[Senate Hearing 118-1]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-1
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 2, 2023
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
51-458 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
MARK KELLY, Arizona CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
Renae Black, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Brie Van Cleve, Senior Energy Advisor
Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
Justin Memmott, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Energy
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West
Virginia....................................................... 1
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
Wyoming........................................................ 3
WITNESS
Turk, Hon. David M., Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy. 4
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Alliance for Automobile Innovation:
Statement for the Record..................................... 381
American Society of Civil Engineers:
Statement for the Record..................................... 387
Barrasso, Hon. John:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
Quotes from Microvast's filings with the SEC................. 20
Memorandum from CPSC Commissioner Richard Trumka to
Commissioner Peter Feldman, dated October 25, 2022......... 22
Microvast Holdings, Inc. SEC filing, dated December 14, 2021. 28
Hickenlooper, Hon. John W.:
Poster of Liebreich's Hydrogen Ladder........................ 305
Hogan, Kathleen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 393
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Turk, Hon. David M.:
Opening Statement............................................ 4
Written Testimony............................................ 7
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 314
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin
III, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. I want to begin the 118th Congress by
welcoming our new members, especially our new member, Senator
Hawley. He is not here yet, but when he does come we will
officially do it again.
We will be kicking off this year with a discussion of the
Department of Energy's implementation of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law--the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
I would like to welcome and thank David Turk, Deputy Secretary
at the Department of Energy, for appearing before the Committee
today.
In 2021, Congress worked in a bipartisan way to enact the
most significant federal investment in our nation's
infrastructure in decades, including approximately $100 billion
in this Committee's jurisdiction alone between the Interior and
Energy Departments. This, combined with the energy security
investments provided in the Inflation Reduction Act, will be
game-changing for us to become more energy secure through the
increased domestic production of energy in the cleanest ways
possible, leading the world in innovation, and onshoring
critical supply chains.
This Committee considered 74 amendments and agreed to 48
before reporting our portion of the bill with bipartisan
support. Now that the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill has been a
law for more than a year, we are here today to discuss how the
Department of Energy is implementing the authorizations and $62
billion that we provide them over the next five years. This
bill marked a transformational investment in our energy future
and will allow America to be more secure and lead the way on
energy innovation for many years to come.
The benefits of both the BIF and the IRA are already being
felt across the country, including in my home State of West
Virginia, where we have been very happy to have new investment
announcements in recent months. The BIF funds demonstration and
pilot projects through an all-of-the-above energy approach by
allowing us to continue using our fossil fuel resources in the
cleanest way possible through new investments in hydrogen and
carbon capture technologies. And we double down on hydrogen and
CCUS in the IRA with new and enhanced tax credits. It also
drives new energy manufacturing investments to coal country to
support communities where coal mines or coal plants have
closed, both in my home state and in Senator Barrasso's home
State of Wyoming. That will provide good jobs and new tax
bases. The $62 billion appropriated to DOE through the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was one of the largest
investments in the Department that they have ever seen. This
works hand-in-hand with the Inflation Reduction Act to really
boost American innovation, competitiveness, and security. So we
have clearly given the Department of Energy a lot of work to
do.
Congress has spoken clearly over the last two years,
between the Energy Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill, and
the Inflation Reduction Act, that the United States has an all-
of-the-above energy policy that supports using all of our God-
given resources in the cleanest way possible. That is how we
shore up energy security and achieve energy independence while
also addressing climate change. It is my intention to make sure
that these laws are implemented swiftly, effectively, and in
line with that clear Congressional intent, which I can assure
you, this Administration does not seem to want to do, but we
are going to make sure they do it. For that reason, I am very
glad that Deputy Secretary Turk has agreed to appear before us
today for this important discussion.
I just want to mention one last thing, unrelated to our
hearing topic today: Gas--and I appropriately repeat--gas
stoves have been in the news lately, and I have come out
strongly against the Consumer Product Safety Commission
pursuing any ban of gas stoves. In fact, I am introducing
legislation today with Senator Cruz that would ensure that they
don't, and am separately sending a letter to the Commission
with Senator Lankford, seeking clarification about the
Commission's sudden desire to conduct an RFI on gas stoves.
Yesterday, DOE published its first ever efficiency standard
for cooktops, including gas stoves. Now, I have always been a
proponent of energy efficiency, but the draft rule proposes
efficiency levels that DOE says, at the highest level, up to 96
percent of gas stoves don't currently meet. I don't like where
I think they are going with this and I can tell you one thing,
they are not taking my gas stove out. My wife and I would both
be upset. Now, I know DOE is required to write a rule on
stovetop efficiencies, and that this is the beginning of this
process, not a final rule. But in light of broader concerns
about the Administration looking to find ways to push out
natural gas, which basically the rest of the world wishes they
had the abundant supply that we do, doesn't make any sense at
all, it really doesn't. As I have said before, the Federal
Government does not have any business telling American families
how to cook their dinner. If there is technology down the road,
and we transition into the new technology, that is fine. But
basically, retrofitting or removing stoves that people have had
for years is not going to happen.
