[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 26, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-43
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-783PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking
RANDY WEBER, Texas Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JIM BAIRD, Indiana HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
MIKE GARCIA, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California KEVIN MULLIN, California
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida MAXWELL FROST, Florida
DALE STRONG, Alabama YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
MAX MILLER, Ohio SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia JENNIFER McCLELLAN, Virginia
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia GABE AMO, Rhode Island
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York SEAN CASTEN, Illinois,
TOM KEAN, New Jersey Vice Ranking Member
VINCE FONG, California PAUL TONKO, New York
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
June 26, 2024
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
The Honorable David M. Turk, Deputy Secretary, Department of
Energy.
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Discussion....................................................... 27
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable David M. Turk, Deputy Secretary, Department of
Energy......................................................... 72
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Paper submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives
``Funding the Bold Decadal Vision,'' Fusion Industry
Association................................................ 74
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2024
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank
Lucas [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lucas. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recess of the Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``An Overview of the
Budget Proposal for the Department of Energy (DOE) for the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2025.'' I recognize myself for 5 minutes for
an opening statement.
The Department of Energy was established in response to the
oil crisis of 1973 with the mission of ensuring America's
security and prosperity by addressing its energy,
environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformational
science and technology solutions. In carrying out this mission,
DOE has rightly prioritized fundamental research of the Office
of Science and its national labs. Even today, DOE remains the
largest Federal sponsor of basic physical sciences research.
Yet in recent years, DOE has moved away from its core
mission of transformative science and technological solutions
to deploying mature technologies and attempting to lead a
forced nationwide green energy transition. The Fiscal Year 2025
budget request continues this concerning trend.
Although I'm glad to see the Department request an increase
for the Office of Science, this budget does little to rebalance
the massive shifts in priorities mandated by the recent
Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Although
the IIJA (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) and the IRA,
DOE established--that's a mouthful--established 75 new
demonstration and deployment programs and received
approximately $100 billion in additional funding. The Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) alone received an
additional $16 billion in the IIJA to supplement its annual
appropriations, which have increased by over $500 million since
Fiscal Year 2021. Meanwhile, the IRA appropriated an additional
$11 billion to the Loan Program Office (LPO) to finance large-
scale infrastructure projects.
To support these new programs and funding increases, the
Department underwent a reorganization, hiring over 1,000 new
employees and established several new offices. I'm not hoping
for failure, but the growth in the bureaucracy and the
potential for waste, fraud, and abuse stemming from these bills
makes it almost guaranteed to happen.
Perhaps even more concerning, this shift in focus comes at
the expense of the Office of Science and its fundamental
research. As this Committee knows well, the Office of Science
is home to world-class research and user facilities that
accelerate the advancements in various disciplines, including
materials sciences, fusion energy, and nuclear physics.
While DOE's funding for late-stage research and deployment
through the EERE and the LPO has seen big cash influxes, the
Office of Science received zero additional funding through the
IIJA and only $1.5 billion for the national labs infrastructure
in the IRA. In my opinion, this discrepancy creates a future
where DOE picks winners and losers by funding select energy
sources but does not carry out the fundamental research needed
by industry to make generational breakthroughs for multiple
energy sources. That is the opposite of the all-of-the-above
energy strategy, and if DOE isn't conducting that early stage,
groundbreaking research, no one will.
Instead of continuing down this alarming path through DOE's
Fiscal Year 2025 budget request, we should seek to fully fund
the provisions authorized in the CHIPS and Science Act. This
bipartisan bill was the first comprehensive reauthorization of
the Office of Science and was meant to catapult DOE into the
21st century in key technology--technological areas such as
fusion energy, advanced computing, and microelectronics. While
I fully understand we in Congress must play our part and
appropriate the funds, it would be helpful to see DOE support
our efforts by requesting similar funding levels. But that's
not what the Fiscal Year 2025 request does.
Despite that, I'm hopeful today's conversation will be
productive. I look forward to hearing from Deputy Secretary
Turk on how DOE continues to manage the large funding influxes
it's received and how the difficult decisions associated with
this budget were made.
Thank you for being here today, Deputy Secretary, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lucas follows:]
The Department of Energy was established in response to the
oil crisis of 1973 with the mission of ``ensuring America's
security and prosperity by addressing its energy,
environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative
science and technology solutions.''
In carrying out this mission, DOE has rightly prioritized
fundamental research through the Office of Science and its
National Laboratories. Even today DOE remains the largest
federal sponsor of basic physical sciences research.
Yet in recent years, DOE has moved away from its core
mission of ``transformative science and technological
solutions'' to deploying mature technologies and attempting to
lead a forced nationwide green energy transition.
The FY25 budget request continues this concerning trend.
Although I am glad to see the Department request an increase to
the Office of Science, this budget does little to rebalance the
massive shifts in priorities mandated by the recent
Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act.
Through the IIJA and IRA, DOE established 75 new
demonstration and deployment programs and received
approximately $100 billion in additional funding.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy alone
received an additional $16 billion in the IIJA to supplement
its annual appropriations, which have increased by over half a
billion dollars since FY21. Meanwhile the IRA appropriated an
additional $11 billion to the Loan Program Office to finance
large-scale infrastructure projects.
To support these new programs and funding increases, the
Department underwent a reorganization, hired over a thousand
new employees, and established several new offices.
I'm not hoping for failure, but the growth in bureaucracy
and the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse stemming from
these bills makes it almost guaranteed to happen.
Perhaps even more concerning, this shift in focus comes at
the expense of the Office of Science and its fundamental
research. As this Committee knows well, the Office of Science
is home to world-class research and user facilities that
accelerate advancements in various disciplines, including
material sciences, fusion energy, and nuclear physics.
While DOE's funding for later-stage research and deployment
through EERE and LPO has seen big cash influxes, the Office of
Science received zero additional funding through the IIJA and
only $1.5 billion for the National Labs' infrastructure in the
IRA.
In my opinion, this discrepancy creates a future where DOE
picks winners and losers by funding select energy sources but
does not carry out the fundamental research needed by industry
to make generational breakthroughs for multiple energy sources.
That is the opposite of an all-the-above energy strategy.
And if DOE isn't conducting that early-stage, groundbreaking
research, no one will.
Instead of continuing down this alarming path through DOE's
FY25 budget request, we should seek to fully fund the
provisions authorized in the CHIPS and Science Act. This
bipartisan bill was the first comprehensive reauthorization of
the Office of Science and was meant to catapult DOE into the
21st century in key technological areas such as fusion energy,
advanced computing, and microelectronics.
While I fully understand we in Congress must play our part
and appropriate the funds, it would be helpful to see DOE
support our efforts by requesting similar funding levels. But
that's not what the FY25 request does.
Despite that, I am hopeful today's conversation will be
productive. I look forward to hearing from Deputy Secretary
Turk on how DOE continues to manage the large funding influxes
it has received and how the difficult decisions associated with
this budget were made.
Thank you for being here today, Deputy Secretary. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Lucas. And because of scheduling conflicts, in
agreement with the Ranking Member, by golly, she has arrived on
time, I'm impressed. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for her opening
statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for holding
this important hearing today, and I want to thank the Deputy
Secretary for being here.
As you know, the Committee played a leading role in shaping
the Nation's energy policy through the last several Congresses,
including major contributions to the CHIPS and Science Act, the
Energy Act of 2020, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Now, as we examine the DOE's budget request for Fiscal Year
2025 and focus on the implementation of each of these landmark
bills, an area that I'm particularly focused on is fusion
energy, as the Members of this Committee know quite well by
now. The need to significantly improve support for our U.S.
fusion research enterprise is actually one of the major reasons
that I first ran for Congress in 1994 and one of the top
reasons that I decided to seek the Ranking Member position of
this Committee.
I'm excited about the real breakthroughs we've seen in
fusion over the last 2 years alone, including the achievement
of ignition at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in late
2022, which was followed by even more progress from NIF over
the last year. I'm also encouraged by the rapid growth we're
seeing in the private sector for fusion and the major technical
achievements that they're now bringing to our overall national
effort. For example, in January, I had the opportunity to visit
the fusion companies Zap Energy and Helion, and I was impressed
with the inventiveness and the breadth of the work they're now
undertaking to bring fusion to the grid as quickly as possible.
Last year, I was especially encouraged that this progress
was recognized in the Administration's budget request for 2024,
which closely tracked the bipartisan levels and activities
authorized by the CHIPS and Science Act, also followed the
priorities identified by the fusion community itself and the
most recent long-range plan produced by the Fusion Energy
Sciences Advisory Committee.
And then, despite the best efforts of me and many of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I was deeply
disappointed that Congress' appropriations process failed to
match or, frankly, come anywhere close to the request. And I'm
further disappointed the DOE's budget proposal for fusion in
2025 appears to be actually a step backward. Of particular
note, the fusion community's long-range plan recommended
substantially increasing support for materials in fusion
nuclear science R&D (research and development) and for public-
private partnerships under all fusion budget scenarios,
including the flat and modest growth scenarios that we've
recently been operating under.
Yet, while the Department's latest budget request does
propose a small increase of about 7 percent for the overall
program, support for the materials and fusion nuclear science
would be close to the same as 2024. And the flagship public-
private partnership program for fusion called the Milestone
Project would be cut by 25 percent. I look forward to
discussing this apparent discrepancy with you and to working
closely with you to get these programs on a much stronger
footing. At this critical juncture for the budding U.S. fusion
industry, we need to make sure that we are prioritizing our
Federal investments in a smarter way to best ensure success.
Recent headwinds aside, we still have a long way to go
before a final budget gets to the President's desk, and I only
see bipartisan support for this enterprise growing in the
months and years to come. So I'm doing everything in my power
to make sure that, going forward, our annual Federal funding
reflects the tremendous progress and the immense promise of
fusion energy, and I invite everyone here to join me in this
effort. And I am appreciative of the Chairman's support for
fusion as well.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Lucas, for holding
this important hearing today. And thank you to Deputy Secretary
Turk for being here. As you may know, this Committee played a
leading role in shaping our nation's energy policy through the
last several Congresses, including major contributions to the
CHIPS and Science Act, the Energy Act of 2020, the Inflation
Reduction Act, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
As we examine DOE's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2025--
and focus on the implementation of each of these landmark
bills--an area that I am particularly focused on is fusion
energy, as the Members of this Committee know well by now. The
need to significantly improve support for our U.S. fusion
research enterprise is actually one of the major reasons that I
first ran for Congress in 1994, and one of the top reasons that
I decided to seek the Ranking Member position of this
Committee.
I am excited about the real breakthroughs we've seen in
fusion over the last 2 years alone, including the monumental
achievement of ignition at the National Ignition Facility in
late 2022--which was followed by even more progress from NIF
over the past year.
I'm also encouraged by the rapid growth we are now seeing
in the private sector for fusion, and the major technical
achievements that they are now bringing to our overall national
effort.
For example, in January I had the opportunity to visit the
fusion companies Zap Energy and Helion, and I was impressed
with the inventiveness and the breadth of the work they are now
undertaking to bring fusion to the grid as quickly as possible.
Last year I was especially encouraged that this progress
was recognized in the Administration's Budget Request for 2024,
which closely tracked the bipartisan levels and activities
authorized in the CHIPS and Science Act. It also followed the
priorities identified by the fusion community itself in the
most recent Long Range Plan produced by the Fusion Energy
Sciences Advisory Committee.
And then, despite the best efforts of me and many of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I was deeply
disappointed that Congress's appropriations process failed to
match or frankly come anywhere close to this request. And I am
further disappointed that DOE's budget proposal for fusion in
2025 appears to be a step backward.
Of particular note, the fusion community's Long Range Plan
recommended substantially increasing support for materials and
fusion nuclear science R&D and for public-private partnerships
under all fusion budget scenarios, including the flat and
modest growth scenarios that we have recently been operating
under.
Yet, while the Department's latest budget request does
propose a small increase of about 7% for the overall program,
support for materials and fusion nuclear science would be close
to the same as 2024, and your flagship public-private
partnership program for fusion, called the milestone program,
would be cut by 25%.
I look forward to discussing this apparent discrepancy with
you further, and to working closely with you to get these
programs on much stronger footing. At this critical juncture
for the budding U.S. fusion industry, we need to make sure we
are prioritizing our Federal investments in a smarter way to
best ensure success.
Recent headwinds aside, we still have a long way to go
before a final budget gets to the President's desk, and I only
see bipartisan support for this enterprise growing in the
months and years to come. So, I am doing everything in my power
to make sure that going forward, our annual federal funding
reflects the tremendous progress and the immense promise of
fusion energy, and I invite everyone here to join me in this
effort.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Ranking Member, for those
insightful comments.
Our witness today is the Department of Energy's Deputy
Secretary David Turk. I now represent--recognize Deputy
Secretary Turk for 5 minutes to present his testimony, and
thank you for being here.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DAVID M. TURK,
DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Turk. Thank you, Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member
Lofgren, Members of the Committee. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to discuss President Biden's latest budget request
for the Department of Energy.
On behalf of the Department, I want to express our
gratitude for your leadership of our Nation's science and
technology R&D efforts. There is no question whatsoever that
your leadership, your vision, and your commitment have fueled
the success that we're seeing today.
As you well know, DOE researchers have made some of the
most important scientific breakthroughs of our generation, for
medicine, for technology, for fusion, and of course for energy.
But you also know that maintaining this competitive edge
requires continued innovation and continued leadership. That's
why the President's latest budget requests $8.6 billion for
DOE's Office of Science, advancing toward the CHIPS and Science
authorized level, a significant increase over the Fiscal Year
2024 amount that Congress provided. This includes more than
$800 million for fusion energy so that we can advance the
research and innovation to make commercial fusion a reality.
Fusion is a technology that's a top priority to many of us,
including our Chair and Ranking Member, and thank you very much
for your leadership and other Members of this Committee.
Our request also calls for nearly $2 billion for DOE's work
in other cutting-edge fields that are absolutely key to
American security and competitiveness, including biotechnology,
quantum, machine learning, and artificial intelligence (AI). In
December of last year, our department formally aligned these
efforts under a new Office of Critical and Emerging
Technologies (OCET). The mandate for that office includes the
development of safe, responsible, and trustworthy artificial
intelligence, which the Department of Energy has been leading
since the 1970's. Our researchers have created AI tools that
model wildfire spread, detect national security threats,
accelerate cancer research, and much, much more. The $455
million requested in this annual budget will allow us to apply
our deep experience to new challenges and opportunities in AI,
but we will need to continue substantially upping our efforts
to remain ahead of our competitors in the AI competitive
landscape.
But our work doesn't end in the lab. And, Mr. Chairman, I
want to say, in particular, as we continue to lean in on our
innovation funding, our R&D funding, I think it's a both/and.
It's not an either/or. I think we can continue to be--expand
our leadership in innovation and R&D and science and all the
great things that this Committee's leadership has provided our
country, but at the same time, we should extend our work from
the lab. Thanks to President's vision--the President's vision
and truly historic legislation from the past couple years, we
are executing on an industrial strategy that is getting energy
breakthroughs out of our labs, onto the market, into American
homes and businesses. This strategy is restoring American
manufacturing, creating jobs, and cementing our global
leadership in clean energy.
