steps 
requires a full NEPA review.
    Mr. Stauber. So, the bill before us today would expedite 
the NEPA process for drilling geothermal wells, but wouldn't 
impact the NEPA process for leasing. Is that correct?
    Dr. Jones. That is correct.
    Mr. Stauber. So, the agencies will still do a full NEPA 
review, even before using a categorical exclusion, correct?
    Dr. Jones. That is correct.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. In my view, this is a common-sense 
approach we should be using for all forms of energy. It doesn't 
make sense to be completing the same work time and time again.
    Mr. Hollie, earlier in your career you served as the Office 
of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization at the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, working closely with small and 
minority-owned businesses across our country. Can you share how 
small and minority-owned businesses benefit from a robust, 
thriving U.S. energy industry?
    Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir. I met with small businesses just last 
week, and a number of them complain about rising cost of 
energy. So, if we can reduce the price of energy for all 
Americans, business owners alike, they will see an increase in 
their wallets.
    Mr. Stauber. And what you are saying is those businesses 
that aren't directly involved in the energy sector also gain 
from a robust----
    Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir. I am talking about automotive, people 
who work on cars, who run restaurants. Everyone benefits from 
lower-cost energy.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
    Dr. Cha, real quick, my colleague asked you about not 
exporting oil to keep in the United States. Is that 
nationalizing the oil and gas industry?
    Dr. Cha. It is repealing the export ban, repealing the----
    Mr. Stauber. What is that?
    Dr. Cha. Repealing the repeal of reinstating the export 
ban.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. So, what I heard you say is that keeping 
the oil and gas within the United States is going to help the 
United States in the energy sector reduce the cost of energy. 
Is that correct?
    Dr. Cha. That is correct.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. Would you have that same mindset when it 
comes to critical minerals?
    Dr. Cha. [No response.]
    Mr. Stauber. Would you rather mine the critical minerals, 
process the critical minerals that we have in this country 
versus going overseas and using child slave labor for the 
minerals? Does that logic follow in critical mineral mining?
    Dr. Cha. I think there are different issues that----
    Mr. Stauber. How so?
    Dr. Cha. Well, I think with critical mineral mining, the 
question is how much mining do we need to meet our energy 
transition needs.
    Mr. Stauber. And how much do you think we need?
    Dr. Cha. It depends on how our policies are developed. But 
if we switch to public transportation versus individual car 
use, for instance, we would need less.
    Mr. Stauber. I do agree with you, it depends on the policy. 
And this Administration's policy on mining, critical mineral 
mining, is anywhere but America, any worker but the American 
worker.
    My time is up, and I yield to Representative Duarte for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
    Mr. Hollie, help me out here, please. I represent a very 
low-income, Voting Rights Act district, Hispanic mainly, in the 
Central Valley of California. A great part of my district is 
served by PG&E, although we don't, God forbid, explore much oil 
in California anymore, or natural gas to our potentials.
    We still have, my constituents, paying $0.57 a kilowatt 
hour for electricity during the peak summer rates. Is this 
high? Is that a lot?
    Mr. Hollie. Yes.
    Mr. Duarte. I think it is the highest in the nation. If you 
look at California, and even still, PG&E isn't keeping up with 
capital needs. You can't get a new panel hooked up. In one town 
of my district, Madera, you can't hook up any new panel to 
create jobs, to create manufacturing, housing. The system is 
tapped out.
    But nonetheless, these low-income renters, these low-income 
families in the Central Valley, they must not be dialed in to 
the Federal benefits. Because when I was campaigning and 
knocking on doors in the neighborhoods, their screen doors were 
closed and their main door to the home was wide open in 105 
degree afternoons. These families are ventilating their homes 
with natural ventilation from the outside. They can't afford to 
run the air conditioner. They can't afford to run even a swamp 
cooler because of electric rates in this area.
    Now, this is my perception, you can tell me if I have this 
right or not--over on the coast we have fairly moderate 
temperatures. We have relatively higher-income folks. And at 
the highest of those income folks we have solar panels and lots 
of green energy taking these households off the grid, not 
sharing in the overhead cost of PG&E, not sharing in the legacy 
costs of infrastructure, the general repair. That is all baked 
into the $0.50 per kilowatt hour. And they are fine, they are 
fine. Do I have that right?
    Mr. Hollie. Yes, you absolutely have it right.
    Mr. Duarte. OK, because it sounds unbelievable that we 
would put these costs of green energy on the lowest-income 
families in the warmest environment in the state, and then 
underserve those environments with lack of infrastructure, lack 
of capacity to expand job opportunities. If they all did want 
to run their air conditioner, I doubt we could even support 
that.
    Mr. Hollie. Right, exactly. I agree.
    Mr. Duarte. So, Dr. Cha next to you talks about we must 
reintroduce the ban on oil exports and expand to increase a ban 
on fracked gas exports to keep oil and gas extracted in the 
United States in the United States.
    And Ms. Sgamma, you can answer this also. Are Dr. Cha and 
her friends, are they reaching out to you and saying, great, 
let's build more pipelines, let's get more logistics solutions, 
let's move this energy around the United States more 
efficiently, more effectively, so that we can keep it here on 
the continental United States and not export it to our friends 
abroad? Let them buy Russian, or Iranian, or Venezuelan. We can 
keep this right here. Let's build the infrastructure to do 
that. Are you getting partnerships from the left and overtures 
to increase that infrastructure?
    Ms. Sgamma. No, but I don't think we are talking basic 
economics here when we say ban exports. Besides the 
nationalization and the socialization of energy that that 
involves, I mean, we don't ban other exports of other products. 
It is simply bad economics.
    By reducing the price of oil globally, we help keep costs 
lower here in the United States. Not in California, because 
they distort their energy markets there, and you are paying 
over $6 a gallon in California.
    Mr. Duarte. So, as a farmer, I don't have to worry about 
keeping all of our Ag product here locally to fight food 
inflation, or keeping all of our manufactured product here.
    Ms. Sgamma. Right, we don't nationalize industries in the 
United States.
    Mr. Duarte. We are not going to just keep it all here, even 
though here, if you talk about agricultural products, we do in 
a general way, most of the time, have the ports, and the roads, 
and the railroads. But here in America, we don't even have 
close to the infrastructure we need to keep our domestic energy 
production here.
    I mean, we exported 9.5 billion barrels of oil, or 9.5 
million barrels of oil a day, and we are importing 8.33 million 
barrels of oil a day. Some of that is just a logistics 
solution, is it not?
    Dr. Cha, we are talking about your work here, please chime 
in. Let me know where I have this wrong, please.
    Dr. Cha. Well, oil exports were banned up until 2015, so we 
do have the infrastructure to keep the oil in the country.
    Mr. Duarte. Then why are we building pipelines, or at least 
fighting over building pipelines?
    Dr. Cha. Yes, I would agree that we shouldn't build any 
more pipelines.
    Mr. Duarte. So, we should not build pipelines, but we 
should keep our oil and energy resources here domestically?
    Dr. Cha. It worked until 2015, yes.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent 
request.
    Mr. Stauber. Yes, go ahead.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. Since my comments were 
invoked earlier, I would like to just resubmit section 5 on 
page 10. While all projects can request the optional study, the 
only ones that are subject to the mandatory studies are 
activities that could potentially slow or prevent fossil fuel 
development.

    So, to clarify and provide evidence for my assertions to 
the record, I would like to resubmit that section. Thank you.