So I want to thank David for being here today and I
appreciate you and we look forward to talking to you. And now I
am going to go to my friend Senator Barrasso to give his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks for your leadership of this Committee over the last
Congress and for the productive partnership that we have shared
and will continue to share. I am looking forward to working
with you and all the members of the Committee again this year.
I would like to welcome Senator Hawley, from the great
State of Missouri. We are excited to have him as a member of
the Committee, and I look forward to his continued advocacy for
American energy. Sad to see Senator Marshall and Senator
Lankford leave the Committee. We owe both of them thanks for
the work they did in advancing American energy.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding today's hearing. It was in
November 2021, Congress passed the $415 billion spending bill,
and the Congressional Budget Office said that the legislation
is going to increase our nation's deficit by $256 billion over
the next ten years. Under this legislation, Congress approved
over $62 billion to the Department of Energy. Now, that amount
is in addition to the Department's annual appropriation of
roughly $40 billion. So on top of these sums, Democrats in
Congress gave another $35 billion to the Department in their
Inflation Act. That amount of money that the Department has
received over the last two years is staggering. So the question
is not whether the Department is going to waste taxpayer
dollars, but how to reduce the amount that it will waste. And
for that reason, I am glad to have the Deputy Secretary here
today. I supported his nomination. He came out of this
Committee unanimously. We appreciate the work you are doing and
we all are interested in learning what, if any, new controls or
protocols the Department has put in place to reduce any of the
waste, fraud, and abuse that is likely to come with that kind
of money being spent.
Last year, the Department's Inspector General wrote this
Committee, and she explained that she does not have sufficient
resources at the Department to monitor the amount of money that
is now flying out of the Department's doors. She stated--this
is the Department's own Inspector General--stated that she
``anticipates substantial losses due to fraud, waste, and
abuse, in part because the law expands programs with a history
of serious problems.'' So I would note that the legislation
provided nearly $100 million for the Department of the
Interior's Inspector General, but it provided only about half
the amount for the Department of Energy's Inspector General.
This seems reckless, given that the Infrastructure Act
appropriated more than twice the amount to the Department of
Energy than it appropriated to the Department of the Interior.
So I would like to know whether Mr. Turk would support
redirecting some of the existing appropriations to the Office
of the Inspector General within the Department of Energy.
I am also interested to learn what, if any, new controls
and protocols the Department has put in place to ensure the
legislation does not fund our nation's adversaries, like China.
One program is already raising concerns. Last year, the
Department of Energy provided a $200 million grant to a battery
manufacturer called Microvast. This company's filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission reveal very troubling
connections to the Communist Chinese government. One filing
states that ``the People's Republic of China exerts substantial
influence over the manner in which we must conduct our business
activities and may intervene at any time and with no notice.''
The company goes on to state, ``we may not be able to protect
our intellectual property rights in the PRC.'' Supporters of
the legislation said it would help increase America's
competitiveness. Now we know the Department has funneled
hundreds of millions of dollars to a company that publicly
admits it is at the beck and call of the Chinese government. In
December 2022, I wrote to Secretary Granholm asking her for
information about the Department's review process for grants.
The Secretary has not yet responded, and I know that perhaps
she will respond today.
Finally, I would like the Deputy Secretary to pledge that
funds from the Infrastructure Act won't be used to ban or
restrict the use of natural gas in new buildings. Senator
Manchin already asked the question and raised the issue of
natural gas in cookstoves. In 2021, I warned that this
legislation would allow the Secretary to finance entities that
seek to ban the use of natural gas in new buildings. I have
offered an amendment to stop this. All ten Democrats on this
Committee voted against that amendment in the past. They said
it wasn't an issue. Thanks to Commissioner Trumka, that mask
has slipped. We now know that the Biden Administration is
seeking to restrict the use of natural gas in new buildings. We
can't let that happen. So I look forward, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Deputy Secretary, to your testimony.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Barrasso.