Since the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
companies have announced more than 600 new or expanded clean
energy manufacturing plants on American soil. As a personal
reflection, that's been one of the best parts of this job is to
go visit many of you with the groundbreaking for these
incredible job creators all across our country, over $200
billion in planned investment, private sector investment for
batteries, for EVs (electric vehicles), for solar, for wind,
nuclear, and much, much more, tens of thousands of jobs being
created all across our country.
We're helping American businesses to have confidence they
need to deploy innovative energy technologies at scale, which
is also deepening our energy security and diversifying our
supply chains. We're also making historic investments to lower
energy costs for our fellow Americans from the Weatherization
Assistance Program to tax credits to rebates for energy-
efficient appliances.
Now, sustaining this momentum requires us to complement the
historic funding Congress provided in these truly unprecedented
bills with ongoing, targeted, and durable annual investments.
The President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2025 will
empower us to build on all of our progress. Again, thanks to
the leadership of our President and the Congress, the United
States is leading the world in science and innovation in clean
energy manufacturing, but we still have much, much more work to
do.
Thank you for the opportunity to be before you today and
eager for your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Deputy Secretary, for your
testimony.
And I'd now like to recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Deputy Secretary Turk, the Department of Energy has been
well funded in recent years through annual appropriations and
the multitrillion-dollar spending packages of the IIJA and the
IRA. Yet with that funding, it appears the Department is quick
to commit but struggling to actually get it out the door,
leaving billions sitting in the Department. So I'm hopeful that
you can clarify some information on that.
Between the IIJA and the IRA, the Office of Clean Energy
Demonstrations was appropriated an additional $27 billion. Can
you tell me how much of that money has been committed to
projects----
Mr. Turk. Yes----
Chairman Lucas [continuing]. Of the $27 billion?
Mr. Turk [continuing]. Happy to do so, and I think it's
useful to recognize the context of this investment, historic
investment from BIL and IRA. When that legislation was passed,
it was passed specifically with multiple years in mind, in many
cases 5-year programs, in many cases multi-tranches of funding
coming out the door.
That said, we're actually having launched 100 percent of
our BIL and IRA programs, and we're on track to obligate this
year or announce $46.6 billion of the roughly $100 billion that
was provided in the BIL and IRA. So we're making substantial
progress, but again, looking at the context, this money was not
expected to, nor did Congress empower us to spend it all at
once. It was supposed to be an investment, a generational
investment that is going to take several years to invest in
America.
Chairman Lucas. So the $100 billion number you used, $46
billion committed, how much of that money has actually left the
DOE's accounts and been used by the projects? Can you give me
an idea on that?
Mr. Turk. So the numbers, we'd be happy to share the very
latest numbers. The Secretary and I get briefed on a weekly
basis in terms of where those trajectories are. A significant
amount of that money has been announced. It's out there. Some
of that money is in formula grant money that goes through
States and local governments as well, but we can give you all
the exact numbers, and we're happy to share that with the
Committee on a regular basis if you'd like to have that.
Chairman Lucas. Absolutely, Under Secretary. And the
numbers you used combine the IIJA and the IRA. If you can tell
me off the top of your head--and if this has to be a follow up
number, that's fine, too--but in the IRA, the Loan Program
Office was appropriated an additional $11.7 billion. Can you
tell me in particular how much of that money has been allocated
off the top of your head?
Mr. Turk. Yes, and that money, of course, leverages much
broader amounts of money that we're able to loan to private
sector companies across our country. We now have a pipeline of
$290 billion in our loan program for projects literally across
the country. It's quite remarkable. One of the jobs of the
Deputy Secretary is to chair what's called the Credit Review
Board, which is the board that we use internally to approve
projects when they go to conditional commitment. We've already
gotten almost $30 billion of that out in conditional commitment
with companies, but we've got that incredible pipeline, and
we're trying to leverage that money that Congress has provided
us for the biggest benefit for Americans and American
companies.
Chairman Lucas. In the IIJA--and again, I know I asked for
specifics, and I know they're going to come--the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewables was appropriated an additional
$16 billion. Again, off the top your head, how much of that's
been committed, and how much has actually gone out the door?
Mr. Turk. Yes, so we've gotten a lot of money out the door.
We're happy to share the money broken up by the different
offices, whether it's our OCET office or our Energy Efficiency
and Renewables Office, and those dollar amounts are increasing
on a daily and weekly basis. It's really truly historic the
amount of funding that we are providing to help Americans lower
their costs. A lot of this money, like the rebates money that
is going out the door to States, is actually lowering costs.
Weatherization lowers costs for Americans on average, $372 a
year for those of our American citizens who are getting those
funds. But we're happy, Mr. Chairman, to give you the numbers
and again provide those on a regular basis so that you can all
do your oversight.
Chairman Lucas. And I sure--I've realized, Deputy
Secretary, you see where I'm coming from. As I've discussed
many times with the Secretary, your boss, the magnitude of
CHIPS and Science and the number of other things we've done are
so great that there will be similar requirements. There will be
similar needs in the future, and that we have to be very
successful in this rather incredible amount of money we've set
aside in order to justify being able to address whatever the
next great challenges are. That's why I really want to know, of
the money that's been in the various programs that has been
provided, appropriated, how much has been committed and how
much has gone out the door so that we can analyze from our
constitutional responsibilities, being in charge of the purse,
how all this is going. And it also is the justification then
for the things that may come in the future.
Again, I've sent letters to the Secretary asking questions
about this and follow up letters, and I'm sure that after our
discussion today, you'll be forthcoming, but it is important as
stewards of the purse that we make sure that your folks in
their role as implementers of the policy get it right.
Mr. Turk. Well, let me just agree with you completely, Mr.
Chairman. And I personally--and I know our team--feels an
immense amount of responsibility. These are truly historic
amounts of funding that American taxpayers are providing. We
feel the weight of history to make sure that we use this money
responsibly, as much as we--and as quickly as we possibly can.
So we've hired up, as you mentioned, 1,000 new folks to help.
We've created new offices. But the fact that we've been able to
launch 100 percent of our programs and announce or obligate
$46.6 billion of that is a remarkable accomplishment, I think.
Chairman Lucas. I would just simply reiterate, in our
responsibility as authorizers, looking over your shoulder is
very important, and our interactions with the appropriators as
they make the decisions how to fund these programs in coming
years matters also.
With that, this is an issue I'm sure we'll come back to. I
yield back the balance my time and recognize the Ranking Member
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as I indicated in
my opening remarks, in my view, the Fiscal Year 2024 request by
the Department was pretty much consistent with the Bold Decadal
Vision for the commercialization of fusion energy that the
Administration itself announced in March 2022 and with the
long-range plan that was produced by the fusion community about
a year earlier. However, quite frankly, the Fiscal Year 2025
request isn't. I'd like know why the Administration has pulled
back from this. Specifically, the proposed support for fusion
material and fuel cycle R&D would stay at about the same levels
as Fiscal Year 2024, which was below what was necessary, and
the milestone-based public-private partnership program would
actually be cut by 25 percent.
Now, these two areas are the highest priority areas
identified by the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee's
long-range plan no matter what budget scenario we're working
under. So I'd like to know, you know, what's the justification
for not prioritizing these activities that are clearly so
critical to the goal of commercializing fusion energy as
quickly as possible?
And I'd like also to note, while we continue to push for
overall funding for fusion as close as possible to the levels
that we authorized in the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, I
realized the budget caps may prevent that from happening. So we
need to know what's the Department's plan to make the necessary
investments that need to be made in materials, fueling systems,
and other critical technologies under the budget cap? And how
are you going to leverage the public-private partnerships like
the Milestone program in which DOE recently selected eight
different companies to work toward a fusion pilot project? What
are the Department's plans for existing user facilities? If you
can address that, I would appreciate it very much.
Mr. Turk. Yes, happy to do so, and happy, Ranking Member
Lofgren--and I know the Chairman's a huge, huge supporter and
leader on fusion as well and a number of other Members on this
Committee. We're happy to come up here and have more detailed
conversations on all the issues that you raised.
Let me just say, though, incredibly clearly, I am
personally a huge fusion fan, and I think there's a historic
opportunity here for us. That's why I was so proud that we did
launch the Bold Decadal Vision out there. I think there's an
opportunity working with the private sector. We've seen over $6
billion, as you well know, from the private sector. I've had--
you mentioned a few of the companies that you visited. I've had
a chance to visit some of those phenomenal entrepreneurs during
my time as well. And I think we need to think about orders of
magnitude more on the fusion funding side of things. There's a
competition going on right now.
Ms. Lofgren. If I may, I don't disagree. The problem is the
budget--the request by the Administration does not match----
Mr. Turk. So----
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. What you are saying.
Mr. Turk. So, as you said, we submitted a budget request in
Fiscal Year 2024 of around $1 billion or so. We were all quite
disappointed, and it sounds like you yourself--and thank you
for all the efforts to try to get as much as we could out of
that. We ended up getting in Fiscal Year 2024 only $790
billion----
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Mr. Turk [continuing]. In that budget, which was
disappointing. It is a very budget-constrained world that we're
living in, and Fiscal Year 2025 is a very budget-constrained
world. You mentioned that as well. I had a chance to talk to
our Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman, who's part of this
Committee as well, and I know they're marking up their bill
this week, and I think we'll see a very constrained budget on
that.
So, candidly speaking, when we look at where Congress has
provided us money previously, we try to make as much headroom
as we possibly can in a very budget-constrained world for an
awful lot of priorities. And so that's where--what you see
reflected in Fiscal Year 2025 requests for----
Ms. Lofgren. Well, let me just say, you know, I appreciate
your enthusiasm for fusion and mine and the Chairman's as well,
but the recommendation by the Science Advisory Committee was
the priorities, no matter what the budget scenario was, and the
request----
Mr. Turk. And----
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. Does not match what the Science--
--
Mr. Turk. And----
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. Advisory Committee asked.
Let me just go to another subject, and I would like to
engage further with you on this. And I'm sure the Chairman
would as well. The Fusion Industry Association (FIA) recently
submitted a proposal for a $3 billion one-time supplemental
appropriations to support a specific set of facilities,
programs, and research activities that would allow the U.S. to
be the world leader in the emerging fusion industry over the
long time. Have you had a chance to take a look at that
proposal? It's, you know, not dissimilar from the proposed
billions that the Administration has made for advanced nuclear
fuel production so that we can be in the lead. Have you had a
chance to take a look at that proposal?
Mr. Turk. Yes, I have had, and I've had a chance to meet
with the FIA and a lot of the Members of the FIA. I'm very
intrigued with their proposal. And $3 billion is a lot, but in
the grand scheme of things when China's spending $1.5 billion a
year on fusion and we've got a real opportunity to make sure
that we are leaders--continue to be leaders in this space,
which we are right now. I think $3 billion in a supplemental
context is very appropriate, and we're eager to work with you
all, whether it's supplemental funding, as much money as we can
get from an annual appropriations process.
And we've made remarkable progress on our Milestone
program. All eight of the companies in the Milestone program we
have deals with now. We're working on the FIRE (Fusion
Innovative Research Engine) Collaboratives and all the other
incredibly important things that you mentioned.
Ms. Lofgren. I have one additional question, which I'll
just put in the record, which has to do with whether the
funding we've paid--we have made available for carbon removal,
how that's going to work in the marine environment. I'll take
the answer off--away from the hearing.
But, as I close, Mr. Chairman, I'll just note that we are
the leader in fusion now. We have a bold plan. We didn't fund
the plan. China funded the plan. So if we don't get ahead of
this, we're not only going to lose in terms of our--the world,
but we're going to lose to China once again because of our lack
of vision. And I think it's a terrible shame.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. Well-stated, Ranking Member. The Ranking
Member yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Chairman Lucas.
Following up on the Ranking Member's comments, I notice in
your written testimony you mentioned the threat of Ukraine and
Russia, but there was no mention of China whatsoever until the
Ranking Member posed her question, and so I want to just
directly ask you. Do you feel there's any kind of existential
threat from China?
Mr. Turk. I think there's a huge threat from China. We're
looking at that and working on that in terms of exploring our
national labs and making sure that all the investment that we
make as taxpayers doesn't find its way, as it has too often,
with American businesses to China. In terms of our American
competitiveness, we're spending a lot of money and executing on
diversifying our supply chains, including for critical
minerals, which, right now, too much of that production is in
China. So across the board, it's absolutely a key, key focus of
our department.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. As you're well aware, there was at
least one thing that President Obama and President Trump both
agreed on, and that is we should place tariffs on Chinese solar
panels if we wanted American industry to prosper. The State
Department clearly determined that China was evading the
tariffs by sending them through Malaysia, Thailand, other
countries, slapping on a made-in-that-country label, and
bringing them to the United States without tariffs.
We passed bipartisan legislation to overturn the
President's waiver of those tariffs, and he vetoed it. I can
see the benefit to the Chinese, but I'm just wondering if the
Department of Energy can see any benefit to that veto for the
United States of America or Americans.
Mr. Turk. So we spend a lot of time on these issues, solar,
but looking at all the other critical technologies and the jobs
associated with those technologies if we win the competition
that's happening right now----
Mr. Posey. No, I'm just trying to figure out what the logic
was behind allowing them to continue evading the laws and the
tariffs----
Mr. Turk. Well, we just announced section 301 tariffs on a
range of goods to try to make sure that we've got trade policy
matched up with what we're doing with France----
Mr. Posey. I know that. I'm just wondering----
Mr. Turk [continuing]. All in an industrial strategy----
Mr. Posey [continuing]. What the logic could have possibly
been for vetoing the legislation that would have enforced the
tariffs.
Mr. Turk. Well, the thing that we're doing--and this is
where our----
Mr. Posey. No, I just----
Mr. Turk [continuing]. Analytical capabilities----
Mr. Posey [continuing]. The logic. I know you're trying to
make some amends for that, and I appreciate that. I'm just
wondering what the logic was behind vetoing it.
Mr. Turk So let me--we look sector by sector, technology by
technology. What are we doing on the grant side, on the loan
side, on the tax incentive side, and how do we protect those
investments with tariffs, with trade policy, and do it all in a
very systematic, very orderly way, not just our Department, but
working with USTR (United States Trade Representative), our
trade representatives, State Department. And so happy to talk
to, Congressman, at your--whenever you're eager to talk about
solar or other issues, to show how we're analyzing all that.
And we put forward recommendations of----
Mr. Posey. And I----
Mr. Turk [continuing]. This tariff should be increased,
this tariff should----
Mr. Posey. We're wasting time here.
Mr. Turk [continuing]. Be lowered, all those----
Mr. Posey. We're----
Mr. Turk [continuing]. Kinds of things.
Mr. Posey. We're wasting time. So there is no logic that
you can think of how those vetoes could have helped Americans?