    Mr. Stauber. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4447.005
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4447.006
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4447.007
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4447.008
    
                                 .eps__
                                 
    Mr. Stauber. I thank the witnesses for their valuable 
testimony and the Members for their good questions.
    The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on Friday, December 15. The hearing record will be held 
open for 10 business days for these purposes.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                        Statement for the Record
                       Bureau of Land Management
                    U.S. Department of the Interior
                 on H.R. 5482, H.R. 6474, and H.R. 6481

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the 
Record on H.R. 5482, the Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability 
Act; H.R. 6474, regarding Sec. 390 categorical exclusions for 
geothermal development; and H.R. 6481, regarding refundable expression 
of interest fees.
Background

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 245 
million surface acres, located primarily in 12 western states, as well 
as 30 percent of the nation's onshore mineral resources across 700 
million subsurface acres, overlain by properties managed by other 
Federal agencies such as the Department of Defense and the U.S. Forest 
Service (USFS), as well state and private lands.
    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) provided 
the BLM with the multiple use and sustained yield mandate that guides 
all of the BLM's land management decisions. Driven by that mandate 
established by FLPMA, the BLM sustains the health, diversity, and 
productivity of the nation's public lands for multiple uses, such as 
conventional and renewable energy development; livestock grazing; 
conservation; mining; watershed protection; hunting, fishing, and other 
forms of recreation, and more. This enables the BLM to contribute 
tremendously to economic growth, job creation, and domestic energy 
production, while generating revenues for Federal and State treasuries 
and local economies and allowing for a thoughtful and balanced approach 
to management of our public lands.
H.R. 5482, Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability Act

    H.R. 5482 directs various Federal agencies to conduct reviews of 
Federal energy laws and regulations, as well as proposed energy 
projects and state renewable energy portfolio standards, to evaluate 
their impacts on energy access for at-risk communities. In addition, 
the bill requires the Comptroller General of the United States, in 
consultation with each relevant agency, to develop criteria to 
determine whether an at-risk community is experiencing ``energy 
poverty'', which is defined in the bill as ``a condition in which 
individuals do not have access to affordable and reliable energy to 
maintain economic security.'' The bill also requires a study by the 
Secretary of the Interior before undertaking or not undertaking certain 
energy related actions (including conducting leasing and permitting or 
making withdrawals of Federal land, among other activities) to 
determine if the activity would impose disproportionate costs on at-
risk communities or increase the likelihood that they will experience 
energy poverty and job losses. Additionally, H.R. 5482 would allow 
entities sponsoring certain energy related projects on Federal land to 
request the lead agency conduct a study on how the applicant's proposal 
would create jobs and reduce energy prices.
Analysis
    The BLM recognizes the importance of affordable and reliable energy 
to our national and economic security. The BLM supports the Sponsor's 
goal of mitigating the disparate impact of energy costs to at-risk 
communities. However, the studies required by the bill, including those 
that could be requested by an applicant or entity sponsoring a project, 
would add another layer of complexity to the existing processes, create 
duplicate analysis requirements, make it difficult to predict timelines 
for project reviews and permitting, and potentially delay completion of 
authorizations for energy-related projects. The BLM also notes that the 
National Environmental Policy Act already requires the analysis of a 
variety of impacts, both beneficial and adverse. For these reasons, the 
BLM cannot support the bill.
H.R. 6474, Regarding Sec. 390 Categorical Exclusions for Geothermal 
        Development

    H.R. 6474 proposes to amend Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 (EPAct 2005), which established five categorical exclusions (CXs) 
for oil and gas, known as Section 390 CXs, to include exploration or 
development of geothermal resources.
Analysis
    CXs are categories of actions that Federal agencies have determined 
do not have a significant effect on the quality of the human 
environment (individually or cumulatively) and for which neither an EA 
nor an EIS is required to comply with NEPA (40 CFR 1508.4). Although 
eligible actions may not require an EA or EIS, a CX is not an exemption 
from NEPA requirements. Section 390 CXs apply only to oil and gas 
exploration and development pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act. Other 
procedural requirements still apply to Section 390 CXs, such as 
consultation under the Endangered Species Act and National Historic 
Preservation Act.
    The BLM does not anticipate that the Section 390 CXs would offer 
significant benefits in improving processing times for geothermal 
projects, as there are considerable inherent differences between 
geothermal and oil and gas production processes. Currently, the BLM is 
working on administratively establishing CXs specifically for 
geothermal development, and these CXs will be more applicable to the 
geothermal process than the oil and gas-focused Section 390 CXs, which 
the bill would amend. Additionally, the BLM generally believes that new 
CXs are better developed through the traditional administrative process 
than through legislation. As such, the BLM does not support H.R. 6474.
H.R. 6481, Regarding Refundable Expressions of Interest Fees

    H.R. 6481 requires the Secretary of the Interior to reimburse the 
fee for an expression of interest (EOI) if the EOI becomes inactive. 
The non-refundable $5 per acre EOI fee was established by the Inflation 
Reduction Act (IRA, Public Law 117-169).
Analysis
    An EOI is an informal nomination to request certain Federal lands 
to be included in a competitive oil and gas lease sale. The 
nonrefundable EOI filing fee is intended to minimize spurious EOIs, 
including those submitted for lands that are ineligible for oil and gas 
leasing. Historically, many EOIs submitted to the BLM were for lands 
that were ineligible for a lease sale for reasons such as being located 
within an existing authorized lease, lacking federally owned minerals, 
or being legislatively unavailable for mineral leasing.
    By creating a nonrefundable fee through the IRA, Congress placed 
the burden on the party submitting an EOI to ensure the lands submitted 
are available and eligible for leasing. Consistent with Congressional 
intent, this has decreased the number of spurious EOIs and the workload 
imposed on the BLM mineral leasing program, making it possible to 
process EOIs for eligible lands more efficiently. The BLM supports 
maintaining the nonrefundable EOI fee as directed by Congress, and 
therefore does not support H.R. 6481.
Conclusion

    Thank you again for the opportunity to provide a statement for the 
record on these bills.

                                 ______
                                 

    Questions Submitted for the Record to Bureau of Land Management

The Bureau of Land Management did not submit responses to the Committee 
by the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber

    Question 1. How many EOIs has each BLM field office invalidated 
since the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was passed and what criteria is 
each office using to do so?

    1a) How do these numbers compare percentage-wise to the remaining 
EOIs?

    Question 2. Please submit the number EOIs that you have received, 
along with the associated acreage, over the last 24 months by month and 
by State.

    2a) Please submit the amount of EOI acreage offered in lease sales 
by the Department over the last 24 months by lease sale.

    2b) Please submit the amount of non-EOI acreage offered in lease 
sales by the Department over the last 24 months by lease sale along 
with the agency's rationale for offering non requested acreage.