And now we are going to turn to Deputy Secretary Turk for
your statement, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID M. TURK,
DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Turk. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Manchin,
Ranking Member Barrasso, Senator Cantwell, Senator Cassidy,
Senator Cortez Masto, and I know we will have several others
come as well. Thanks for this opportunity to provide you all an
update on the Department of Energy's implementation of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The bill, just as you said, Chairman, truly is a historic
investment in renewing American infrastructure, not just for
this year or next year, but for decades to come. We are,
together, rebuilding American manufacturing and increasing
American competitiveness. We are creating millions of lasting,
good-paying jobs all across our country, and at the same time,
we are reducing energy costs for our fellow Americans,
improving our energy security, promoting energy justice, and
tackling climate change head-on. The bill is also the
culmination of years and years of this Committee's excellent
work, including the critical bipartisan Energy Act of 2020, and
I want to particularly call out the Senators and your staffs
for all your phenomenal work, for all the provisions that are
in the bill. On behalf of our entire Department, let me thank
you sincerely for all of your leadership and partnership.
Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we have
investments, as the Chairman mentioned, of more than $62
billion for the Department of Energy to administer. The bill
launches 60 new programs--6-0--new programs and enhances 12
other programs. Of the $62 billion, nearly 90 percent of this
funding is directed toward these new programs, just to give you
a sense of the opportunity and the scale of responsibility in
our Department. In the 14 months since President Biden signed
the bill into law, DOE has been working with a real sense of
urgency. We already have $37 billion of that $62 billion
available so communities across our country can benefit as
quickly as they possibly can.
We are also wanting to do this right. We have completed a
major realignment of the Department to ensure maximum impact,
but also, oversight and integrity. And I am certainly happy,
Senator Barrasso and others, to get into details of what we
have put in place to make sure we are doing this right. We have
hired now more than 400 new staff, with many of those being
contracting experts and others who can help on the oversight
and the integrity of the process. We are also working hand-in-
hand with our Inspector General, as you mentioned, Senator
Barrasso. I have spoken many times with Teri Donaldson and we
are supportive of budget increases for her office.
Let me just give you a few highlights of our work so far,
and of course, I am happy to get into any of these in detail.
The bill provides historic funding and support for hydrogen, I
know an issue of interest for many members on this Committee.
We developed a National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap. We
have made $7 billion available so far for Regional Clean
Hydrogen Hubs, I know of interest to many of you at the dais.
And we have issued announcements for another $750 million for
electrolyzer manufacturing research and demonstrations to build
out that critical capability in our country.
We have issued funding announcements for game-changing
carbon management programs--$2.25 billion for carbon storage
validation and testing, $2 billion for carbon dioxide
transportation projects, and $1.2 billion for Regional Direct
Air Capture Hubs. You put that together with the 45Q
enhancements and that is a powerful recipe for CCUS really
taking off in our country. $3.9 billion, so far, has been made
available to modernize our electric grid, $3 billion for
weatherization and energy efficiency in homes and businesses,
driving down costs for consumers across our country, $2.8
billion for battery materials processing and component
manufacturing across 12 states, creating more than 5,000
permanent jobs. In fact, since the President took office, the
U.S. has seen over $92 billion of public and private investment
in new and expanded battery manufacturing operations. That is
an awful lot of good jobs--manufacturing heft across our
country.
And we have created a new Office of State and Community
Energy Programs--SCEP is the acronym, which is a terrible
acronym, I will admit, but we have a lot of those terrible
acronyms at DOE. The SCEP Office will ensure our infrastructure
build-out is driven by and benefiting communities across our
country. Not all knowledge, in fact, maybe not that much is in
DC. We need to listen to communities about what we can do to
help support them across the country with this funding. As a
preview of coming attractions, we will be announcing very soon
something I am particularly excited about. It is a billion
dollars that you all funded for implementing community-driven
energy projects across rural and remote America. And I could go
on and on.
The Department of Energy looks forward to the continued
guidance of this Committee as we implement the bill and take on
this enormous responsibility. This law provides an unparalleled
and catalytic investment in our nation's infrastructure in
energy security, and the Department looks forward to working
hand-in-hand with all of you to meet this moment. Chairman
Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, members of this Committee,
thank you again for entrusting the Department of Energy with
this historic responsibility--and I use that word very
purposefully--to implement the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
and I look forward to answering all your questions in this
session and in the coming days and weeks. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turk follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Turk.
I will start the questioning now, and my first question,
sir, would be concerning the EV battery supply chain. I don't
think there is any secret here about my concerns, along with a
lot of my colleagues, on the absolute capture that China has on
this market, and how we break that. But I understand that there
are concerns about a company called Microvast that was awarded
a grant through the infrastructure law's battery grant program,
and what ties that company has to China. I know that Microvast
also received an award from the Trump Administration. So I am
hoping that you can alleviate some concerns we have about this
particular company, and more globally, DOE's process for
vetting applicants to ensure that we are not giving our best
ideas to China and funding them to be able to take advantage of
it in their marketplace along with ours.