Mr. Turk. So, again, it's part of this broader strategy
that we're doing on solar----
Mr. Posey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance----
Mr. Turk [continuing]. And I'm happy to talk about----
Mr. Posey [continuing]. Of my time.
Mr. Turk [continuing]. How that fits in.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair would inform the membership that we are at 13 1/2
minutes in this vote series and that majority leadership has
announced that we will have a hard 20-minute limit on voting. I
would suggest--I have one Member who would like to question. So
if the other Members prefer to go vote, Ms. Bonamici and I will
be here to finish her question, and then we'll recess until
after the vote series and then we'll come back.
With that, the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chairman Lucas, and thank you,
Ranking Member Lofgren, and thank you, Deputy Secretary Turk.
The Department of Energy plays a critical role in combating
the climate crisis through its work to transition to a clean
energy economy, including in rural and underserved communities.
And the Department is also well-positioned to address emerging
challenges like strain on the grid caused by the rapid growth
of data centers and artificial intelligence and to support
other agencies to develop novel climate solutions like marine
carbon dioxide removal (CDR).
So I'm going to ask about those issues. According to a
recent paper from the Digital Climate Alliance, data centers
are projected to compose up to 9 percent of U.S. energy's
demand by 2030. And I recently heard during an Oregon Clean
Energy Taskforce meeting that we need reliable grid enhancement
technologies to responsibly maintain the pace of advanced
computing and innovation.
So, Deputy Secretary Turk, what is the Department of Energy
doing to make sure that the load growth caused by the expansion
of AI and the need for data centers does not exceed the grid
capacity?
Mr. Turk. And let me--I'll answer that question very
directly, but let me just thank you for pointing out the focus
on rural and underserved communities. One of the parts of the
BIL and IRA that hasn't gotten as much attention is $1 billion
for those communities. It's frankly----
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Mr. Turk [continuing]. Way oversubscribed, and there's a
lot more we could do with those communities.
So on AI, you mentioned 9 percent of electricity demand by
2030. Our latest numbers, which aren't yet public but we'll put
these out here in the next several months, is growing from
about 6 percent of our electricity demand right now coming from
data centers. A part of that is AI. It's probably about 15 to
25 percent or so right now, that growing to 9 percent by 2027.
So that's a significant amount of growth----
Ms. Bonamici. Right, right.
Mr. Turk [continuing]. But that's not the only source of
growth. We're seeing growth from all this industrial
renaissance that we're seeing across the country, which is just
phenomenal from a jobs perspective. We're also seeing growth
from electric vehicles and heat pumps. So we're actually in a
period where we haven't been. Last 15 years or so we've had
pretty flat electricity demand. We're now growing again----
Ms. Bonamici. Sure.
Mr. Turk [continuing]. Quite substantially. We've had
significant periods of growth before. So what we're doing is a
multipronged strategy. First of all, we're working with all of
the datacenter companies on efficiency, right? The more we can
efficiently get as much compute power out of what electricity
we put in, the better, right? And we've got a strong record of
efficiency improvements, including our national labs and our
supercomputers that this Committee has been so supportive of in
years past.
Secondly, we need to focus on all the clean generation
sources----
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Mr. Turk [continuing]. And we're spending a lot of money
and time on enhanced geothermal. We're spending money and time
on small modular reactors (SMRs), other baseload power, but
also storage options that can help on the generation side.
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Mr. Turk. We've got a very big focus on virtual power
plants and other demand response, and for some of the AI in the
datacenters, they can actually fluctuate the amount of
electricity they need over time, which can help. And then we've
got to invest in transmission. We've got to reduce----
Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely.
Mr. Turk [continuing]. Our permitting times on transmission
across the board.
Ms. Bonamici. Yes, and I do have a couple more----
Mr. Turk. We need a holistic strategy.
Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. Questions. Thank you. I
appreciate that. And we know that that meeting our climate
goals is going to require the removal of 6--at least 6 gigatons
of carbon dioxide per year by 2050. The ocean can act as a
massive carbon sink, so marine CDR and sequestration have
emerged as potential climate mitigation strategies. The
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided the Department of Energy
with $3.5 billion to create new carbon removal hubs. Are marine
CDR projects eligible for this funding?
Mr. Turk. So as of right now, no. And I think that's
actually unfortunate. I think there's a huge opportunity for
marine carbon dioxide removal. We've got $36 million in ARPA-E
that's working on that.
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Mr. Turk. We've got our Fossil Energy and Carbon Management
and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Office as well with smaller
amounts----
Ms. Bonamici. Can I just ask you why they're not eligible?
Is it in the--is it statutory? Is it interpretation?
Mr. Turk. So it's statutory and congressional intent.
Ms. Bonamici. OK.
Mr. Turk. And so if Congress wants to change that, we've
not funded--we're doing----
Ms. Bonamici. Duly noted.
Mr. Turk. This is one of these multi-tranche funding
streams, and so we still have a significant amount of that
funding available.
Ms. Bonamici. And another clarification. Can the IRA
renewable energy development funds be used for offshore wind?
Mr. Turk. That's a good question. I don't know the answer
to that right offhand, but happy to get back with you on that.
Ms. Bonamici. I would like to have the answer to that, and
I appreciate that. And I just want to note that the $5.5
million investment that the DOE's Water Power Technology Office
announced earlier this this month, I believe, for the Oregon
State University's Pacific Marine Energy Center, which supports
PacWave, is going to support testing and deploying technologies
for marine energy sources, including tidal and wave energy. And
I really appreciate that investment, and we're going to follow
that.
Mr. Turk. Well, it's phenomenal expertise, as you well
know----
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Mr. Turk [continuing]. And eager and happy to support.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair would note to the Deputy Secretary that we hope
to return in 20 minutes. We have a series of votes on the
floor. And until we return, the Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Lucas. The hearing will reconvene.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, for 5
minutes for his questions.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turk, in October--and by the way, thank you for being
here, OK?
In 2023 October, DOE distributed awards to three advanced
nuclear energy developers to further those microreactor designs
through front-end engineering and experiment design processes.
DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, DOE-NE if you will, has made
the sourcing of high-assay, low-enriched uranium--HALEU--a
priority. So these companies have access to the proper advanced
fuel needed for these very projects.
Unfortunately, it's my understanding that this fuel will
not be provided on schedule, that putting these--that will put
these companies at significant risk of failure to deliver on
time for the 2026 target of the demonstrations at the Idaho
National Lab. So when does the DOE-NE, D-O-E-N-E, plan on
meeting its congressionally mandated obligation? Do you know a
timeframe? And can you ensure that this fuel will be awarded
the RFP (request for proposal) applicants before the end of
2024? Do you have a window there? Or do you know?
Mr. Turk. Yes, thanks for the question, Congressman, and
thanks for the focus in this area. There's such a huge
opportunity for microreactors, for small modular reactors,
Generation III+, Generation IV, et cetera, so thank you for the
focus there. And we were able to get a significant amount of
funding repurposed through the Bipartisan Infrastructure
legislation and the most recent supplemental to buildup our
HALEU supply.
I don't know the particular timelines that you're asking
about for these microreactors, but happy to look at that, and
this is an area that we're spending a lot of time and focus on
and trying to make sure that we've got the fuel available for
the entrepreneurs, for the companies that are doing some pretty
groundbreaking work, including at our Idaho National Lab.
Mr. Weber. Which we love hearing, but we want to see it
going along, too, because you're probably aware--and we'll get
maybe a contact from your----
Mr. Turk. That sounds great. Happy--more than happy to
follow up on it.
Mr. Weber. Right, but you're probably aware that if they
don't get this HALEU, that these companies may be forced to
source it from Russia or China if the DOE either cannot or
doesn't deliver the fuel on schedule.
Mr. Turk. Well, and that was the whole point of repurposing
that $2.7 billion to make sure on HALEU, but on low-enriched
uranium (LEU) that we're providing that, we're building up our
domestic supply chain for that, and we don't have to rely on
Russia. That's not what we need to do.
Mr. Weber. Do you know, are you all in touch with those
companies to keep them--kind of give them an updated time----
Mr. Turk. I'm sure we are, and we can make sure that the
direct point of contact in our Nuclear Energy Office is
following up with you and your staff to make sure that
everything's synced up.
Mr. Weber. Well, that'd be very helpful, but we also want
you to follow up with those companies as well if you can make
that happen.
Mr. Turk. Yes, yes, no, happy to--I'm most positive, but I
don't know the particulars involved, so I don't want to say
something that I'm not 100 percent sure of but----
Mr. Weber. Well, if you don't, you won't make a good
husband.
Mr. Turk. You can talk to my wife about that.
Mr. Weber. OK. I'm just saying.
We also have seen the bipartisan, bicameral support for
next-generation nuclear technology, which we were talking
about. However, the FY '25 DOE budget does not include a
request for additional funding to support those two furthest
along, small modular nuclear projects in the country, including
Dow and X-energy project in my State of Texas. So how are we
going to advance or accelerate advanced nuclear deployment if
the DOE is not in financial shape--doesn't have the
wherewithal, not in the budget, to derisk these first-of-a-kind
projects so that it actually helps decrease costs for future
projects? How do we do that if it's not in your budget?
Mr. Turk. Yes, so I'm very familiar with the X-energy
program, including with Dow. I think it's incredibly exciting
what they're working on. And it's not just electricity
generation, but it's the heat, which is incredibly helpful from
an industrial capacity as well, so there's a lot of things to
really like about that project.
We did get some funding through the extraordinary
legislation that was passed outside the appropriations process
to help on the Advanced Demo Reactor Program. That is helpful.
We also got another billion-dollar repurpose for Gen III+,
which is different than what you're talking about, which is
Generation IV, but there is such strong bipartisan support for
small modular reactors. We just need to make sure we're all
doing our part to be helpful on that front.
Mr. Weber. Well, same question. Does Dow and X-energy, do
they know that? Is there a timeframe where they--are y'all
communicating with them?
Mr. Turk. So we're in constant communication with both, and
our team right now is trying to make sure that we're spending
those Federal taxpayer dollars to the biggest bang that they
possibly can achieve.
Mr. Weber. OK. I better jump real quick. My district has
three LNG (liquefied natural gas) facilities. DOE officials
stated--so the export ban has real impact on us. DOE officials
stated that national labs will play a role in updating the
public interest determinations for LNG exports through a study,
which I think could have been done without pause on the
exports--ban--putting a ban on them. Can you affirm--can you
confirm exactly which labs are participating in that study?
Mr. Turk. Yes, happy to do it, and we've got several labs.
Our National Energy Technology Lab (NETL) has done a lot of
work in this area and will continue, but we're making sure that
we're bringing in other labs, including our Pacific Northwest
National Lab as well. And we're making sure wherever we have
expertise, that we're making that to bear.
This is an incredibly important update in the study. And I
just want to clarify, there is no ban on LNG exports. LNG
exports are actually being exported right now at record levels.
Mr. Weber. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I can, and I don't want
to sound argumentative, but this puts investors and companies--
it gives them pause for concern on what--for example, phase 2
of these--so I want to make that point, and I'll let that go
and yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member for a UC (unanimous
consent) request.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd ask unanimous
consent to put into the record an April 2024 Fusion Industry
Association Bold Decadal Vision paper.
Chairman Lucas. Seeing no opposition, so ordered.
Ms. Lofgren. Yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The Chair would note for the record that
the--next in order would be Mr. Casten and then Mr.
Fleischmann.
The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Always a
pleasure to go after my friend Mr. Weber, not least because I'd
like to continue the conversation about the LNG pause.
The--I talked about this with Secretary Granholm a few
months ago and was kind enough to submit some responses to
questions for the record (QFR). I want to just remind this
Committee of a couple of numbers. In the last decade, there has
been a 24 percent growth in U.S. consumption of natural gas,
there has been a 53 percent increase in U.S. production of
natural gas, and there has been a 384 percent increase in the
export of natural gas.
We are having no problem with any of those exports. Right
now, we're exporting about 15 billion cubic feet per day.
Projects currently under construction are going to double that
to 30 billion cubic feet per day. The projects that are
permitted but not yet under construction will increase that
almost another 15 to 41 billion cubic feet a day. I see you
nodding because I got all this from DOE websites. And the pause
effects an additional 15 that would take us to 66 billion cubic
feet per day. So there is no question but that we are exporting
a massive amount of natural gas and are going to export a
massive amount more, long before we ever get to this question
about the pause.
What I would like to understand--and I'd like to have as
much precision on these as you can--as the DOE, under the
Natural Gas Act, fulfills your obligation to consider whether
these additional projects are in the national interest, No. 1,
are you treating climate change as a matter to be considered
under the national interest? I mean, just yes or no. Is that
one of the factors?
Mr. Turk. Yes.
Mr. Casten. OK. And will that consider both the methane
emissions from leaks to other countries and the CO2
emissions associated with combustion?
Mr. Turk. Yes, both.
Mr. Casten. For the purposes of the methane combustion,
what are you using for the global warming potential as you
evaluate those impacts?
Mr. Turk. So we'll look at the 20-year, but also the 100-
year, and we'll make sure that we look at it in a variety of
different ways. And, as you know, methane is a super pollutant
when it comes to climate change, and an area that we spent a
lot of time in this Administration on the regulatory side, but
also on the funding side and the R&D side, to get our act
together to reduce those emissions as much as we possibly can.
Mr. Casten. OK.
Mr. Turk. It's a big deal.
Mr. Casten. I asked that because, you know, I think
President Biden has appropriately said this is the decisive
decade for climate, and a 100-year global warming potential is
interesting but a rather academic question when we have a very
narrow period of time to right the ship, and so I would hope
you would take a more aggressive view as we're looking at
those----
Mr. Turk. Well----
Mr. Casten [continuing]. Issues.
Mr. Turk [continuing]. And on the methane reduction side,
we just came out with our MERP (Methane Emissions Reduction
Program) program, which is a terrible acronym, but it's a bunch
of money focused on reducing methane emissions, complementary
to what the EPA is doing. So this is a big, big deal.
Mr. Casten. True. But, of course, that doesn't affect--like
on the exports we're going to other markets overseas, and so we
have less degrees of freedom there, but it matters on the
exports.
Mr. Turk. Well, and frankly, we have a responsibility for
those exports as well.
Mr. Casten. OK.
Mr. Turk. Like just the fact that we're exporting. And it's
up to now--about half of our production for natural gas is
authorized to be exported.
Mr. Casten. I understand. And I want to move on. I just
want to make sure----
Mr. Turk. Yes.
Mr. Casten [continuing]. Because the leak rates downstream
in some of those countries are bigger.
Mr. Turk. Yes.
Mr. Casten. The--Secretary Granholm in her response to QFRs
said that the forward economic impacts on domestic prices were
based on EIA (Energy Information Administration) estimates. My
understanding is that EIA makes price forecasts based on a
status quo regulatory environment, but this is asking the
question, what would happen if the regulation changed? How do
you square that circle for us?