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Stauber

    Dear Bruce Westerman:

    My name is Emma Wohlrab and I am a student at Danbury High School. 
In my American Government and pre law class we have spent a lot of time 
researching and learning about the government and how it works. Over 
the past few weeks we have been researching different committees and 
choosing one we like. I chose the Natural Resources committee because 
ever since I was I've been interested in nature and I knew it could 
possibly dictate my job in the future. After we chose a committee we 
had to pick out a bill that stood out to us, whether we're against it 
or not. I chose the bill, H.R. 5482--Energy Poverty Prevention and 
Accountability Act of 2023. This bill states that it will prevent 
energy poverty and ensure that at-risk communities have access to 
affordable energy. I am in full support of this bill. I'm in support of 
this bill because I think that all people should have the right to 
accessible and affordable energy.
    Fox News made an article on September 15, 2023 stating that, 
``According to the bill's text. Under the legislation, federal agencies 
would be required to assess impacts energy-related policies have on a 
wide of Americans'' (Catenacci). I support this because if the bill is 
passed it's going to help those in need all across American not just in 
one or a few states. In this article it also explains that the bill has 
many endorsements from multiple energy industry groups, such as, ``The 
U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Energy Workforce & Technology Council, 
Energy Poverty Prevention Project and Domestic Energy Producers 
Alliance.'' (Catenacci). With all this support it seems obviously that 
many are in favor of the bill.
    Another article in favor of the bill is on Dan Sullivan's website 
called, Sullivan, Hageman Introduce Bill to hold Administration 
Accountable for Regressive Energy Policies Targeting Rural and Low-
Income Americans, made on September 15, 2023. In this article it talks 
mainly about the same stuff but most importantly it gives more 
endorsements. For example it states, ``Skyrocketing energy costs are 
crushing the livelihoods of vulnerable populations such as low-income, 
minority, rural, elderly, and Indigenous communities . . . The Energy 
Poverty Prevention and Accountability Act is the right step toward 
curbing the out-of-control costs of regulation and government overreach 
driving the epidemic of energy poverty in this country.''--Derrick 
Hollie, The Energy Poverty Prevention Project (Sullivan) Being able to 
help out the needy is always a top priority so this bill is really 
important. But why would someone not be in support of this bill?
    A person might not be in support of this bill because in order to 
get more energy you would have to mine more and pollute the environment 
more. A publisher called Harriet Hageman, also Wyoming's Congresswoman 
as you probably know, created an article called Rep. Hageman and Sen. 
Sullivan Introduce Bicameral Bill to Fight Energy Poverty. Created also 
on September 25. In this article it states that, ``Whether it was 
President Biden or Obama, Speaker Pelosi or Leader Schumer, these so-
called leaders have waged war against American coal and oil and gas, 
all the while knowing they cannot replace the very energy resources 
they are undermining'' (Rep. Hageman). So would this issue cause the 
bill to be harder to pass? It takes so much to get the energy and 
that's a lot of money so would the president want to make it cheaper 
and lose money?
    Another source that has evidence against the bill is Kevin Hern's 
website. Created in 2020, however it talks about the same topic. This 
bill is heavily supported so it's difficult to find evidence against 
it. The article is called Hern Introduces energy bill protecting low-
income and minority communities. In this article it states that, These 
same officials roll out strategies promoting ``environmental justice'' 
and ``economic equity'' (while never defining either). Yet, it is 
ultimately our fellow Americans who struggle to make ends meet when the 
price at the pump goes up, energy bills reach record highs, and the 
grocery bill doubles'' (Hern) This makes me think that if the bill is 
passed and low-income families energy cost is lowered, would the higher 
income families have to pay more than they are already paying? If so, 
that is a definite disadvantage of the bill.
    Overall, the Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability Act of 
2023 bill is a great bill that would help millions of Americans out, as 
long as no one else or the environment is negatively affected. But one 
more question, how much would this bill cost? Anyways, I would love to 
see this bill get passed and I hope you didn't get too bored while 
reading this. I wish you the best of luck and support for this bill.

            Best regards,

                                               Emma Wohlrab

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Hageman

                   Navajo Transitional Energy Company

                          Broomfield, Colorado

                                              December 13, 2023    

    To Whom It May Concern:

    Navajo Transitional Energy Company (NTEC) writes in support of 
House Resolution 5482. We believe the Energy Poverty Prevention and 
Accountability Act of 2023 is an essential piece of legislation to 
ensure that the current extraordinary focus on climate change does not 
irrevocably harm the most vulnerable among us by essentially, or in-
fact, eliminating basic needs, such as affordable and reliable 
electricity.

    While the scientific community has been discussing climate change 
since as early as 1938, global politics and policies regarding climate 
change have become truly extraordinary over the past decade. In the 
United States, the Biden Administration is rapidly moving forward with 
massive, systemic changes to the United States electrical grid. All 
corners of the Administration have been pushing for the elimination of 
fossil fuel generated electricity since signing Executive Order 13990 
on President Biden's inauguration day. For illustration, just in 2023, 
the following federal regulatory actions have been advanced which 
threaten the US electrical grid (not an exhaustive list):

     Proposed particulate matter national ambient air quality 
            standards review,

     Final mercury and air toxics standards issuance of 
            ``Appropriate & Necessary'' decision,

     Proposed greenhouse gas new source performance standards 
            for existing electric generating units (rule 111d),

     Proposed greenhouse gas new source performance standards 
            for new electric generating units (rule 111b),

     Final greenhouse gas Subpart Ba implementing regulations,

     Proposed mercury and air toxics standards risk and 
            technology review,

     Effluent limitation guidelines proposed rule to 
            potentially strengthen effluent limitation guidelines,

     Proposed coal combustion residuals legacy impoundments,

     Final particulate matter national ambient air quality 
            standards review,

     Proposed new source review emissions accounting review 
            rule,

     Coal combustion residuals Part B final rule (Phase 2 
            closure),

     Final ozone national ambient air quality standards 
            reconsideration,

     Coal combustion residuals closure complete (f)(2), less 
            than 40 acres, and

     Final prevention of significant deterioration fugitive 
            emissions rule.

    Each of the individual regulations, rulemakings and reviews listed 
above has a significant impact on an aspect of the United States 
electrical grid. Taken together, the culmination of these items (along 
with the regulations, rulemakings and reviews from 2020, 2021 and 2022) 
puts the United States electrical grid in extreme peril. However, it is 
not apparent that there is any balancing test being applied by the 
Biden Administration to evaluate the impacts of its collective energy 
policy decisions (or individual rulemakings) with the short-term harm 
to our national security, national economy or the significant hardships 
being exacerbated upon our most At-Risk communities (At-Risk as defined 
in H.R. 5482).
    NTEC has consistently stated that we believe an `all of the above' 
energy strategy is the only prudent and reasonable path forward given 
what is collectively understood about climate change, current and 
future energy needs and the state of technological advancement with 
other potential energy sources. We believe the Energy Poverty 
Prevention and Accountability Act of 2023 is necessary because United 
States energy policy to combat climate change seems to follow a 
``Ready, Shoot, Aim'' methodology rather than reasonably analyzing the 
economic, national security and social justice implications of 
decisions. Policy makers seem significantly more concerned about what 
may happen to people in the year 2100 rather than the absolute direct 
policy impacts happening today on our most vulnerable. We need to 
balance the needs of addressing potential climate change impacts that 
may occur 30+ years from now with meeting the immediate basic 
necessities of ALL human beings.

Affordability

    The Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability Act of 2023 
clearly will provide some reassurance to the Navajo Nation that the 
welfare of its citizens will not be expendable at the alter of climate 
change. But the concern felt by members of the Navajo Nation are also 
felt by many other communities. Over the past year, we have started to 
see numerous examples of utilities that are announcing significant 
increases for electricity rates. In Wyoming, both businesses and 
individuals were recently informed that their local electric utility 
was requesting a 20-35% rate increase. While the Wyoming PSC announced 
the full requested increase would not be granted, the utility has 
already stated they will be coming back for another rate increase in 2 
or 3 years in the range of 30%. This is but one example of many from 
across the country--and electric utilities have publicly stated that 
rates in the future will be higher due to the costs of green energy. A 
simple Google search provides dozens of headlines proclaiming electric 
utility costs rising 5, 12, 20% and more in 2022 and 2023. These 
increases are guaranteed to continue so long as the utilities are being 
forced away from affordable energy. Obviously, utility increases are 
essentially a regressive tax against the At-Risk populations and 
communities this bill is intended to protect.

Reliability

    For decades, we have seen the plight of non-US businesses operating 
in countries throughout the world who were forced to deal with 
significant energy reliability issues. Rolling brownouts, blackouts, 
regulated power or inconsistent power have been deemed as a necessity 
of doing business in Third World countries. Suddenly, as a direct 
result of eliminating electrical generation from coal, gas and hydro 
without replacement electricity being online, the United States finds 
itself with similar significant electricity reliability concerns.

    South Africa jumped on the `green energy' revolution early and 
wholeheartedly. They are now dealing with systemic blackouts due to the 
lack of reliable energy. The push to solar and wind has created a 
massive energy poverty gap between the wealthy and the At-Risk, who 
cannot afford to purchase solar units for their homes. While South 
Africa is the continent's most developed economy, they have placed 
themselves in a situation where they are forced to endure daily power 
cuts which are wreaking havoc on the economy and population.

    Over the past 6 months alone, many utilities, regional transmission 
organizations, and federal agencies have released very concerning 
studies and statements regarding reliability. For example:

     FERC Commissioner Mark Christie told the Senate Energy and 
            Natural Resources Committee in a hearing on May 4, 2023 
            ``The United States is heading for a reliability crisis. I 
            do not use the term ``crisis'' for melodrama, but because 
            it is an accurate description of what we are facing. I 
            think anyone would regard an increasing threat of system-
            wide, extensive power outages as a crisis.''

     At a hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural 
            Resources Committee on June 1, 2023, Manu Asthana, 
            President and CEO of PJM stated ``We will need to slow down 
            the retirement or restriction of existing generation until 
            replacement capacity is deployed . . . frankly, we see this 
            as the single largest risk in the energy transition.''
     MISO has closed 45 power plants (1 nuclear, 29 coal and 15 
            gas) in the past 6 years. Those plants provided over 17 
            megawatts of electricity (approximate coverage for 11.2 
            million homes). The vast majority of that 17 megawatts has 
            been replaced with wind and solar, which is intermittent 
            power . . . not reliable as baseload power. According to 
            data from MISO's website, there will be an ever-widening 
            gap between `installed' and `accredited' capacity going 
            forward. Essentially, MISO is virtually guaranteed to not 
            be able to reliably meet its forecasted energy needs with 
            reliable generation. In other words, there WILL be 
            blackouts throughout the MISO region, it is simply a matter 
            of whether that occurs when the temperature is 30 degrees 
            or 20 below. The differences in those temperatures when the 
            electricity goes out will literally be a life/death 
            determination for many At-Risk individuals and communities 
            throughout the MISO region.

     Similar analysis in ERGOT, SPP and other regions show that 
            PJM and MISO are not along. Each and every regional 
            transmission organization has been publicly clamoring about 
            the crisis that is not coming--but rather here.

    It is for these reasons and more that we believe the Energy Poverty 
Prevention and Accountability Act of 2023 is necessary legislation. The 
United States can, and should, continue to address proven climate 
change ramifications. However, we do not believe that climate change 
and energy policy decisions should be made in a vacuum with a focus 
only on POTENTIAL future impacts. There should be a balance between 
protecting and lifting up citizens of today, especially those At-Risk, 
while addressing potential harms in the future.

About NTEC

    Navajo Transitional Energy Company was formed in 2013 as part of a 
ground-breaking initiative by the Navajo Nation to assert and assume 
full sovereignty over its vast mineral and energy assets. NTEC was 
established under Navajo law as an autonomous limited liability company 
whose sole shareholder is the Navajo Nation. NTEC's initial objective 
was to acquire ownership and control of the Navajo Mine located 
entirely on the Navajo Nation just outside of Farmington, New Mexico. 
In 2019, NTEC went on to acquire substantially all the assets of Cloud 
Peak Energy after they filed bankruptcy. Through this acquisition, NTEC 
became the 3rd largest coal producer in the United States. Our coal 
portfolio includes the Navajo Mine--which is a mine mouth operation 
feeding the Four Corners Power Plant located on the Navajo Nation; the 
Antelope and Cordero Mines in Wyoming and the Spring Creek Complex in 
Montana.

    In addition to owning and operating coal mines, NTEC owns and 
operates producing helium wells on the Navajo Nation, we have an 
ownership percentage in the Four Corners Power Plant, we have an 
ownership interest in the Round Top rare earths deposit in Texas, and a 
partnership with Arizona Lithium for development of the Big Sandy 
lithium project in Arizona. Further, we are working closely with the 
respective owners of the FCPP to develop large-scale, merchant power 
solar facilities on reclaimed mine land. We truly represent and strive 
for ``all of the above'' solutions to the energy needs of the Navajo 
Nation, the United States and beyond. As new technologies are developed 
which we believe can help provide energy and support the Navajo 
Nation--we will be analyzing it.

    We are an essential contributor to the Navajo Nation. Through 
royalties, taxes and other payments NTEC accounts for 30% of the Navajo 
Nation General Fund on an annual basis. Further, the Four Corners Power 
Plant provides another 9%. That power plant is currently scheduled to 
be shut-down in 2031.

    In addition to significant royalties and taxes, NTEC provides 
critical support for the Navajo Nation in numerous other ways. We 
provided over 12,000 tons of free coal to Navajo and Hopi families in 
2022-23 through our Community Heating Resource Program CHRP program to 
ensure houses stay warm in the winter months. Due to high energy costs 
and local energy shortages, we expect to exceed that amount this year. 
In all, NTEC has provided over $350 million directly to the Navajo 
Nation and to Navajo charities since 2013. Of our almost 1,400 
employees, 354 voluntarily identified as Native American--including 318 
Navajo employees. The average salary of our employees identifying as 
Native American is $82,600. These high paying jobs are essential to the 
Navajo community. The Navajo Nation is one of the most impoverished 
communities in the United States, so to put this in perspective,
    On the Navajo Nation:

     Median household income is $26,862 (compared to $57,652 
            for the US),

     36% of households have income below the poverty line 
            (compared to 12.7% in the US),

     19% of households are in Extreme Poverty,

     40% of homes lack running water,

     32% of homes lack electricity,

     86% of homes lack natural gas,

     Unemployment rate is just above 40%,

     More than 50% of Navajo on the Nation live more than 20 
            miles from the nearest grocery store (there are 13 grocery 
            stores on the 27,000 square mile Nation),

     2020 census numbers provide 32.9% of homes have broadband 
            access.

    Thank you for your consideration.

            Regards,

                                             Matthew Adams,
                                       Director, Senior Tax Counsel
                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

                        Statement for the Record
             National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
                              on H.R. 5482

    Since 1919, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been 
the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing 
our National Park System. On behalf of our 1.6 million members and 
supporters nationwide, we write to share our thoughts on select 
legislation ahead of a hearing in the Committee on Natural Resources 
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources scheduled for December 12, 
2023.