Mr. Turk. Yes, so this is why we have several of our
national labs involved to come at this from a variety of
different ways. And right now, American consumers pay five to
six times less than those--and companies as well--in Asia and
Europe. So right now, we have--and as we export more and more,
what does that mean for American consumers in terms of what
they pay? So we need to come at that with a variety of
different modeling analysis and different assumptions.
Mr. Casten. So the gas industry is not going to like this,
but we know that when the Freeport terminal shut down, the
price of gas fell by 30 percent.
Mr. Turk. It was remarkable how much it fell.
Mr. Casten. So we--I think objectively we know that the
less we export at current production levels, the lower the
prices are going to be for American consumers.
Mr. Turk. It's basic economics, and we're seeing a lot of
experts who've looked at this. And this is one of the reasons
to do this study and to make sure that we've got the good data
to inform what our public interest determinations are.
Mr. Casten. OK. Last question. Those statistics that I
shared, 24 percent demand growth in the last decade, the U.S.
economy has grown by over 50 percent in the same period of
time. Oil use is flat. Coal use is down 40 percent. We have
successfully managed to decouple economic growth from fossil
fuel consumption for the benefit of our climate, for the
benefit of consumers. As the DOE thinks about our national
interest, is it in the United States' national interest to
export the technologies that have allowed us to decouple from
fossil fuel use? Or is it in the United States' national
interest to export the fossil fuel we're decoupling from?
Mr. Turk. So these are the clean energy technologies of the
future. There's a remarkable competition going on right now.
And we either step up with the kinds of incentives that are in
the bill and the IRA and do everything we can to win those
markets, and that's exactly what we're doing.
Mr. Casten. OK. Well, I would----
Mr. Turk. We've actually reduced our emissions in 2023 over
4 percent at the same time that we had one of the most robust
GDP (gross domestic product) growths all around the world----
Mr. Casten. True.
Mr. Turk [continuing]. So we are decoupling.
Mr. Casten. True, but that's only if you don't include
scope 3 emissions. If we're--we can't take credit for that
while simultaneously exporting fossil fuel, and I----
Mr. Turk. I completely agree.
Mr. Casten [continuing]. As you--as we think about the
national interest, I hope we'll think about making sure that
the rest of the world----
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Casten [continuing]. Can take advantage of where we've
gone. I yield back.
Mr. Turk. Absolutely.
Chairman Lucas. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Tennessee, Mr. Fleischmann, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, great to see you today. I know we visited
earlier. I wish to thank you for your most recent visit to the
greatest midsize city in America, Chattanooga, Tennessee. I
appreciate that. But, as you know, I also represent another
outstanding city of Oak Ridge, that great DOE reservation. And
you and I do a lot of work together, and I wanted to touch on a
few issues.
Last month, Mr. Secretary, President Biden signed the
Republican-led bipartisan Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports
Act into law. This law bans Russian uranium imports until 2040
and takes effect on August 11, 2024. Secretary Turk--and this
is very important to our State. As you know, you've worked with
our Governor, as has Secretary Granholm, on a project that I'm
involved in as well. How is the DOE preparing for this ban to
take effect? And more specifically, how does DOE plan on
spending the $2.8 billion appropriated by Congress? It's money
that we put in the energy and water bill that I authored last
Congress or actually 2024--yes, 2024--for the domestic
production of advanced nuclear fuel? And what is the timeline
for this plan, given the need for HALEU for advanced reactors?
And I also realize that bill also provides for LEU as well.
Mr. Turk. Yes, well, let me start, and if it's OK with
Chairman Lucas to call you Mr. Chairman as well, since you're
the Chairman of our Appropriations Subcommittee. Thank you for
all your leadership on this.
And importing uranium from Russia makes no sense
whatsoever, and that's why we worked with Congress--thank you
for your leadership--to not only get the ban on uranium coming
from Russia into the United States, but to have an alternative.
And that's where that $2.8 billion comes in. And we're working
with real urgency to use that $2.8 billion to buildup our own
supply chain for low-enriched uranium, but also for HALEU
that's going to be so important for the small modular reactors
of the future as well.
So we are doing that homework. We're listening to a variety
of industry perspectives, including those in your district, to
make sure that we're designing this not just in the abstract,
but it's actually going to work in the real world, to have not
only a process supply chain that's built up over the next few
years, but it's going to last for decades, right? And that's
where we're focusing our time and attention, and we're going to
work with urgency on that. So happy and eager to keep in touch
with you and your team to make sure that we're listening to
you, getting your guidance, getting your vision of what we
should do with that funding.
And at the same time--and thank you again for repurposing
$1 billion for the Gen III+ reactors as well because we've got
to work on the fuel piece and the reactor piece and make sure
that we're marking--moving forward on all of those.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. And once again, I appreciate
your cooperation on not only the Gen IIIs but the Gen IVs as we
work together. They're all good. For Clinch River, it's the GE
Hitachi Generation III that does not require HALEU. But you all
have been great to work with on--really on all three, and we
want to continue to see all three go forward if we can.
In my remaining time, Mr. Secretary, I want to talk about
AI. In a nutshell, we are contacted constantly by folks in AI
saying AI is the future, but it's going to require a tremendous
amount of energy. And as you're well aware, many of these AI
providers are reaching out to new nuclear to try to fulfill
their needs, either with an SMR, an advanced reactor, in lesser
cases a microreactor. What are DOE's plans to fund these great
energy needs at these AI sites?
Mr. Turk. Yes. First of all, we are an AI powerhouse,
including at Oak Ridge, but labs across our country. And one of
the things we've been doing for years--and Oak Ridge is a
perfect example--is as we do more and more powerful computers,
the kind of computers that are able to do AI, we're bringing
efficiency and trying to use as little electricity as we
possibly can. And that's a big part of the solution going
forward.
But we're going to need--I mentioned earlier in this
hearing, we're going to go from about 6 percent of our
electricity used for AI right now to 9 percent just over the
next few year period of time to 2017. So we need to focus on a
variety of generation sources. There's a lot of interest in
small modular reactors, and nuclear is part of that. Enhanced
geothermal is another part that Google and some other companies
are working on, and so we're really leaning in on that piece.
There's also the focus on reconductoring and using our
grids as efficiently as we possibly can in order to maintain
this AI leadership that we have right now in our country. And
we need to have the electricity, the clean electricity powering
that AI because that's good for our national security, economic
security, and those jobs that we want to maintain here in the
United States.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. And, Mr. Secretary, in my
remaining seconds, I want to thank you, but I also please want
to stress the need to make that decision. As my colleague from
Texas talked about with these companies, these decisions on how
you plan to address this $2.8 billion is critically important,
particularly in our great State. Thank you.
Mr. Turk. Absolutely.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman----
Mr. Fleischmann. I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. McClellan from Virginia for 5
minutes for questions.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Deputy Secretary Turk. It's always a
pleasure to see a fellow UVA (University of Virginia) alum.
As a Member of Congress, I've been committed to working
with DOE to protect our climate and environment, spur clean
energy innovation, build our future workforce, and advance
scientific research. And last fall, I was proud that the
Department selected Virginia's Jefferson Lab to lead the new
high-performance data facility hub, which is a great choice to
accelerate scientific discovery and promote institutional
partnerships.
And one of my top priorities has been workforce
development, and was--I was glad to learn about the creation of
the 21st Century Energy Workforce Advisory Board under the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. In February, I led my colleagues
in a letter to the advisory board highlighting our priorities,
which include increasing workforce opportunities for
underrepresented communities, removing barriers to
participation like the lack of childcare and transportation,
and worker retraining.
And so, Mr. Turk, could you provide an update on the
advisory board's work and how the DOE is addressing these
issues from that letter?
Mr. Turk. Yes, and thank you for all your leadership on
that incredibly important issue. And Jefferson Lab is such a
jewel in our crown jewels, and it's great to be able to have
the hub role there as well.
So workforce is an issue we spend a lot of time and funding
on. We have all these jobs. We have all these manufacturing
facilities, 600 new and expanded across the country thanks to
the President's leadership and Congress' leadership as well.
But we need to make sure we're proactive, to plan for the
future, to have those jobs, to have the job training, to have
those opportunities, including from those communities who have
not had all the opportunities that some other communities have
had, and really a focus on those underserved communities.
The advisory board is an incredibly important part of what
we're trying to do in that space. They've had seven public
meetings already. They're putting together some analysis in a
report right now. So it's moving along, but we need to make
sure that all of the tools that we have to think about the
workforce, to plan ahead for the workforce aren't just
analyzing and talking, but we're actually executing on that,
which is what we're trying to do with our community benefits
plans and a variety of other tools that we have.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you for that. I also applaud the
Department's work to promote an equitable clean energy
transition, including by requiring applicants for Federal
funding to submit community benefit plans, which, if done
correctly, these plans could meaningfully improve public
engagement and community health and economic outcomes. And so
could you discuss how the Department will ensure transparency
and accountability around the community benefit plans?
Mr. Turk. Well, thanks for raising this. The community
benefits plan is a big, big deal, and I'm not sure it's getting
as much attention as it should because this is, A, how
government should be doing these kinds of things and gives us
huge leverage opportunities on workforce, on environmental
justice, all the other issues. What we're doing with our
competitive grant money--and it's our loan program as well--is
if you're going to get Federal taxpayer money, you've got to
actually make sure that it's not just good technology and your
business plan makes sense. You've got to make sure that your
manufacturing facility or what you're getting funding for is
actually going to benefit the community in which you're
located. And so it requires those companies to work with local
community colleges, work with apprenticeship programs, work
with other leaders in the community to make sure that we are
getting the most leverage for that Federal taxpayer money.
And I think the word that you use, transparency, is so
important, right? We need to have transparency in these plans
so folks in the community know what the plans are, know and
have an opportunity to engage early and often in that process.
And we've got a phenomenal team working on this. I just met
with our cross-agency team that's at the cutting edge of this
just a few weeks ago for the latest update. Happy to have any
further conversations that you'd like to have, but it's
really--this is a gamechanger. It's not easy to do it, it's not
easy to do it right, but this is a gamechanger if we pull it
off.
Ms. McClellan. And I really commend you all for that
because, too often when projects are done, they not only don't
talk about how they're going to benefit the community, but
those projects often have a negative impact on the community
for years, and so very excited that you're doing this.
And I'll put this out for the record. You'll have to submit
a response. But I wonder if you could provide us with an update
on the Department's work through the Earthshots Initiative and
other programs that promote soil carbon sequestration.
Mr. Turk. Yes, it's a big, big deal, happy to provide the
details on it. But like carbon removal in the marine sector, in
the marine space, the soil and what we do on that front is a
big deal, and so we're trying to really lean in on that.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Williams, for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to discuss the continually rising
energy costs that are burdening hardworking Americans today,
especially in my district in central New York. Just last month,
our primary electricity provider National Grid announced that
it will be seeking major rate increases for electricity and
natural gas. Their proposal would add approximately $440 a year
to the bill for a typical central New York household that is
using both electricity and gas. This increase in rates
demonstrates the pressing need for America to reassess its
energy investment strategy. And it's clear that the bill is
coming due for expensive and unrealistic progressive energy
policies, and that is placing a burden directly on the middle
class and elderly ratepayers, as I just mentioned.
The cost of expensive renewable projects that canceled gas
pipelines and prematurely closed nuclear power plants in New
York State, as well as on the back of the electrification
mandates, these are failing average Americans, and in
particular, they're impacting the 65 or so percent of Americans
that live paycheck to paycheck. And I speak today on their
behalf. Can you explain the cause for these rising energy
prices for my constituents, please?
Mr. Turk. Yes, thank you very much for the question and the
focus on affordability. There's not a topic that's more
important to me personally----
Mr. Williams. Anything about the causes?
Mr. Turk [continuing]. And our department----
Mr. Williams. That would be helpful. Thank you.
Mr. Turk. Yes. So any constituent of yours, our shared
constituents who are paying too much for energy is one
constituent too much. What we're actually seeing is the
historic investments we've made in clean energy are actually
having a decrease in prices across our country. In fact, it's--
--
Mr. Williams. Well, wait. Wait just a minute. National Grid
just asked for a historic increase----
Mr. Turk. So, again----
Mr. Williams [continuing]. As you've rolled out renewable--
let me finish, please.
Mr. Turk. Yes, please.
Mr. Williams. As you've rolled out historical mandates for
renewable energies in New York State. So I'm afraid the facts
really do not match with the talking points. For example, your
department has said that we need at least 200 gigawatts in
additional new power generation by 2030 to replace aging
growth--or aging infrastructure and expected growth. I suspect
that that number is even higher today with AI.
One of the requirements for renewable energy is that it has
energy storage attached to it to be reliable and both a
significant contributor to energy on the grid. Is there
currently a grid-scale energy storage solution that is both
technically and economically feasible today? Yes or no?
Mr. Turk. A number of parts of the country are adding
storage, whether it's lithium batteries or pumped hydro, and
it's an incredibly important part of the solution. Right now--
--
Mr. Williams. And you're saying that those are both
technically and economically viable today?
Mr. Turk. That's right. That's why folks are having----
Mr. Williams. So the Director of the National Science
Foundation testified here just a few weeks ago that there in
fact was no such solution, and there likely wouldn't be for 10
years. And that happens to be a fact consistent with my own
analysis and investigation. So are you refuting the Director of
the National Science Foundation?
Mr. Turk. Happy to talk numbers and happy to talk facts.
What we're actually looking at from our own independent--and
this is not a politically run part of our department--our own
independent EIA, Energy Information Administration is actually
we're going to see a slight drop in electricity prices by the
end of 2024. So there may be parts of the country that are
experiencing some increases----
Mr. Williams. This is after the historic increase----
Mr. Turk [continuing]. But overall----
Mr. Williams [continuing]. That's being requested, that's
when the price drops?
Mr. Turk. So we have----
Mr. Williams. Happen after the historic increase that----
Mr. Turk. We did have an----
Mr. Williams. It's a little disingenuous, I think.
Mr. Turk. We did have an increase because of COVID. And
when Russia invaded Ukraine, the price----
Mr. Williams. So this is your answer to my previous
question? This is the cause of----
Mr. Turk. What I'm saying is the investments----
Mr. Williams [continuing]. Growing energy costs is COVID?
Mr. Turk. The investments----
Mr. Williams. Is that right?
Mr. Turk. The investments----
Mr. Williams. Is that your answer, sir? I'm really--my
constituents want answers to these questions. They don't want
talking points. You didn't answer the question of why energy
costs have risen. You've said now that they rose because of
COVID in the answer you didn't provide earlier, and then you
said that prices are going to drop right after these historic
increases. That is cold comfort. And I mean that literally in
upstate New York because it is cold up there in the winter.
That's cold comfort to the ratepayers in my district. And I
don't hear real answers. I only hear political answers, and
that's frustrating.
Mr. Turk. So, again, you got to look at cause and effect.
Because of the President's leadership, because of the
congressional legislation, the extraordinary legislation, we're
going to have $38 billion across our country in savings for
folks on electricity bills. We're already starting to see
that----
Mr. Williams. Not in my district. They're going to have
$440 more per year----
Mr. Turk. And that's where I said we've got to have----
Mr. Williams [continuing]. And they will have----
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's----
Mr. Williams [continuing]. This Administration to thank for
it.