    H.R. 5482, the Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability Act of 
2023--NPCA opposes this legislation, specifically Section 5, which is 
intended to slow down new regulations in order to continue unfettered 
extractive energy development on nearby public lands. While the stated 
goal of this bill is to protect frontline communities and those in need 
from higher energy costs, nothing in the bill would guarantee that 
outcome. In fact, the bill does not take into account the costs and 
benefits of renewable energy including wind and solar for these 
communities. Renewable energy could have other long term, non-polluting 
benefits as well. Instead, this bill is a backdoor attempt to slow down 
the ability of the administration to update regulations including 
ensuring the taxpayers do not get saddled with the cost of cleaning up 
extractive development as they do now. Occasionally, the Interior 
Department uses authority granted in law to conserve land instead of 
allowing energy development. This bill could allow many places 
including important wildlife habitat--that many communities depend on 
for food and subsistence--to be threatened with extractive energy 
development. We urge you to oppose this bill.

    Thank you for considering our views.

            Sincerely,

            Daniel Hart,
            Director, Clean Energy and Climate Resiliency Policy

                                 ______
                                 

                   Southern Environmental Law Center

                            Atlanta, Georgia

                                              December 20, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Southern Environmental Law Center's Opposition to H.R. 5482's 
        Protections of the Fossil Fuel Industry

    Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:

    We write in opposition to H.R. 5482 because it would protect fossil 
fuel interests at the expense of America's most vulnerable communities. 
Energy poverty is a real, urgent issue that merits the attention of 
policymakers at every level of government. But protecting the fossil 
fuel status quo will not offer everyday Americans the access to 
affordable energy and healthy communities that they need and deserve.
1.  The Southern Environmental Law Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 
        defender of the environment and the people who live here.

    The Southern Environmental Law Center's mission is to protect the 
basic right to clean air, clean water, and a livable climate; to 
preserve our region's natural treasures and rich biodiversity; and to 
provide a healthy environment for all. SELC is a nonprofit and 
nonpartisan defender of the environment which draws upon the expertise 
of our lawyers, policy, and issue experts. Our work is rooted in the 
South, so we have a keen awareness of the South's history of racism and 
the resulting environmental harms faced by communities of color here. 
We have stood alongside our Southern neighbors who have faced the 
hazardous impacts of fossil fuel pipelines and polluting industries. We 
also have a committed, persistent presence in Public Utilities 
Commissions across the Southeast to advocate for ratemaking, policies, 
and programs that address the disproportionate energy burden borne by 
households with low incomes and communities of color.
2.  The Southern Environmental Law Center opposes H.R. 5482.

    It is with this deep policy knowledge of the causes of and 
solutions to energy burden in the South that we write in opposition to 
H.R. 5482. We enthusiastically support Congress' acknowledgement of its 
important role in recognizing and mitigating energy burden and working 
towards access to affordable energy for all Americans. But addressing 
environmental injustice--and specifically, disproportionate energy 
burden--cannot happen by further entrenching the fossil fuel status quo 
that fostered these inequities, which is what this legislation would 
do. This bill creates administrative red tape that would limit the 
United States' ability to creatively, competitively, and nimbly meet 
the needs of residents with the highest energy burden. And this bill 
does not offer any assurances that the studies of energy poverty it 
commissions will holistically consider the causes of and alternative 
solutions to addressing energy poverty.
    First, this bill relies on the false assumption that additional 
investment in fossil fuels is an effective energy poverty solution. In 
the South, alternatives to fossil fuels--like solar energy--are more 
cost-effective energy sources, according to our energy utilities.\1\ 
Equally important, though, is that H.R. 5482 fails to account for 
fossil fuels' outsized contributions to energy inequity due their 
price-instability, energy unreliability, climate impacts, and public 
health burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See, e.g., Zach Bright, Southern Co. eyes renewables surge 
after Vogtle milestone, ENERGYWIRE (Aug. 4, 2023, 6:44 AM), https://
subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2023/08/04/southern-co-eyes-
renewables-surge-after-vogtle-milestone-00109701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, this legislation relies on an oversimplistic view of the 
causes of and solutions to energy poverty. The residential American's 
energy bill is many layers of policies, policy-makers, and regulations 
removed from the individual executive actions that may affect the 
fossil fuel industry. The crisis of energy poverty is real, and it must 
be addressed. But it is a far more complex problem than H.R. 5482 
appears to suggest. Energy poverty arises from low incomes, drafty 
housing with inefficient appliances, a lack of access to energy 
efficiency programs, inequitable billing practices, extremely hot and 
cold days, and so on.\2\ Fuel prices are an important factor, like the 
rest of the contributing factors, but it is only one of many.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Sonal Jessel et al., Energy, Poverty, and Health in Climate 
Change: A Comprehensive Review of an Emerging Literature, 7 FRONTIERS 
IN PUBLIC HEALTH 357, Dec. 12, 2019, https://www.frontiersin.org/
articles/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00357/full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a.  H.R. 5482 fails to account for cheaper energy alternatives, and it 
        offers no assurances that its asymmetrically mandated reports 
        will consider the price-instability, energy-unreliability, 
        climate impacts, and public health burdens of fossil fuels, all 
        which exacerbate energy inequity.

    For the reasons explained below, the Southern Environmental Law 
Center cannot support federal policies that discourage or delay 
investments in our most cost-effective carbon-neutral resources, and 
H.R. 5482 does just that by creating new, stringent reporting 
requirements for actions that roll back fossil fuel reliance. To truly 
evaluate the impact of fossil fuels on energy equity, H.R. 5482 would 
have to require studies to explicitly consider the numerous 
externalities of fossil fuels that exacerbate energy inequity as well 
as potential alternative investments. Commissioning reports of the 
impact of a fossil fuel policy without considering the full extent of 
the harm those fuels have caused to our most vulnerable communities 
does not serve everyday Americans' financial interests.
    H.R. 5482 incorporates the erroneous assumption that maintaining 
the fossil fuel status quo promotes energy equity. It does not. Not 
only are fossil fuels not the most affordable option for energy 
production, but their extraction and combustion for energy has resulted 
in innumerable harmful impacts on the country's most vulnerable 
communities.
i.  Fossil fuels are not the cheapest energy option for households.

    Fossil fuels have been eclipsed as the most cost-effective energy 
investments due to American ingenuity and market-driven investments in 
clean energy technology. In the South, at least, investments in modern, 
carbon-neutral energy infrastructure are the more cost-effective path 
forward. Southern Company's chief financial officer recently called 
solar the ``most viable technology'' for the Southeast.\3\ And Georgia 
Power has described solar as ``the most cost-effective energy resource 
addition available in Georgia.'' \4\ Similarly, energy efficiency 
programs, which reduce the amount of energy demanded from the grid, are 
typically the lowest cost energy resource compared to supply-side 
investments.\5\ The cheapest electron is that which you do not use. In 
fact, ACEEE has compiled data showing that saving energy through 
``energy efficiency programs generally can be achieved at one-third to 
one-fourth the cost of fossil-fuel based supply-side alternatives.'' 
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Bright, supra note 1.
    \4\ Georgia Power 2022 Integrated Resource Plan at 13-90, No. 44160 
(Ga. P.S.C. 2022), https://www.southernenvironment.org/wp-content/
uploads/2023/10/2022-IRP-Main-Document.pdf.
    \5\ Energy Efficiency as a Resource, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN 
ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY, https://www.aceee.org/topic/ee-as-a-utility-
resource.
    \6\ Id.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4447.001
    

    .epsIn stark contrast, Georgia Power, for example, acknowledges 
that nearly all of its long-term coal investments are ``no longer in 
the best interest of customers.'' \7\ And as described further below, 
methane gas prices are unpredictable, and the risk of those price 
spikes fall almost entirely on customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Georgia Power 2022 Integrated Resource Plan, supra note 4 at L-
187, https://www.southernenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/
2022-IRP-Main-Document.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii.  The volatility of methane gas prices creates a tremendous burden 
        for price-sensitive homes.