Chairman Lucas [continuing]. Time has expired.
Mr. Williams. I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Pennsylvania,
Ms. Lee, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
DOE programs are essential to supporting key issues like
environmental justice and energy efficiency, as well as
industries like the building of green homes in all of our
districts, but particularly mine of course, as we continue to
ensure that policies in Washington are focused on people like
my constituents and tackling environmental racism. Your
leadership and that of Secretary Granholm in addressing these
issues through equitable energy development is crucial.
Building on the progress of recent years, environmental
racism and injustice in western Pennsylvania and across the
Nation are pressing issues that will require further bold and
equitable public investments in climate justice and community
resilience and green union jobs. Achieving energy equity in our
communities won't be easy, of course, but your leadership and
that of Secretary Granholm again in advancing these commitments
to these priorities will help to protect the environment and
improve the quality of life for countless Americans.
With that said, the Fiscal Year 2025 budget requests for
the Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Program Office amounts
to only 2 percent of the Department's request at this funding
level. How is the Department limited in addressing the
nationwide problem of standardizing methods and technologies to
locate, plug, and remediate abandoned oil and gas wells?
Mr. Turk. Well, thanks for your focus on energy justice,
environmental justice. It's something, as you said, that we
spend a lot of time and focus on and are trying to do
everything that we possibly can, including by bringing
extraordinary funding tools to the table, like the increase in
weatherization, that helps folks around the country, including
in your district, to the tune of $372 less that they pay on
their electricity bill because of that support. And I could
give you other examples.
Your question on oil--abandoned oil and gas wells, this is
a big, big deal. We have some funding streams that have been
given to help us on that front, but we need to do a lot more.
There's so many abandoned oil and gas wells out there. There's
such a need out there. We do need to work with Congress and
make sure that we have the appropriate level of support, the
appropriate level of funding to do right, not only because it's
a big emitter, but because these are all in communities, real
communities, your communities, your constituents, and we need
to do right by those constituents.
Ms. Lee. Can you describe what the DOE is currently doing
to address this? Of course, the funding streams are incredibly
important, but to what end? Are we seeing any success? Or are
there any other things that we--that are happening right now?
Mr. Turk. Yes, so we are--and we do have some significant
funding streams, but they're not enough. So just last week, we
announced something called our MERP program, which is Methane
Emission Reduction Program. It's $850 million. It's a
competitive grant program. We've put out some funding to States
and local governments through a formula grant as well that's
complementary. But one area that this money can be focused on
are abandoned oil and gas wells and making sure that we're
reducing emissions on that front.
But again, it's not as comprehensive as we need to have it.
It's not as robust as we need to have it. Because we have--it's
amazing how many abandoned oil and gas wells we have around the
country. It's just an immense number, and so the scale of the
challenge here is just huge.
Ms. Lee. Yes, certainly. We have 750,000 undocumented wells
just in Pennsylvania alone, so it's certainly an issue that we
are joining you in attempting to tackle and proud that our--my
bill, the Abandoned Well Remediation Research and Development
Act passed the House and hopefully the Senate soon enough.
Shifting gears just a bit, Pittsburgh has one of the
highest energy burdens in the country, the second highest in
the United States among minority households. Between the city
of Pittsburgh DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory is
developing technologies to safely and efficiently generate,
distribute, and store energy. This work has proven essential to
removing barriers to accessing clean energy, reducing energy
costs for vulnerable populations, and promoting investments in
energy-saving home upgrades, itemizing a $33.1 million and
$33.2 million increase--or, sorry, which is a $3.2 million
increase in funding from Fiscal Year 2024 will support NETL
technical staff needed to perform acquisition, finance,
succession planning, and legal functions, and it will support
the Federal workforce who provides management of the
laboratory.
Deputy Secretary, would you be able to provide an update on
the level of funding the Department expects to provide to
support NETL's program direction, infrastructure, and research
and operations?
Mr. Turk. Yes, happy to do so. I don't have that number
right offhand, but happy to follow up with you. And NETL's
doing such great work--you know that--as part of--NETL is in
the Pittsburgh area. It's an incredible lab, and there's so
much that they can do, so much we can leverage with our
national labs on energy burden more generally, right? Those who
can least afford to pay energy, we need to focus in particular
to reduce their energy burden, just as you're focused, and
thank you for your leadership on that.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Thank you so much for joining us and
for your testimony today.
Mr. Turk. Great.
Ms. Lee. I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Baird from Indiana for 5
minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
Appreciate you having this meeting about the budget proposal
from DOE.
And, Mr. Deputy Secretary, we appreciate you being here.
But by way of background, you know, we have a lot of corn and
soybeans in Indiana. And America's ethanol producers and the
largest utilities and even the energy producers and financial
institutions consider carbon capture a fundamental pillar of
their long-term business strategy.
Today, many carbon capture projects face uncertainty,
delays because the EPA's permitting process has limited
developers access to geological carbon storage. The EPA
currently has over 130 class VI well permit applications under
review, including two in Indiana and one in my district for the
Valero Linden ethanol facility in Montgomery County, Indiana.
Unfortunately, the EPA has continued to drag its feet on
approving these applications in a timely manner, and it can
take up to 6 years for the EPA to issue a decision.
So my question, Mr. Deputy Secretary, is do you think that
we need an efficient permitting approval process and making
sure that that's essential to ensuring deployment of the DOE-
supported carbon management technologies? So how could the DOE
partner with the EPA to streamline this process in your
opinion?
Mr. Turk. Yes, I do--just to give you a straightforward
answer, I grew up in corn country in Illinois, spent most of my
summers detasseling corn, and so very familiar with ethanol and
the agri-economy and what we're trying to do going forward,
including for sustainable aviation fuels, which offers up a
really interesting opportunity and revenue stream as well.
We spent a lot of time working with EPA on class VI wells
for CCUS (carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration). I've
personally had several conversations with my counterpart, who's
the Deputy over at EPA, Deputy Administrator McCabe, and will
continue to work on that. But we do need to have, not just for
class VI wells, but a lot of what we're trying to build in
terms of our infrastructure, we need to do permitting quicker,
we need to have the environmental protections in place,
rightfully so, but these things can't drag on forever. That's
not useful for anybody to have these things drag on. So eager
to work with you, and we'll continue our efforts with EPA.
Mr. Baird. In that same vein, are we looking or are you
looking at research in terms of the consequences of long-term
storage of carbon in deep wells?
Mr. Turk. Absolutely. As you know, our Fossil Energy and
Carbon Management Office has some of the premier experts not
just in our country, but around the world on these issues, and
we're doing a whole range of research to make sure that when we
do this, we do this right, and we instill that kind of
confidence in communities in which these opportunities exist.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Amo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turk, thank you for being here today. As you probably
know, my home State of Rhode Island is a leader in clean
energy. We're home to our Nation's first-ever commercial
offshore wind farm. Thanks to five turbines, we produce enough
electricity each year to power approximately 17,000 homes. This
clean energy revolution is part and parcel of how we meet our
energy needs, fight the climate crisis, and support good-paying
jobs.
However, if you will excuse the pun, development of
offshore wind faces unique headwinds. There's an underdeveloped
domestic supply chain, long permitting timelines, and
difficulty integrating into the existing grid. If we're to meet
President Biden's goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore
wind energy by 2030 and Rhode Island's goal of committing to
100 percent renewable energy by 2030, we must move quickly. The
Wind Energy Technologies Office is key to wind energy research,
development, demonstration, and deployment activities.
Mr. Turk, the President's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request
included a $62 million funding increase for the Wind Energy
Technologies Office. Please describe how increased funding will
support deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030.
Mr. Turk. Well, it's a phenomenal office led by Jocelyn,
who's the head of that office, but there's such an opportunity
for us in offshore wind. I don't need to tell you that, and
thank you for Rhode Island's leadership on that front.
We are poised to have offshore wind be such a big, big
part, not just on the East Coast, but we're working on the West
Coast as well. Unfortunately, we have run into, to use your
pun, some extraordinary headwinds. It's supply chains. It's a
number of the things you mentioned. It's also interest rates,
which are having a particular impact on offshore wind. So we're
trying to use all the tools that we've got in our tool belt,
including our phenomenal Wind Technology Office, but we're also
working with the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) on the tax
incentive piece of it and making sure the tax incentive is fit
for purpose for offshore wind in particular. We've put out some
additional information on energy communities and other kinds of
things that we hope will help offshore wind developers make the
numbers work and the numbers add up.
Our loan program is literally talking to every single
offshore wind developer to see if that's a useful tool, again,
to reduce the cost of capital and to get those projects out
there and to build from that success. So we're leaning in on
all parts of offshore wind. It is a particularly--I think the
headwinds are abating a bit if I can continue that metaphor,
but we need to get beyond those challenges and get that
offshore wind out there in the real world and buildup those
supply chains and buildup those jobs. There's a huge amount of
jobs if we buildup that supply chain as well, as you very well
know.
Mr. Amo. Well, in Rhode Island, we've got lots of
leadership, especially partnerships with labor and unions to
get that workforce we need. And of course we know that, but for
the IRA, we would not be able to catalyze some of the progress
we've made even further.
I did want to talk a little bit and hear from you on
transmission access, right? Of course, we know that critical to
achieving our offshore wind deployment goals is making sure
that we have adequate and affordable transmission access. And
so, earlier this year, your department released the Atlantic
offshore wind transmission study and the Atlantic offshore wind
transmission action plan to recommend the next steps to connect
offshore wind projects to the grid along the Atlantic coast.
Mr. Turk, can you share a little bit about the challenges that
the Department faces in supporting the interregional
transmission planning needed to connect offshore wind projects
to the grid? And really, what can we in Congress do to help?
Mr. Turk. Yes, so we've got transmission challenges not
just for offshore wind and connecting offshore wind to the
grid, but across our country. It takes way too long to permit
offshore wind--or, sorry, permit transmission, and we need to
reduce those times. So we're undertaking a whole slew of
efforts, including doing what we can using an old law, old I
guess by relative terms from 2005. CITAP (Coordinated
Interagency Authorizations and Permits Program) is the acronym
of this transmission permitting expediting authority that we're
using with a 2-year shot clock so it's not taking us 15, 16, 17
years to actually get transmission in our country, including
for offshore wind. It's a 2-year shot clock under that effort
that we're implementing with others in the interagency on that
front.
There are some financial incentives. We are using our loan
program to help on transmission buildout, but frankly, there's
more tools we could use from Congress to help on transmission
as well. This is a big, big deal, as you rightfully know, and
eager to follow up with you and your staff and the Chair and
Ranking Member on any technical assistance we could do in terms
of informing what Congress could further do on this effort.
Mr. Amo. Well, I look forward to those conversations. We
need to move, we need to move fast, and I'm a partner to you on
that effort.
With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time is--yield--the
gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Fong, for 5 minutes for his questions.
Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. Thank
you, Deputy Secretary Turk, for being here.
At the end of April, shortly before I was sworn in, the
Committee sent a follow up letter to the Secretary regarding
the lack of transparency surrounding the Department of Energy's
pause on U.S. liquefied natural gas export permits. Thus far,
we've only gotten fragmented information from different
department officials. This Committee has jurisdiction over DOE
research and development, which includes the activities of the
national laboratories, as you know, who have been tasked with
the economic and environmental analysis DOE has said is the
reason for pausing the LNG export permits.
But the concern and question no one seems to be able to
answer is who is ultimately in charge? So if you may, can you
shed some light on which individuals are at the helm of this
analysis and giving direction to the national labs regarding
the scope of the topics process and timeline related to the
Administration's pause on U.S. LNG permits? Is it the lab
directors or the Energy Secretary or someone else? And who is--
who set the parameters of what is to be considered by this
study? And who has daily oversight of its progress?
Mr. Turk. Yes, thank you, Congressman. And congratulations
on your election and anything that we can do from the
Department of Energy side of things, any briefings that you'd
like or other kinds of things on any issues. Just let us know
what we can do to help.
So, ultimately, the Secretary and I are in charge, right?
She's the Secretary. I'm the Deputy Secretary, the No. 2 in the
Administration. We rely on phenomenal career technical
expertise that we have, not only in our Fossil Energy and
Carbon Management Office, which is the lead office for this
particular study, but also in our national laboratories. We've
got such phenomenal career folks who know these issues inside
and out. And so the analysis that we're doing as this pause is
in place--and again, this pause isn't for current exports.
Current exports are going. This is just the pause on additional
authorizations above and beyond the 48 billion cubic feet per
day of authorizations already out there. But we're updating our
analysis because so much has changed. But the Secretary and I
are ultimately in charge, but we rely an awful lot, of course,
on civil servants for the good independent analysis that's
going to inform these decisions.
Mr. Fong. And if I can follow up, is there anything that
can or cannot be considered? How extensive is this study?
Mr. Turk. So it's an extensive study. We've gone from just
a few years ago, 5, 6 years ago having four Bcf per day being
exported of LNG from our country to now it's about 14, 15 Bcf
per day, with construction already underway to take us to 26
Bcf per day. So, so much has changed, including the volumes of
what we're exporting. So we said let's take a step back, let's
update our economic analysis to figure out how this impacts not
only the jobs created from the LNG export facilities, but the
jobs that are dependent on affordable natural gas in our
country as well. Right now, we pay five to six times less for
natural gas than they do in Asia and Europe. That is an
incredibly competitive part of our economy right now. We need
to factor that in. We need to explore that. We need to
understand that. And so what we've done is undertaken a very
comprehensive update and all that analysis to inform our public
interest determinations.
Mr. Fong. So just to be clear, you--as a Deputy Secretary,
you have daily oversight of the progress of this study?
Mr. Turk. So I get updated routinely on this, but we rely
on our civil servants and our experts in the Fossil Energy and
Carbon Management Office working with others throughout the
Department and with our national laboratories to do the day-to-
day work, do the analysis. What we've said is let's have a very
comprehensive--let's have a very rigorous process, and we leave
it up to them in terms of the particular details, the number of
scenarios, the particular work that goes into it.
Mr. Fong. So just----
Mr. Turk. But what we've asked is----
Mr. Fong. Just----
Mr. Turk. Yes.
Mr. Fong [continuing]. Is there a specific name of someone
who's--who oversees the daily progress of this?
Mr. Turk. So Brad Crabtree is our Assistant Secretary for
the Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Office. He's got folks
under him who are the day-to-day folks. Amy Sweeney is one of
our career folks who's been very heavily involved. Ryan Peay as
well, but happy to make folks available if you'd like to talk
to them.
Mr. Fong. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Frost, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Deputy Secretary Turk. In my district, the
University of Central Florida (UCF) is currently working on
dozens of projects funded by DOE grants. This includes $1
million to study central Florida's risks down to the community
level of the electric grid failure during severe weather. You
know, when storms hit, and especially our hurricanes because of
the climate crisis, they're lasting longer, creating more
devastation. And most of the folks who die during these
hurricanes, a lot of them die post-hurricane because of the
power outages, especially seniors who are unable to use a lot
of their devices that are powered by electricity. So this has
been the focus of a lot of my legislation like the SAFE through
Medicare Act.
With the same goal, Florida received over $30 million in
grid resiliency grants from the Biden Administration this year
alone, and I'm really happy to see that DOE's 2025 requests
would almost double the funding for grid--for the Grid
Deployment Office, which is really important, of course, to my
district, but to folks around the entire country, especially
because we continue to see extreme weather events.
Secretary Turk, how will the Biden Administration focus on
grid resiliency to protect Americans from extreme weather?
Mr. Turk. Well, thanks for your focus on this issue, and I
don't need to tell you, living in Florida, what we're already
seeing in terms of the impacts of climate change, more severe
hurricanes, let alone the heat waves much of our country is
facing right now. It was one of our national laboratories that
actually took a look at the wind speeds and other factors and
features of hurricanes and said we're probably going to need to
have a class 6 hurricane categorization just to deal with the
increase in storms, the powerful nature of storms that we're
already seeing out there. In fact, last year, we had 28
separate billion-dollar weather and climate impacts in our
country. That is just a remarkable amount of not only financial
impact, but human devastation that's happening.
And you're right to focus on grids. Grids are such a key
part in making sure we've got resilient grids. Much of our grid
infrastructure is quite old, and we need to make sure we're
updating that and we're using the state-of-the-art technology.
Thankfully, thanks to the President's leadership, Congress'
support through the extraordinary pieces of legislation, the
BIL and IRA, we have $25 billion to help on grid resilience.
$7.2 billion of that over the last year has gone out to States
and utilities and others to help on that front.
We also have a regular budget as well that we're trying to
do cutting-edge research and development on grid technologies,
but trying to get those technologies out there as quickly as we
can so that your constituents and others will have the
reliability and resilient grids that they depend on.
Mr. Frost. Thank you so much. And because you brought up
heat waves, you know, we know right now deadly heat waves
around the country, I think it's a stark reminder of the fact
that we need to get off carbon-spewing fossil fuels as soon as
possible. Extreme heat kills more people than hurricanes,
tornadoes, earthquakes, yet it's not necessarily classified as
extreme weather emergency, and so that's something we're also
working on. But this also means there'll be a greater demand
for critical minerals, and, you know, that comes with its own
set of environmental problems.
Orlando's Precision Periodic, a local company that grew out
of UCFs, business incubators, recycling critical minerals from
used batteries with the help of DOE's funding. How is DOE
working to make sure that domestic critical mineral usage is
less damaging to the environment?
Mr. Turk. Yes, so we absolutely have to diversify our
supply chains, as we use more lithium, as we use more cobalt.
Right now, a lot of that material, much of that material is
processed in China. That's not good for our energy security,
our economic security, our national security. So we're spending
a lot of money and a lot of focus on not just the mining part,
the processing part, but you're right to focus on the recycling
part as well. As we have more of these minerals in our systems,
whether in EV batteries or solar PV (photovoltaic) panels or
magnets or semiconductors, we need to have the research done
now along the lines of what you're talking about so that we
have those recycling programs in place, done environmentally
friendly, done in a way that has U.S. jobs, we don't export
material to be recycled elsewhere to come back into the United
States, and that's what we're spending a lot of time and focus
on.
Mr. Frost. Last question, how important is grid integration
into achieving President Biden's goal of having 100 percent
clean energy by 2035?
Mr. Turk. So it's absolutely vital. We won't be successful
not just in decarbonizing our grid, but frankly, providing
affordable power to providing resilient power in the face of
additional climate disasters unless we invest in our grids. The
grid is what literally connects it all together.
Mr. Frost. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
McCormick, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here, Deputy Secretary. As you know,
the Abilene Christian University (ACU) is partnering with other
universities, including Georgia Tech, to develop NEXT (Nuclear
Energy eXperimental Testing Laboratory) nuclear research
center, which serves as the home of the Molten-Salt Research
Reactor called MSR. The Molten-Salt Research Reactor will serve
as a testbed for nuclear reactor design that could be used to
help safely address critical needs for energy, water, and
medical isotopes.
In October 2023, I joined my colleagues in sending a letter
to your boss urging the DOE to treat MSR project at the ACU
consistently with all the other university research reactors
and provide the HALEU I think it's pronounced--uranium fuel in
a timely manner. Yet, to my understanding, the fuel still has
not been provided. This is unacceptable if we're going to get
this research done--which we partnered with private industry.
We said, look, if you guys provide funding for this, we'll
provide the fuel for it. We're talking about a clean energy
source. We talk about how important it is to reduce carbon
imprint. This is something I don't understand. Can you tell me
why it's been delayed for over a year?
Mr. Turk. Yes, and thanks for your leadership on this. This
is an incredibly exciting area of research, but also a
commercial opportunity as we think about where we're going to
get our electrons--our clean electrons in the future.
We just got an additional amount of funding repurposed from
Congress, $2.8 billion, to work on our supply chains, not just
for HALEU, but for also low-enriched uranium, which is what
goes into conventional. We are executing on that right now. I'm
happy to get the particulars on that. Our goal is to make sure
that those who want HALEU have the available HALEU when they
need it, but happy to get into the particulars that you
mentioned. I don't have that information right offhand on that,
but happy to follow up with you and your staff.
Mr. McCormick. It really bums me out because we sent out
the letter a while ago, and we promised this, we fund it, and
yet people are basically funded to sit around and do nothing
because they don't have the fuel that we promised them as our
partner that you don't have the details really disappoints me,
I got to tell you.
Mr. Turk. And just to be clear, if I could, the $2.8
billion was quite recent that Congress just gave us that
funding. So that is a huge amount of money. That's the most
money we've ever had to work on HALEU and work on low-enriched
uranium as well. And obviously, we're trying to work on that as
quickly as we possibly can.
Mr. McCormick. OK. I hope we have a timeline set forth in
an expedient manner because it seems like on one hand we tout
the necessity for electric vehicles, for electric trains now,
which I think is insane, and AI super centers, which we know is
going to increase the energy requirements by all States.
Georgia is one of the few--it's actually the only State in the
last 20 years to come up with nuclear power plants. We're not
doing it efficiently. We're still overregulated. We're doing it
slowly and very expensively, and I think that this research is
exceptionally important to the future of energy production.
One of the things I thought also this Administration had
continued the rhetoric on all this energy production. This is
clean energy, by the way. And I don't know what your opinion
is. Do you think that nuclear power is in any way inferior in
capacity or generation for energy--clean energy than any other
source, whether it be solar or wind or hydro or anything else
like that?
Mr. Turk. So I think nuclear plays an incredibly important
role right now. It's 20 percent of our electricity production
and a huge percentage of our clean, carbon-free electricity
production right now. And we're investing an awful lot of
money, thanks to Congress' leadership and partnership, to make
sure that we're not only advancing existing reactors. You
mentioned the reactor Vogtle in Georgia that just came online.
That's the first big reactor that we've had in our country for
quite some time. But we're investing a lot in the reactors of
the future, the small modular reactors, and I view that as an
incredibly powerful tool in our toolbelt to accelerate our
clean energy development more generally.
Mr. McCormick. So you talk about accelerate. I'm going to
focus on that because I have 1 minute left. Accelerating any
program, this is what frustrates me with the way that we're
focusing, and this is why I'm really disappointed that we
promised people something for an investment without having the
government side tied away. It's not entirely your fault, but
it's the government's fault for sure. This Administration,
though, did have this rhetoric about this incredible investment
in superstructure to, for example, the EV charging stations,
which are now infamous, $7.5 billion in Federal programs buried
inside of 2021, 2021 infrastructure bill promised a half a
million EV charging stations across the country. As you know,
right now, so far, we've had a grand total of--I know
everybody's excited about this, right? Eight stations produced
with billions of dollars on the table and a big promise for a
half million. I don't understand why we're slow rolling. I hope
we can streamline the process because we need some things done
in a timely manner and efficient. Get rid of the red tape
that's holding us back, and let's get to work. Thank you.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North
Carolina, Ms. Ross, for 5 minutes for her questions.
Ms. Ross. Thank you so much, Chairman Lucas, and also the
Ranking Member for holding this very important hearing. Energy
policy is at the forefront not just of the economics of this
country, but also our national security.
And thank you, Deputy Secretary Turk for joining us today.
In April, I was honored to have Secretary Granholm visit my
district to announce $18.3 million in funding to support
equipment needed to integrate renewable energy into the grid at
Siemens Energy. My district in North Carolina is home to
leading STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) companies, organizations, and academic
institutions. My questions today pertain mainly to energy
efficiency and to energy sector cybersecurity, both of which
are major priorities for my district.
Mr. Turk, as you well know, in the wake of domestic and
international threats to our electric grid, DOE and related
entities have worked to address cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
This includes improved cyber incident reporting, FERC (Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission) cybersecurity notice of proposed
rulemaking, and the work of DOE's Office of Cybersecurity,
Energy Security and Emergency Response (CESER). Can you provide
us with a brief--because I have a couple more questions--
updates on--update on the Department's ongoing efforts to
strengthen the resilience and security of the grid?
Mr. Turk. Yes, thanks for the question, and thanks for the
focus. And it's great to work with partners like those in North
Carolina, Siemens and others, really some remarkable advances,
including a lot of economic opportunity as well for your
constituents on that front.
So we're spending a lot of money and a lot of focus on the
grid, including on cybersecurity, but resilience more
generally. The historic pieces of legislation Congress passed
over the last few years gave us $25 billion. $7.2 billion of
that has gone out to States and to utilities and others to
harden our grid and to make sure that our grids are more
resilient on that front.
We're also doing a lot of focus and effort, as we should,
on cybersecurity, including in partnership with utility CEOs
(Chief Executive Officers) and utilities across our country. We
had a meeting just yesterday with a number of key utility CEOs
to make sure that we're sharing information in real time about
what those threats are and putting information out about how to
guard against those threats. One of our departments, hardest
working--we have a lot of hardworking folks in our department--
but our CESER office, which focuses on cybersecurity----
Ms. Ross. Right.
Mr. Turk [continuing]. But other threats as well is about a
$200 million or so a year budget, but they do remarkable,
remarkable work.
Ms. Ross. Well, we are trying to help you with that and get
more people into the cybersecurity field, not just at low
levels, but at very high sophisticated levels. I co-led a
bipartisan bill with Congressman Mike Carey called the Energy
Cybersecurity University Leadership Act It was one of the very
first bills to pass on suspension in this Congress. It's twice
passed the House, and it's waiting in the Senate. And the bill
would direct DOT (Department of Transportation) to support
graduate students studying at the intersection of cybersecurity
and energy infrastructure needs and give them hands-on
experience at the national labs and at utilities. So can you
address our energy cybersecurity workforce needs and how this
legislation could move us forward?
Mr. Turk. Well, thank you for your leadership on that. We
all need to stay focused on this issue. There's such a
competition for folks in the cybersecurity space, and we need
to be able to compete. We're trying to do wherever we have
flexibility to offer competitive salaries, including in our
national labs. We've got phenomenal expertise in our national
labs, as you know, on this front. And, as you mentioned, it's
not just entry-level folks, but it's folks with significant
experience as well on that front. So thank you for your
legislation.
We've done an awful lot on this front so far. I've
personally participated in a number of outreach efforts that
we're having to try to bring more people into the fold and
think about a career in public service, including for the
Department of Energy protecting our grids, but we need more
work on that, more focus on that.
Ms. Ross. OK. And with my remaining 34 seconds, I just will
submit some questions for the record on energy efficiency. This
is a passion of mine. We don't have to produce more energy if
we're more efficient with the energy that we do produce. And
we--time when we use some of our appliances and when some of
our utilities, our water utilities operate, and it's good for
the environment. And so I will submit some questions for the
record, but I don't want to lose sight of energy efficiency as
a key way to be able to meet our needs and protect our
environment.
Mr. Turk. Well, it's a passion of ours, too, and thanks for
your leadership on that.
Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady's time has----
Ms. Ross. I yield back.
Chairman Lucas [continuing]. Expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Dr.
Babin, for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and--excuse me--Mr.
Secretary, appreciate you coming.
The Department of Energy coordinates with NASA and other
government agencies on space exploration, and it produces
radioisotope power systems, or RPS, for NASA science missions.
And according to Space Policy Directive number 6, it is tasked
with supporting the development and use of SNPP (space nuclear
propulsion and power) systems, nuclear propulsion systems, to
enable and achieve United States' scientific, exploration, and
national security objectives. To carry out this direction, SPD-
6 lists a number of tasks for Department of Energy such as
cooperating with other agencies in the private sector on
identifying feedstocks, assessing government and private sector
requirements, conducting technology assessments and
developments, and developing a lunar surface power
demonstration project.
No. 1, has the Biden Administration rescinded SPD-6?
Mr. Turk. I'm not familiar with that, but we do spend a lot
of time and focus helping our NASA colleagues on nuclear--use
of nuclear technologies in space. So this is an area we're
certainly leaning into.
Mr. Babin. OK. Can you provide an update on the status of
those tasks that are required by SPD-6?
Mr. Turk. Happy to follow up with you further on that.
Mr. Babin. And that would be great. How much plutonium-238
has NASA requested from DOE for RPS systems? And how much
plutonium-238 is DOE currently producing for NASA per year? And
is DOE meeting NASA's requirements?
Mr. Turk. So happy to follow up on the particulars. I don't
have those numbers offhand, but I will say that we coordinate
quite closely with NASA. I spend a lot of time coordinating
with my deputy counterpart at NASA in making sure that we've
got a partnership all across the board. And it's a very strong
and rigorous partnership. And if there's ways that we need to
up our game even further, eager for your guidance and what we
can do to be a better partner.
Mr. Babin. Very glad to hear. The Biden Administration
stated that the United States will fulfill its commitments to
the European Union when it comes to delivering LNG. However, a
German state-owned energy group recently signed a contract to
receive Russian gas until 2040. The CEO of the energy group
even stated that the Administration's pause was a ``cause for
concern,'' quote, unquote. After the pause announcement, Qatar
also announced that they are significantly expanding their LNG
export capacity. How can the Administration justify this pause
when the EU countries and other allies are simply buying
natural gas from Russia and Qatar instead? And, in reality, is
this actually supporting the Russian war effort in Ukraine?
Mr. Turk. So we are the largest exporter of LNG right now.
Our increases have just been extraordinary over the last
several year period of time. Just a few years ago, we were at 4
billion cubic feet per day. We're now at 15 or so billion cubic
feet per day Bcf/d, and that's going to rise to 26 billion
cubic feet per day under projects that are already under
construction. We will remain the largest exporter.
What we're seeing right now is Europe is actually using
less natural gas. They've actually decreased the use of their
natural gas 20 percent over the last 5-year period of time.