    Fossil fuel prices are unpredictable, and because of common rate-
making practices in the United States, customers are the ones who are 
on the hook when fossil fuel prices spike.\8\ A cardinal principle of 
rate design for Public Utilities Commissions is to avoid rate shocks 
``that can especially burden low-income households who would find it 
difficult to afford utility services and other necessities.'' \9\ But 
unpredictable fuel prices lead to unpredictable bills, and that burden 
is felt most severely by households with the tightest budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Joe Daniel et al., Strategies for Encouraging Good Fuel-Cost 
Management: A Handbook for Utility Regulators, RMI (2023) (``Utilities 
typically handle fuel costs through fuel adjustment clauses. Under 
these policies, 100 percent of the cost of fuel is passed onto 
customers. When fuel costs spike, only utility customers take the 
hit.'' The report notes that this creates a major problem: ``It creates 
no financial incentive for utilities for manage their fuel costs 
carefully.'' Although this is the current status quo, there are several 
ways regulators can act to relieve fuel-cost burdens across America, 
outlined in the report.) (emphasis added).
    \9\ Ken Costello, Multiyear Rate Plans and the Public Interest, 
NATIONAL REGULATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, Report No. 16-08 at 42 (Oct. 
2016) https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/FA86999D-D03F-2858-7228-A6353560E5B9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Methane, or ``natural,'' gas, especially, is notorious for price 
shocks, as international events can lead to a sudden and severe spike 
in wholesale commodity prices.\10\ In states where those prices are 
passed directly to the billpayer, that can cause massive bill shock for 
each household. For example, this spring, Georgia Power billed its 
customers $2.6 billion in overspending on fuel costs due to spikes in 
gas prices.\11\ As a result, the average residential bill increased by 
$15.94 a month.\12\ Georgia Power testified to the Georgia Public 
Service Commission that the costs would have been even higher if not 
for the downward pressure from renewables.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Ana Maria Jaller-Makarewicz, Seesawing gas market dominated by 
fear and volatility, INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL 
ANALYSIS (Sept. 6, 2023), https://ieefa.org/resources/seesawing-gas-
market-dominated-fear-and-volatility (``Gas markets are becoming 
riskier--gas and LNG prices are increasingly volatile and greatly 
affected by global factors. The uncertainty of future events that could 
affect gas supply makes it extremely difficult to predict how the 
supply and demand could be balanced and how much prices could escalate 
by. As seen in last year's events in Europe, the only way that 
importing countries can mitigate that risk is by reducing their 
internal consumption.'').
    \11\ Georgia Power's Fuel Cost Recovery Application, Direct 
Testimony of Sarah P. Adams and Adam D. Houston on behalf of Georgia 
Power Company at 4, No. 44902 (Ga. P.S.C., February 28, 2023) (``As of 
December 31, 2022, this under-recovered fuel balance was $2.1 billion, 
and is projected to be $2.6 billion by May 31, 2023.'').
    \12\ Georgia Power Company's Rebuttal Testimony of the Panel of 
Sarah P. Adams and Adam D. Houston at 3, No. 44902 (Ga. P.S.C., April 
24, 2023).
    \13\ Georgia Power's Fuel Cost Recovery Application, Direct 
Testimony of Sarah P. Adams and Adam D. Houston on behalf of Georgia 
Power Company, supra note 11 at 15 (``Generation from renewable 
resources . . . lowers the cost of fuel. . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii.  Fossil fuel resources were our least reliable resources when the 
        Southern grid needed them most.

    Fossil fuel resources were our least reliable resources when the 
Southern grid needed them most. During the January 2014 ``Polar 
Vortex,'' fossil fuel failures accounted for the vast majority of the 
energy that was unavailable to power lights and heat homes.\14\ Seven 
years later, fossil fuels again were not reliable. During Winter Storm 
Elliott--the extreme cold weather event occurring between December 21 
and 26, 2022--over 127,000 megawatts of generation was unavailable, 
representing 18% of the total generation in the Eastern 
Interconnection. Southeastern grid operators were forced to undertake 
``the largest controlled firm load shed recorded in the history of the 
Eastern Interconnection.'' \15\ Eighty-six percent (86%) of the 
unplanned lost energy production was due to the failure of fossil fuels 
in the cold.\16\ On Christmas Eve alone, 1.6 million homes in that 
region lost power.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY CORPORATION, POLAR VORTEX 
REVIEW at 13 (Sept. 2014), https://www.nerc.com/pa/rrm/
January%202014%20Polar%20Vortex %20Review/
Polar_Vortex_Review_29_Sept_2014_Final.pdf (``Coal plants accounted for 
26 percent of the outages. Natural gas represented over 55 percent of 
the total outages during the polar vortex.'').
    \15\ FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND NORTH AMERICAN 
ELECTRIC RELIABILITY CORPORATION, INQUIRY INTO BULK-POWER SYSTEM 
OPERATIONS DURING DECEMBER 2022 WINTER STORM ELLIOTT: FERC, NERC AND 
REGIONAL ENTITY STAFF REPORT at 6 (Oct. 2023).
    \16\ Id. at 17 (see Figure 6b, which shows that natural gas units 
accounted for 63% of the loss, and coal accounted for 23% of the loss).
    \17\ Peter Behr, Bomb cyclone sparks fierce debate over grid 
readiness, ENERGYWIRE (Jan. 3, 2023, 6:47 AM), https://www.eenews.net/
articles/bomb-cyclone-sparks-fierce-debate-over-grid-readiness/; Erwin 
Seba and Scott Disavino, Storm cuts U.S. oil, gas, power output, 
sending prices higher, REUTERS (Dec. 23, 2022, 8:13 PM), https://
www.reuters.com/business/energy/storm-cuts-us-oil-gas-power-output-
sending-prices-higher-2022-12-23/.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4447.002