Japan has plateaued their natural gas use and their need for
LNG imports. The biggest additional potential source for our
LNG to go to is China. They're expected that they could
increase their LNG uptake 65 percent to 2030.
So, again, we are undertaking an analytical analysis,
updating our analysis to make sure that we are performing the
duty Congress has given us to make these public interest
determinations as we consider exporting even more of our
natural gas than what we've already authorized. And we've
already authorized up to half of our natural gas production
right now being exported.
Mr. Babin. OK. Has any independent organization assessed
the impact of this pause on the environment or on the U.S.
economy?
Mr. Turk. So this is what----
Mr. Babin. If you know of any.
Mr. Turk. This is what we're using our national labs and
our civil servants to update our analysis to inform our public
interest determinations. That's why we have the pause. That's
why we have this analytical update is to make sure that we are
relying on the smartest people here. We're relying on their
independent judgment, their expertise. We're running a variety
of scenarios, looking forward in terms of the demand, looking
forward in terms of the impacts on American consumers and
American businesses who rely on natural gas as well.
A lot of folks have pointed out that the more you export,
the more that puts upward pressure on our prices domestically.
Right now, our consumers, our businesses pay five to six times
less for natural gas than they do in Asia and that they do in
Europe right now, and we need to take that into account. That's
why we're doing this analysis.
Mr. Babin. Well, I'm looking forward to getting the
information that you said you were going to give us.
Mr. Turk. Great, great, happy to do it. And sorry not to
have those numbers right offhand, Congressman.
Chairman Lucas. Would Dr. Babin yield for just a moment?
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
Chairman Lucas. I'm not an engineer by training, Doctor,
but an ag economist. And you and I have a little bit of
political process here.
Mr. Babin. Right?
Chairman Lucas. Would it seem that if you could provide an
energy source to your great economic enemy that they're paying
cash for, if you could addict them to using that which would
cleanup their environment, wouldn't that give you more leverage
ultimately?
Mr. Babin. You would sure think so, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lucas. Wouldn't you believe that because of the
way supply and demand works that if you artificially restrict
demand for a product, you're suppressing the potential
investment? So if you can't sell your gas, there's going to be
less gas delivered, explored, discovered, correct?
Mr. Babin. No question.
Chairman Lucas. So in effect, you limit your transition
fuel source, and at the same time, you limit your ability to
create leverage with one of your greatest adversaries.
Mr. Babin. No question about it. I appreciate you--I'm glad
I yielded my time to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York for 5
minutes, Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you, Chair Lucas and Ranking Member
Lofgren, for holding this hearing, and thank you, Deputy
Secretary Turk, for your excellent leadership at DOE. I have to
say the team at DOE is quite an impressive group of consummate
professionals.
I'm deeply proud of our work last Congress to enhance U.S.
research and innovation through landmark legislation, including
the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. Now
our focus must be on effectively implementing these
investments, certainly not on clawing them back and working to
ensure enduring progress. This includes not only directing
Federal funding toward cutting-edge research, but also
fostering a supportive environment for the next generation of
researchers, including through effective mentoring and
cultivation of inclusive and healthy workplaces.
To this end, I was particularly encouraged by the DOE's
introduction of Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research, or
the PIER plans, in Fiscal Year 2023. So, Deputy Secretary Turk,
can you discuss how these plans or other DOE initiatives are
helping to promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility in DOE-funded research?
Mr. Turk. Well, let me start in thanking you for your
leadership. It's been terrific to work with you personally, and
I know many, many folks in the Department of Energy enjoy the
conversations and enjoy your leadership. It is a phenomenal
department. I have to say it's been a privilege and an honor to
work with such dedicated career folks who made their careers to
try to help our fellow American citizens.
The issue you mentioned, making sure that we've got
inclusive and equitable opportunities for folks to work in our
laboratories to have the kinds of undergrad, graduate
opportunities going forward is such an important one. It's not
only the right thing to do, but if we want to maintain our edge
on innovation, our edge on research, our edge on science, we
need to take advantage of the full population that we have and
make sure that we have opportunities for kids no matter where
they grow up to have those opportunities to become a professor,
to become a Ph.D., to become an innovator, to become an
entrepreneur. And so the kinds of programs that you're
mentioning are absolutely critical, and we need to do even more
of that.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And additionally, how does DOE ensure
grantees are held accountable for the elements of their PIER
plan?
Mr. Turk. Well, this goes back, and this is what we're
doing on our community benefits plan as well, right? First of
all, you have to have transparency in those plans so that
folks, not only our own folks can take a look at them, but we
can make those available and have others kick the tires and
make sure that we're holding true to our responsibilities that
we have going forward. And we need to ask ourselves and those
who we get funding for, it's not our money, it's your money,
it's the taxpayers' money. We need to make sure that we're
getting big bang for buck from all of those efforts. And so
it's OK for us to ask tough questions. It's OK for us to hold
folks accountable. And that's the kind of culture that we're
trying to build. We've got a strong culture of that already,
but the Secretary, myself, others of us trying to instill that
kind of culture throughout our department.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Another critical aspect of a thriving
and trusted Federal research enterprise is a robust scientific
integrity policy. In January, I was excited to see the release
of an updated DOE scientific integrity policy that better
aligns with the 2023 National Science and Technology Council
Framework. The--I was happy to see that the policy made it
clear that political interference to delay or alter scientific
findings is indeed unacceptable. However, the process for
reporting allegations of such violations is not explicitly
outlined. So can you discuss any efforts to ensure reporting
mechanisms are made clear to employees and the general public?
Mr. Turk. Yes, so let me just be very clear--and I know,
Congressman, you feel this way. The fact that we have the kind
of scientific integrity that we have, not only the Department
of Energy, but the culture we have in our country is one of the
big reasons, along with investment, along with focus, along
with talent, for us to be the scientific powerhouse that we
are. And we need to guard against any and all efforts to erode
that kind of integrity. It frankly is what separates us
compared to a lot of other countries around the world that
don't have that integrity, that want to hear truth to power.
And if our scientists come up with answers that I find
uncomfortable, we want to and encourage that again and again,
both in terms of written policies and those kinds of things,
but in the culture that we try to have in our department for
folks to speak up and to come forward. And frankly, if there's
good science that's being done out there that question our
assumptions on certain issues, that's the way we spend taxpayer
money efficiently, and we course correct as needed, so it's
absolutely integral to everything we do.
Mr. Tonko. Well, I thank you for that. And Secretary, I
appreciate your mention of the Weatherization Assistance
Program, which plays a vital role in helping low-income
Americans reduce energy costs and make their homes healthier
and safer. While the program has excelled in traditional
improvements like insulation and LED lighting, new advancements
like heat pumps and smart thermostats offer additional savings
and resilience. So how can the weatherization program expand
its reach to incorporate these innovative technologies,
ensuring that LMI (Low and Moderate Income) households benefit
from these advances?
Mr. Turk. Well, it's a phenomenal program. Right now, each
household that gets support--and it's not as many households as
we need to reach, right? There's a greater demand than we have
the resources for it. They save on average $372 per year. And
these are the households that $372 per year is a big, big deal.
And we need to make sure more households have access to that.
We also need to do exactly what you're talking about is
expanding on the core success that we've had, the foundation
that we've built, and make sure that we're incorporating other
technologies, whether appliances or other ways that we can save
more money. Throughout the bill in the IRA we've gotten an
extraordinary amount of money, $38 billion that we're
estimating in savings on electricity bills for American
consumers because of the President's leadership, because of the
Congress stepping up and providing those tools in the tool
belt.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Tonko. I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady
from New York, Ms. Tenney, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the
meeting. Thank you to the Ranking Member and also thank you to
Secretary Turk for your time.
I just first want to jump into something real quick before
I get into my main questions, and that has to deal with the
response time for questions for the record. On September 14th,
2023, this Committee held a hearing where Secretary Granholm
appeared, and it took 9 months for your department to respond
to the Committee's questions for the record. I just don't think
it's fair or responsible to wait 9 months, especially coming
from a place like New York with tremendous energy issues, where
we have businesses literally hanging on the edge wondering if
we're going to have our lights shut out or our power turned off
because of some of the questions.
So I would just ask that we get a better response time to
that if you could and send that message on to Secretary
Granholm if you could. Thank you.
Mr. Turk. Yes, will do.
Ms. Tenney. Now--thank you.
Onto the questions. I just have a couple. You know,
obviously, I know that my colleagues have touched on a lot of
this exports of LNG, but we have a lot of really important
parts of the world, particularly the Balkans where not
delivering this LNG and getting our resources from the United
States forces some of these countries to be dependent on Russia
and China, which is really a bad idea when we're trying to deal
with this part of the world, which is the Balkans, Eastern
Europe, the gateway between East and West. This is where a lot
of international activity has been happening.
This is hurting these countries. We want them to be pro-
U.S. We don't want to push them to Russia and China. So that--
I'm very worried just as a person who spent a lot of time in
the Balkans about this policy. And I'm not going to ask you a
question about it because I want to get onto a couple other
things that we're talking about, but that really worries me
that we are not looking to bring them in and maintain them as
allies. It's really critical for Europe, and it's critical for
the world security.
I want to just cite something. It was an editorial from The
Washington Post, called the recent LNG export pause decision
as, quote, ``an election year sop to climate activists that
will do much more to unsettle vital U.S. alliances than to save
the planet.'' The White House essentially admitted such in its
press release with an announcement that highlighted support
from environmental organizations who vehemently oppose any oil
and gas production within the United States.
If this Administration is so concerned about the impacts of
increased exports and science, why did the Department of Energy
undertake a pause? Why didn't the DOE, the Department of
Energy, undertake a pause at the beginning of the
Administration, instead make that pause during an election
cycle that we're in right now? If you could answer that
quickly.
Mr. Turk. Yes, I feel incredibly comfortable with the
analytical update and the pause. And again, this is not a
pause----
Ms. Tenney. But can you just--let's just get back to the
question. Why would--if this is so critical, why wouldn't we
pause it right out of the gate in 2021 instead of waiting till
we're in the election year cycle right now?
Mr. Turk. Well, we have----
Ms. Tenney. Could you just give me a science-based answer
for that?
Mr. Turk. Yes, happy to do so. So let's look at the numbers
and see what's happened over the last several years.
Ms. Tenney. But I'm talking about right away.
Mr. Turk. We've increased----
Ms. Tenney. Because, I mean, 3 years--I mean, we're talking
about millions of years of the Earth, not 3 years where all of
a sudden we're----
Mr. Turk. We've----
Ms. Tenney [continuing]. In an election cycle. You got to
raise money from----
Mr. Turk. We----
Ms. Tenney [continuing]. These people. Why--it just
doesn't----
Mr. Turk. That is not----
Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Make sense.
Mr. Turk. That is absolutely not what happened. So we have
been increasing our exports of LNG significantly, 4 Bcf per day
just a few years ago. We're now up to 15 Bcf per day. There's
construction right now happening up to 26 Bcf per day. When we
were in the midst of what we were doing with Europe and we
exported a lot more LNG to Europe during its time of need is
it's weaning itself off from Russia, just as you suggest,
that's----
Ms. Tenney. But why the pause now, though? Because right
now we see that energy prices are going up. We were just told
that the top energy producers----
Mr. Turk. Because we----
Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Or capital holders in the State of
New York, for example, we're going to see huge energy
increases, and we are not able to tap into our very rich
natural gas resources, the Marcellus and Utica Shale, which
would help us a lot. It would help our economy. You know,
we're--I'm coming from a State with--you know, with really
great energy resources, and so I don't think you're going to
give me a science-based answer on that.
Mr. Turk. I'll give you--I'll----
Ms. Tenney. I want to get to something really important.
Mr. Turk. Can I answer it?
Ms. Tenney. I am the State--no, this is my time to question
you----
Mr. Turk. OK.
Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Because this is a really important
issue. Nuclear, I--my district in New York's 24th, all of the
nuclear power plants and all the reactors in the entire State
of New York are in my district in New York 24. These are so
critically important. They provide almost 50 percent of New
York's electrical energy. Yet there are policies in New York
and on the Federal level that aren't helping to enhance the
nuclear power. We're not getting these updates that we need for
our nuclear power plants, which are providing baseload power.
There's all the subsidies, all--the climate plan in New York
are focused on these inconsistent calls about nuclear energy.
They're not part of the real plan, and this is going to provide
baseload power.
We are going to deindustrialize and take away jobs in the
State of New York if we don't deal with this nuclear issue, and
that's something I don't see the Department of Energy really
focusing on, especially in a State like New York where we have
abundant natural resources for natural gas. We could do safe,
responsible gas drilling. It could have saved New York from so
many issues that we have economically. It could have provided,
you know, security for us. And yet now we have this resource of
nuclear power that needs upgrades, but it is not really
happening in New York.
And I could just--I know I'm out of time, but if you could
just tell me, what is the mission in coordination with the
State of New York on what we could face as the fourth-largest
State with a catastrophic deindustrialization of the State,
loss of jobs, loss of businesses to a State that already has
the largest outmigration of people in jobs in the entire
Nation. We have a catastrophic energy policy that is going to
leave seniors, children, and other people in harm's way. We
could have massive brownouts, blackouts in our State because we
don't have reliable baseload power. And yet we are now making
ourselves dependent on solar energy and wind, which are not
going to provide the baseload power. It's 5 percent of our
energy grid right now.
Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady's time----
Ms. Tenney. This is going to be----
Chairman Lucas [continuing]. Has expired.
Ms. Tenney. I--my time is expired.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman could offer a very----
Ms. Tenney. I hope you can get my questions answered.
Chairman Lucas [continuing]. Precise answer.
Ms. Tenney. Thank you.
Mr. Turk. Let me just say, speaking on behalf of the
Department of Energy, we're incredibly strong supporters of
existing nuclear and the new nuclear technologies and very much
appreciate the incredibly important role that baseload clean
nuclear power is playing in New York and across our country.
It's an incredible asset. We need to maintain that. We need to
lean in on the nuclear reactors of the future as well.
Chairman Lucas. The time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Garcia, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Deputy
Secretary Turk, for being here.
I come from California, beautiful State, beautiful weather,
beautiful geography, beautiful people. We sit on some of the
largest natural resource reserves from minerals to oil to all
sorts of assets. And, as you know, the--one of the S's in this
SST Committee stands for science. And the T doesn't stand for
timeshare, and I feel like we're getting a timeshare brief here
when you're making assertions that you've saved Americans money
on energy costs and that this Administration has done things to
lower--you may have avoided additional energy increases and may
have avoided aggravating the pain for Americans, but this
Administration has probably put more damage and harm against
the taxpayers' pocketbooks when it comes to energy in the last
3 1/2 years than any other Administration, starting with
Keystone.
I talked about how beautiful California is, but the policy
there relative to energy is terrible. What's nice about
California is it's a crystal ball of bad policies, right?
Actually 100 percent clairvoyant crystal ball of bad policies.
You want to know what happens when you have good intentions
with bad policies? Go to California, and you will learn the
second- and third-order consequences of terrible policies and
what it does to taxpayers and middle-class Americans.