.epsiv.  The production and extraction of fossil fuels 
        disproportionately harm the communities H.R. 5482 is drafted to 
        protect.
    The health burdens of fossil fuels are disproportionately borne by 
communities of color and communities with lower incomes.\18\ Fossil 
fuel infrastructure, from extraction to combustion, creates dangerous 
air pollution that harms both the environment and human health.\19\ 
Nearly 18 million Americans live within 1 mile of an active oil or gas 
well, ``including disproportionately large numbers of communities of 
color, people living below the poverty line, older individuals and 
young children in many counties with active drilling across the US.'' 
\20\ Adhtza Dawn Chavez of the Naeva Education Project explains that 
methane gas' ``[s]pills, leaks, venting and flaring are taking a toll 
on our air, water and health,'' and ``rural communities, tribal 
communities, children and the elderly are especially at risk.'' \21\ 
And recent research has demonstrated that we have been underestimating 
the danger of coal: ``Coal-fired power plants killed at least 460,000 
Americans during the past two decades, causing twice as many premature 
deaths as previously thought. . . .'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Lara J. Cushing et al., Historical red-lining is associated 
with fossil fuel power plant siting and present-day inequalities in air 
pollutant emissions, 8 NATURE ENERGY 52-61 (Jan. 2023).
    \19\ Timothy Q. Donaghy et al., Fossil fuel racism in the United 
States: How phasing out coal, oil, and gas can protect communities, 100 
ENERGY RESEARCH AND SOCIAL SCIENCE at 4 (May 2023) (Figure 3 depicts an 
overview of the fossil fuel life cycle, which shows that extraction, 
processing, transport, and combustion of fossil fuels all lead to 
hazardous air pollutants, criteria air pollutants, and greenhouse 
gases).
    \20\ U.S. Tightens Limits on Oil and Gas Methane to Address One of 
Nation's Largest Pollution Sources, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND (Dec. 2, 
2023), https://www.edf.org/media/us-tightens-limits-oil-and-gas-
methane-address-one-nations-largest-pollution-sources#::text= 
Environmental%20Defense%20Fund%20research%20on,line%2C%20older%20individ
uals%20 and%20young. Jeremy Proville et al., The demographic 
characteristics of populations living near oil and gas wells in the 
USA, 44 SPRINGER NATURE POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT 1-14 (2022).
    \21\ Study Explores Demographics of Communities Living Near Oil and 
Gas Wells, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND (June 21, 2022), https://
www.edf.org/media/study-explores-demographics-communities-living-near-
oil-and-gas-wells.
    \22\ Nina Lakhani, US coal power plants killed at least 460,000 
people in past 20 years--report, THE GUARDIAN (Nov. 23, 2023), https://
www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/coal-power-plants-deaths-
pollution. Lucas Henneman et al., Mortality risk from United States 
coal electricity generation, 382 SCIENCE 941-946 (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v.  H.R. 5482 entrenches fossil fuels at a time when we should be 
        accelerating away from them.

    As the impacts of climate change become more severe and our 
timeline to tackle it more urgent, it is irresponsible to double down 
on fossil fuels when utilities should be aggressively pursuing 
renewable energy options. Americans are experiencing more frequent and 
severe natural disasters, temperature extremes, rising seas, ecosystem 
loss, species extinction, food and water insecurity, and economic 
disruption, in large part due to the climate change contributions of 
fossil fuel extraction and use for energy production.
    As noted above, these consequences are disproportionately borne by 
communities of color and low-wealth communities. Further, according to 
the Fifth National Climate Assessment, the energy system itself, from 
supply to delivery to demand, is vulnerable to extreme events.\23\ 
``Extreme temperatures increase energy demands and stress electricity 
operations, leading to outages that disrupt societal services.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM, THE FIFTH NATIONAL 
CLIMATE ASSESSMENT, Section 5.2: Compounding Factors (2023).
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rather than entrench fossil fuel reliance, the U.S. must accelerate 
the transition to carbon-free energy. The current rate of declining 
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States is not sufficient to meet 
our critical commitments and goals.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Id. at Section 1: Overview (``US net greenhouse gas emissions 
remain substantial and would have to decline by more than 6% per year 
on average, reaching net-zero emissions around midcentury, to meet 
current national mitigation targets and international temperature 
goals; by comparison, US greenhouse gas emissions decreased by less 
than 1% per year on average between 2005 and 2019.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b.  H.R. 5482 does not address the complex roots of energy inequity and 
        energy poverty.

    Energy poverty is the product of two factors: depressed incomes and 
inflated energy bills. Clearly, the sources of depressed incomes and 
poverty, generally, are the result of complex, intertwined 
governmental, societal, and individual factors. Less commonly 
understood, however, is the tremendous complexity of electricity bills.
    The number at the bottom of a residential electric bill is the 
product of energy usage, energy costs, and many layers of decision-
making about how to allocate the costs of energy, generally, among 
ratepayers. Fossil fuel prices are important, but they cannot be viewed 
in isolation.
    Georgia Power, for example, proudly repeats that it offers 
customers some of the lowest energy rates (meaning, cost per unit of 
energy used) in the country. And yet, individuals do not pay energy 
rates--they pay bills. And residential Georgia Power customers pay some 
of the highest bills in the country.
    Georgia's high bills (despite lower-than-average energy rates) can 
be explained in part by high energy usage in the increasingly hot 
South, and they are also a product of ratemaking policies. Energy usage 
is often driven by factors like climate, home-efficiency, and 
lifestyle. Ratemaking policies can further drive-up energy bills in 
ways that are beyond a household's control, like by requiring customers 
to pay for outsized monopoly utility profits or by incorporating large 
fixed costs. For example, approximately 20% of the average bill paid by 
Georgia Power's residential electricity customers goes toward Georgia 
Power's profit margin (return on equity) and debt financing that has 
been approved by the Georgia Public Service Commission.\26\ And there 
are significant segments of the bill (nearly $18/month) that cannot be 
avoided by reducing energy usage, but instead are effectively ``fixed 
charges'' for items like coal ash clean up, large nuclear construction 
costs, and shared electricity infrastructure like transformers and 
overhead lines.\27\ There are also policies embedded in rate making 
that allow Georgia Power to make risky investments in volatile fuel 
sources (like methane gas) and not pay a penny more if gas prices 
spike; instead, the Georgia Public Service Commission allows Georgia 
Power to charge its customers for those unpredictable prices.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Direct Testimony of Mark E. Ellis on behalf of Georgia 
Interfaith Power & Light at 81, No. 44280 (Ga. P.S.C. Oct. 20, 2022) 
(``Based on analysis of Georgia Power's general rate case filings, its 
proposed combined rate of return for both debt and equity, the latter 
grossed up for taxes, accounts for more than 25% of its revenue 
requirement.''). A Southern Environmental Law Center energy consultant 
determined that 25% of revenue requirement equates to approximately 20% 
of the total bill paid by customers.
    \27\ See, e.g., Direct Testimony of Justin Barnes on behalf of 
Georgia Interfaith Power & Light at 14, No. 44280 (Ga. P.S.C. Oct. 20, 
2022).
    \28\ See Joe Daniel et al., supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The complexity of energy poverty and energy bills is well 
illustrated by a 2020 literature review for the Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory, which found that there are five primary categories of 
``causes and correlates'' of high energy burden: location and 
geography, housing characteristics, socio-economic situations, energy 
prices and policies, and behavioral factors.\29\ The price of energy is 
only one factor in a complex web of policies and practices that result 
in energy burden, as illustrated in Table 2.1, copied below. And the 
focus of H.R. 5482, how any single federal policy or practice may 
impact the price of residential fuel, is even far more removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Low-Income Energy Affordability: Conclusions from a Literature 
Review, ORNL-TM-2019-1150 (Mar. 2020), available at https://
info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub124723.pdf

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4447.003


    .epsFurthermore, this same study provides a menu of illustrative 
programs and policies that directly target the problem of high energy 
bills, as seen in Table 3.1, copied below. And ultimately, this study 
acknowledges that ``[a] coordinated approach to home energy, health, 
safety, and housing that integrates programs across geographies could 
reduce low-income energy burden while delivering numerous other 
benefits to both current and future generations.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Id. at 59.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4447.004
    
    .epsSo, while SELC applauds the Committee's recognition of the real 
impacts of energy poverty and energy burden on everyday Americans, we 
urge Congress to consider the entire scope of causes of this issue, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
which can then inform meaningful options for relief.

c.  Conclusion.