We sit on some of the largest natural oil reserves, yet we
have the highest gas prices in the country. We have a mandatory
EV requirement that the Governor has levied on the taxpayers,
but we don't know how to do that. We don't have the
infrastructure to support it. We have Chinese-made solar panels
all over the high desert in my community. We have no way to
store that power that we harness. And we have one of the
weakest in terms of just hardening of our grid that we have in
the Nation.
We've closed--despite the fact that this Administration has
now adopted a pronuclear, you know, paradigm, we've actually
closed the two nuclear power plants in the State. And when
you--and you know when you shutter those things, there's no
turning them back on, right, without cost-prohibitive and
bureaucratic-prohibitive methods.
We have dams that weren't built to the highest levels that
they should have been, and they had blueprints and clearance to
do it, and they just decided to make them shorter. We have a
high-speed rail, which was supposed to be the cleanest energy--
you know, cleanest form of transportation energy that has yet
to lay a single foot of rail, yet has laid hundreds of tons,
thousands of tons of concrete, which has a CO2
footprint that is probably bigger than any freeway that we've
constructed in California, and there's going to be no
ridership. We have wind farms that turn off when the speed of
the wind gets above a certain speed, which is asinine.
We have a battery electric storage system in my district
that was just put in by L.A. County that sits on the largest
naturally occurring fault line, the San Andreas Fault line.
It's right next to a railroad. It's right next to a choke-point
freeway. It's underneath high-powered transmission lines and in
some of the most combustible wildlands in the country, and they
decided to put a battery electric storage facility right there
on the San Andreas Fault line, right in the middle of southern
California. So if you--my point is if you want to learn what
not to do, go to California.
My question is, what is your long-term plan, and how do we
get the science put back into the DOE where you have a long-
term vision that is sort of not impacted by the ebbs and flows
of Governors or new Presidents or Congresses that change
majorities, that looks long for lineup. It's a 10-year plan to
take advantage of small nuclear reactors, to maybe decrease our
dependency on foreign oil but still remain, you know,
implementing our domestic oil sources? How do you do that?
What is your long-term plan? How do you, within this plan,
demonstrate a way to close the nuclear feedback loop so that we
have a nuclear waste plan as part of a comprehensive nuclear
plan and so that we can use nuclear resources and then not get
hindered by the byproduct and the waste of that? So talk to
that if you can, a long-term plan. How do we take the politics
out of it? How do we take the emotional, political, you know,
vacillations of changing Presidents and Governors at the State
level changing their minds about nuclear?
And then you put an RFI (request for information) out for
fusion energy, public-private partnership, a consortium
framework? Where's that information? What are you going to do
with that information? Where do we go from there? But big
picture, what's the vision? How do we actually get to the point
where your agency has a long-term framework and strategy to
support nuclear or--excuse me, energy independence without
breaking the back of the American taxpayer?
Mr. Turk. Well, thanks. Thanks for the question. I come
from a small town and take a very pragmatic approach to these
things. And I wish we could take politics out of it, frankly.
And I think if we were able to do that and look objectively
about what we're doing, there's a remarkable amount of progress
we've made in just a few-year period of time.
First of all, as I mentioned in my opening statement--and
thank you, for the Chairman's leadership, other Members of this
Committee in particular. We have to focus on science. We have
to focus on innovation. We have to focus on R&D. We have to
focus on our national labs. That is an incredibly, incredibly
important part of our DOE responsibility. We take that very
seriously. We're asking for additional increased resources for
those parts of our portfolio.
At the same time, I think we can walk and chew gum at the
same time and have the kinds of historic investments we're
making in clean energy. Clean energy, not in terms--not just in
terms of affordability and reducing prices for consumers,
stepping up and actually reducing our emissions. Last year, we
had--our country had one of the most robust domestic GDP gross
of any countries around the world, and at the same time, we
reduced our emissions 4 percent. That doesn't happen----
Mr. Garcia. And, Mr. Turk, not to cut you off, but I'm out
of time, but I just want to know where do we go to see your
long-term strategy?
Mr. Turk. So our Secretary has spoken about our clean
energy industrial strategy and all the components of it.
Mr. Garcia. Is that available for us to digest as a
Committee and as individuals?
Mr. Turk. It's out there publicly. We're happy to provide
other materials. We've had over 600 manufacturing facilities
either open up or expand because of the President's leadership,
because of the congressional historic legislation. Those are
literally tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs all
across our country. So we're not just benefiting from the end
product of clean energy. The strategy is to make sure that we
produce those products, those EVs, those batteries, those solar
panels, right here in the United States and we get the jobs,
and we're seeing remarkable progress on that front.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes what would appear to be the final
question series from the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You did a good job of defending the Administration. You're
on message, and that's fine. That's your job. But the previous
questions from a fellow Californian, look, I'm in California.
Solar ain't working. The lights are going out. We don't have
affordable power. We're shifting either overseas or out of the
State at a minimum. Our success in solar is our failure to be
able to keep energy users. That's a reality. That's a reality.
And it's not just here. The same thing is--I was in
Luxembourg, and their only glass factory is closing down
because, the fact is, the Russians make glass cheaper. What's
amazing is the company divested its Russian facilities after
the invasion only to have those put them out of business
because their electricity cost is dramatically cheaper. And
yes, they're using plenty of that dirty gas and coal.
So, you know, I want to thank you and thank the
Administration for backing off on the mandate to eliminate
natural gas appliances and to eliminate a lot of other electric
appliances. But that--it was a sign of rulemaking that was
clearly different than congressional intent. Can you assure us
today that in fact your future rulemaking will not head us down
a road where the Administration has to back off after realizing
how many appliances would simply go away if your rules had been
put in effect?
Mr. Turk. So we are a real-world department, and we take
feedback, including from private industry, incredibly
seriously. So anytime we put an efficiency regulation proposal
on the table, we request, we invite that kind of feedback that
allows us to improve that rule before it becomes final. And so
we'll continue to undertake that process going forward.
Mr. Issa. Secretary Turk, you know, you're supposed to--
you're not supposed to disrupt an industry with something
that's out of line and then say, well, we backed off because.
That's the ``I'll hurt you less if you play ball with us.''
Wouldn't it have been better, and isn't it appropriate to find
out what is possible, and then see how you produce a
regulation, rather than produce a regulation that turned out
not to be possible to implement with existing technologies on
the time schedule you gave it?
Mr. Turk. So let me say, I feel incredibly proud to be part
of this Administration, and I'm not going to apologize for the
fact that we're living up to our----
Mr. Issa. No, no, and I--and, look, I'm not--your----
Mr. Turk. By taking climate change head on----
Mr. Issa. No, no, you're----
Mr. Turk [continuing]. We either deal with it, or we're----
Mr. Issa. Please, please----
Mr. Turk [continuing]. Going to deal with the consequences
of it.
Mr. Issa. Look, I--your aspirational goals are fine. I
asked you a narrower question. Shouldn't you find out what is
possible before you put rules out that you then have to admit
aren't possible?
Mr. Turk. So these can't be aspirational goals. When the
President puts the goals on the table to get to net zero by
2050, they can't be aspirational goals. We need to figure out a
way to have affordable power, to have clean power, and have
resilient power in our----
Mr. Issa. No, Secretary, you were asked----
Mr. Turk. We need to step up.
Mr. Issa. You were asked earlier----
Mr. Turk. There's no alternative.
Mr. Issa [continuing]. If you had a written plan, and you
talked about the Secretary's speeches. Do you have a written
plan that shows us a timeline of technology and implementation
that gets us to zero in 2050?
Mr. Turk. So we have a whole series of what we've called
Liftoff Reports around particular----
Mr. Issa. Would you provide those----
Mr. Turk [continuing]. Technologies----
Mr. Issa. Would you provide those----
Mr. Turk [continuing]. They're publicly available----
Mr. Issa [continuing]. In as concise a format----
Mr. Turk [continuing]. Happy to make them--happy to make
them available to the Committee.
Mr. Issa. OK. I just came back from Europe. I went there
really on--for AI and copyright and trademark. So it was only
tangentially for this Committee. But I visited CERN. When I
visited CERN, it was wonderful, and I saw the new FCC (Federal
Communications Commission) plans. I went down into what is
going to be the largest container of argon in the history of
the world, and I was pretty impressed.
And then in sort of the final briefing, a number of the
scientists who had just come back from China explained to me
that China had stolen the entire plan for that future, that
FCC, that in fact when they were in China, boldfaced they
showed them their plans, which they recognized as the stolen
plans. And China is implementing the copy of what we are not
going to have done for a decade and a half. So that falls under
a lot of what you all do.
What do we do to stop China from getting that here? They
clearly are willing to spy and to steal unabashedly, and then
brag about it and show the world something that they didn't
invent, they simply stole, and they're going to invite
scientists to come to China and be monitored to use its
supercollider to do work that is impossible today.
Mr. Turk. Well, thanks for your leadership and focus on
this issue. We spend a lot of time exactly on this. And there
is a competition with China right now. There's absolutely a
competition with China, and we need to win. We need to win with
our funding. We need to win by having our eyes wide open in
terms of the risks. We also need to win by continuing to
attract top talent from around the world to come to our
universities, to come to our national labs. What we're actually
finding is remarkable progress over the years and recently to
keep those folks here. So if you come and study here, become a
citizen, make a career and help become part of the most
dynamic, innovative economy in the world's history.
We also need to be incredibly smart about the folks that do
come here and eyes wide open. There are certain strict noes
that we do on this. If you're part of a talent program in
China, another country of concern, you can't work in our
national laboratories. If you're not a U.S. citizen, you can't
get a security clearance. We then take a risk-based approach
very much focusing on folks from different countries, what
research they're working on, or is it more sensitive
technology, less sensitive technology, we have a risk matrix
focused on that technology.
We're also investing. Our Fiscal Year 2025 budget proposal
has a record amount for counterintelligence to make sure that
we've got the ample human capacity to make sure that, eyes wide
open, we're protecting our crown jewels and our phenomenal
national assets here in our national labs.
Mr. Issa. Well, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time has----
Mr. Issa. I might note that a Member of this Committee, Mr.
McCormick, actually has a major bill to try to help with those
H-1s and their conversion and keeping them there, so we are on
your side on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, who
I assume will be the last Member of the day, for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Turk, for
your testimony today.
I'd like to discuss the importance of our national labs in
achieving the goal of producing scalable commercial fusion
energy. As you know, New Jersey is home to one of the 17
Department of Energy national labs, the Princeton Plasma
Physics Laboratory (PPPL), of which we are extremely proud.
PPPL is a world leader in fusion science and is also
contributing to breakthroughs in quantum AI and other cutting-
edge fields.
Can you please speak to the importance of our national
labs, the importance of the Office of Science funding levels
requested in this budget, and the importance of continuing to
prioritize fusion energy research at our national labs?
Mr. Turk. So we are the leader, there's no doubt about it,
on fusion energy right now in fusion research. Princeton Plasma
Physics Lab is just one of the crown jewels. It's an incredible
lab. I've had a chance to go up there and visit and see what
they're doing on cutting-edge research on fusion.
But there are competitors now. China's spending an
estimated--I've heard is $1.5 billion a year on their fusion
program. We need to step up. We need to invest. We need to make
sure we're building on our strong foundation. But just as the
Chairman, the Ranking Member, yourself, we need to focus on the
kinds of investments, the volume of investments that we need to
to take all this research that we've done literally for
decades, work with the private sector. We've had over $6
billion of private sector investment. The vast majority of that
is here in the United States for a U.S.-based company trying to
commercialize fusion technologies for the benefit all across
our country.
We need to make sure that we are competitive. We're leaning
into our Milestone program. We're leaning into our public-
private consortium, which is another big way we do that, and
eager to work with you to make sure that we win that
competition.
Mr. Kean. Thank you. Thank you. The DOE fusion request of
$840 million is $164 million less than last year's request and
does not seem sufficient to reach the goals of the Bold Decadal
Vision laid out by the Department for commercial fusion to be
achieved in the next 10 years. Deputy Secretary, can you please
explain this discrepancy and whether the Administration did not
request enough, or do you not feel that the plan is not
accurate?
Mr. Turk. Yes, so let me just say that level of funding is
not sufficient. That level of funding is what we could afford
in a very constrained budget environment. In Fiscal Year 2024
when we put forward a billion-dollar request, unfortunately,
Congress was only able to provide $790 billion of funding in
Fiscal Year 2024. Our 2025 request is significantly up from
that. But if you're asking if we collectively are spending
enough on fusion, the answer is no. We need to spend more on
fusion.
Mr. Kean. Can you explain how new DOE fusion programs like
the Fusion Innovation Research Engine Collaboratives or the
Milestone program can support such place-based development?
Mr. Turk. Yes, so these are very innovative. I feel
incredibly proud of what we've done on the FIRE Collaboratives,
on the Milestone programs. We've now reached agreement with all
eight companies that are part of the Milestone programs on the
IP (intellectual property) arrangement along those lines. We've
got a public-private consortium that we're kicking off to work
with those key companies around our country that are making
some really impressive gains, but this needs to be a public-
private partnership going forward. We need to leverage the
expertise we have in our labs to work on the materials science,
on the AI, on all the other enabling science and innovation
that allows these companies to be successful. And that's what
the Milestone program, the FIRE Collaboratives, all of these
kinds of efforts are about.
Mr. Kean. OK. And given New Jersey's commitment to
supporting the development of clean energy and strategic goal--
excuse me, the strategic role of the Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub,
can you please provide an update on when the hydrogen hubs,
particularly the Mid-Atlantic hub, will be finalized and
funded? Are there any major holdups in their negotiations?
Mr. Turk. Yes, so we're trying to work as quickly as we can
on all seven of our hubs. This is $7 billion of Federal
taxpayer investment. You mentioned the one hub in your area.
This is a remarkable amount of funding. The hub concept is
exactly the right concept to dovetail with historic tax
incentives to build out our clean hydrogen economy, another
$1.5 billion that we're working on R&D to lower electrolyzer
costs going forward.
We're trying to move as quickly as we can. These are big
deals. There's a lot of partners in all these different hubs
and all these different consortia. We'd love to finalize these
as quickly as we possibly can, but I don't have a particular
timeline. But our team is working incredibly expeditiously,
working with our partners here.
Mr. Kean. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time has expired.
As we begin to conclude this hearing, I would simply note
to the Deputy Secretary, I understood you, I believe, in
response to my questions that you would provide the Committee
with a detailed breakdown noting department funding available,
amounts committed and obligated, and amount spent. This
information is very critical as we work with our colleagues on
appropriations and as we deal with whatever may occur this fall
into the next year in the next budget cycle. So that
information is of the highest importance, Under Secretary.
And with that, I thank Under Secretary Turk for his
valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The
record will remain open for 10 days for additional comments and
written questions from Members.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:52 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by the Honorable David M. Turk
[Despite repeated requests by the Committee, the DOE declined to
submit any responses to the Questions for the Record put forth by
Committee Members.]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Paper submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]