    H.R. 5482 does not require consideration of the complexity of 
factors impacting energy burden, and instead seeks to promote an 
industry--fossil fuels--that has contributed significantly to energy 
inequity across the South. For these reasons, the Southern 
Environmental Law Center writes in opposition to H.R. 5482.

        Jennifer Whitfield,           Bob Sherrier,
        Senior Attorney               Staff Attorney

                                 ______
                                 

                      The Wilderness Society (TWS)

                                              December 11, 2023    

Hon. Peter Stauber, Chairman
Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the 
House Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources:

    On behalf of our more than one million members and supporters, The 
Wilderness Society (TWS) writes to express our views on the bills 
listed below, which are scheduled to be heard by the House Natural 
Resources Committee's Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee on 
December 12, 2023.
H.R. 5482, the Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability Act

    H.R. 5482 would subject all federal and state laws, bills, and 
regulatory actions to additional reviews, audits, and reporting 
requirements focusing exclusively on one aspect of the clean energy 
transition: energy prices. The legislation fails to account for the 
public health improvements, ecosystem health, fair returns for 
taxpayers for the fossil fuel industry's use of shared public 
resources, economic diversification, emissions reduction, or any other 
positive externality that may arise from a legislative or regulatory 
action.
    Specifically, Section 2 of the bill includes senses of Congress 
that Americans should have access to affordable, reliable energy, that 
energy costs should be mitigated, and that federal policies should not 
increase energy costs for ``at-risk communities.'' While these are 
laudable goals, the legislation--again--places a primacy on 
affordability and fails to account for other critical considerations 
that may necessitate regulatory or legislative action.
    Section 3 includes a series of definitions for ``at-risk 
communities,'' ``energy poverty,'' what constitutes an ``energy rule'' 
under the purview of the Act, ``Federal land,'' and several other terms 
that are found throughout United States Code.
    Section 4 requires the Government Accountability Office and the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to jointly author a report on 
energy actions taken by states and the federal government over the 
prior year that also analyzes prospective regulatory actions. It would 
also examine which ``at-risk communities'' are experiencing ``energy 
poverty'', why, and how to mitigate those concerns, and recommendations 
for action that follow a very narrow and overly prescriptive set of 
parameters, including ``increasing energy production on Federal 
lands.'' The prescriptiveness of these reports predetermines a set 
outcome--an outcome that favors unscrupulous oil, gas, and coal leasing 
and extraction.
    Section 5 directs the Congressional Budget Office to include a cost 
estimate on consumer energy price increases for each bill that could 
result in an energy-related regulatory action. It also requires the 
Secretary of the Interior to author a publicly available report to 
Congress on the impacts on jobs and energy prices of any mineral 
withdrawal or moratorium, pause, or delay on mineral leasing or 
drilling on federal public lands. OMB would be required to publish a 
statement on the webpage of every federal regulatory action certifying 
that ``the rule or guidance will not result in energy poverty in at-
risk communities.'' Again, the bill ensures via overly prescriptive 
parameters that these estimates and reports favor leasing, drilling, 
and mining above all else.
    Section 6 directs OMB to issue a rule within 90 days to implement 
the Act.
    Overall, the bill intends to essentially prohibit agencies from 
taking any action beyond wholesale, unencumbered approval of oil, gas, 
and coal lease sales, fossil fuel permit issuances, and other fossil 
fuel development; tip the scales heavily in favor of oil, gas, and coal 
production; burden an administration if it favors anything other than 
fossil fuels; and erects several bureaucratic reporting hurdles 
agencies must clear in order to promulgate any energy regulation beyond 
a broken status quo that simply allows more and more oil, gas, and coal 
production. By taking aim at state renewable portfolio standards, it 
also attempts to abort any transition from fossil fuels to renewable 
energy.
    For these reasons, The Wilderness Society strongly opposes H.R. 
5482, and urges the subcommittee not to advance it.
H.R. 6474, To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expedite 
        geothermal exploration and development in previously studied or 
        developed areas

    This legislation would amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to add 
certain geothermal exploration and development activities to an 
existing categorical exclusion for oil and gas activities, putting 
geothermal on par with oil and gas in certain narrow circumstances. 
This would mean that the following geothermal activities would not be 
subject to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis:

     Individual surface disturbances less than 5 acres where 
            the total surface disturbance under the lease is 150 acres 
            or less;

     Drilling a geothermal well at a site where drilling for 
            oil, gas, or geothermal occurred within the last 5 years;

     Drilling a geothermal well within a developed field where 
            either a resource management plan or NEPA document that was 
            approved within the last 5 years previously analyzed such 
            drilling as a reasonably foreseeable activity;

     Placing a pipeline within a right-of-way that was approved 
            within the last 5 years; or

     Maintaining a minor activity, but not the construction or 
            major renovation of a building or facility.

    Public input and NEPA analyses are critical components of effective 
decision-making. That said, The Wilderness Society supports the 
renewable energy build-out, including expanding geothermal energy--and 
we do not believe that renewable energy activities should be held to a 
higher standard than oil and gas activities with a similar level of 
surface disturbance. Enlarging the scope of an existing categorical 
exclusion that currently only applies to a limited set of oil and gas 
activities to also apply to the same activities related to geothermal 
is laudable and is in service of the goal of permitting additional 
clean, renewable energy on federal public lands.
    While we oppose the underlying categorical exclusion, we believe 
that as long as it exists in law for oil and gas it should also apply 
to geothermal activities.
    The Wilderness Society supports H.R. 6474 and urges members of the 
subcommittee to advance it.
H.R. 6481, To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to require the Secretary of 
        the Interior to reimburse the fee for an expression of interest 
        if the expression of interest becomes inactive, and for other 
        purposes.

    This legislation concerns the $5 per-acre fee, enacted by the 
Inflation Reduction Act, that oil and gas operators must now pay when 
nominating acres of federal public land for oil and gas leasing--also 
referred to as the ``expression of interest fee'' (or ``EOI fee''). The 
bill strikes ``nonrefundable'' from the existing statue, inserts 
language clarifying that nominations are ``active'' for five years, and 
stipulates that fees shall be refunded should a nomination become 
inactive--ostensibly once five years has elapsed and the Bureau of Land 
Management has not offered the acreage in question for lease.
    The expression of interest fee was included in the IRA to reduce 
speculation and to halt frivolous nominations. Between 2009 and 2019, 
for instance, oil and gas speculators nominated over 60 million acres 
in Nevada--with just over 5% of that total auctioned for lease, with 
only a miniscule percentage of that subset yielding any paying 
quantities.
    Rampant abuses of the system like this unfortunate example strain 
limited Bureau of Land Management resources. The EOI fee, as enacted by 
the IRA, should remain fully nonrefundable to prevent these abuses.
    Additionally, receipts from the EOI fee are split between the state 
and federal government. Making this fee refundable pending future 
agency action may impact both state and federal revenues.
    The Wilderness Society opposes this legislation and urges members 
of the subcommittee not to advance it.

    Thank you for considering our views.

            Sincerely,

                                               Lydia Weiss,
                              Senior Director, Government Relations

                                 [all]