So if you can explain the vetting process and what you know
about this company and what you are doing to make sure that it
is not going in the wrong direction.
Mr. Turk. Well, thanks for the question, Chairman, and I
know, Senator Barrasso, you are interested in this and we just
responded to your letter on this, that you should have in your
in-box as well.
So first of all, I think we have to acknowledge, and
Chairman, you have said this many times, more eloquently than I
could possibly. Our country--and I put all of us in that
category--has fallen asleep at the switch with some of these
key critical technologies--battery manufacturing, solar PV. The
vast majority of that, right now, is produced in China and it
is not just the mining piece, in fact, what China really has a
stranglehold on now is processing and all those intermediate
steps. So we are in a hole right now. I feel incredibly proud
to be a part of a Department of Energy that has been given
tools in our tool belt to really get our act together and to
have a proactive, robust strategy to onshore, to re-shore, and
to reassert U.S. leadership. So, just as kind of a backdrop of
where we are coming from.
The Chairman. Let me just say one other thing, if I may. I
am concerned with the geopolitical risk that this
Administration is not concerned with right now by trying to
push more EVs out before we are able to supply the batteries
without dependence on China. That is the biggest concern I
have, and the recent ruling from Treasury, that still allows
$7,500 credits and just completely violates the IRA by delaying
the necessary guidance that they were supposed to have in place
by December 31. They have avoided that, and cherry-picked it,
and they are still paying $7,500. It's just ridiculous what's
going on, and we are pushing EVs to the point that we are going
to continue to rely on China for supply of these batteries.
That is the problem.
Mr. Turk. Well, let me make a point on the EVs and then get
into the Microvast and the process that we have in place on
that front.
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Turk. And of course, we are providing technical help
and expertise to our Treasury colleagues and conversations to
try to help move that process along, but it is not a process,
of course, that we control. What we do have are the tools that
you have given us through the Bipartisan Infrastructure
legislation to move out as quickly as we possibly can in
reshoring, asserting this U.S. leadership, doing it as
strategically robust and as urgently as we possibly can, so we
are not in the hole that we are currently. We have got to dig
ourselves out of that hole as quickly as we possibly can.
As I mentioned in my opening, the vast majority of our bill
grants are competitive. And these are administered by civil
servants. They are done that way for a reason--to ensure
integrity in the process, to ensure fairness in the process.
There is an extensive merit review process where we get experts
who know the industry and provide guidance where we have these
competitive grants before us. We are continually improving that
process to make sure all our civil servants have the
geostrategic perspective of what we are trying to do here, just
as you said, Chairman. We also have a robust process where we
get intelligence officials to be part of that process in making
sure that we have all publicly available information as well as
privately available information through our extensive
intelligence channels. And we are also purposely taking
advantage of expertise that we have in the Department. Those of
you who are familiar with the CFIUS process that we have been
working on for many, many years--we have got expertise
available to help us interpret that intelligence information
and make sure that we are being smart, eyes-wide-open, in terms
of what we do going forward.
The Chairman. So I am going to tell the clerk we will go to
seven minutes, okay, until we have more members so it would not
cut you all short. If you can keep your answers with us short.
Mr. Turk. Yes, I know this is an issue----
The Chairman. Just tell me about Microvast.
Mr. Turk. This is an issue of interest. The other thing I
will say is a general rule, but these are specific restrictions
that we have in place. Every applicant, not just for the
battery manufacturing one that we are talking about here, the
$2.8 billion, but every one of ours, every applicant has to be
a domestic entity incorporated in the U.S. with a majority
domestic ownership in control and have a physical place of
residence in the U.S.
The Chairman. You know about our concern with China and the
economic war I think they are going to wage on us if they
haven't already started. Are you looking at, basically, any
ties whatsoever? Because they have ways of camouflaging
minority ownership.
Mr. Turk. So we absolutely do, and we are doing it eyes-
wide-open on this. The other specific requirement I wanted to
point out, again, for this grant, but other grants as well is,
any persons participating--and this is particularly relevant to
China, but not just China--in a foreign government-sponsored
talent recruitment program--and I think many of you have heard
those words before--are prohibited from participating in
projects selected for federal funding, so another specific
piece.
So Microvast, in particular, was selected--and this is
important, where it is at in the process--it was selected to
negotiate an award. There are no taxpayer funds going to
Microvast or any of the other 20 companies right now. They were
selected to participate in a negotiation for an award. What
that----
The Chairman. Got you. Let me just----
Mr. Turk [continuing]. Triggers for us is an extended due
diligence process where we look in and we also verify all the
accuracy of the information----
The Chairman. I am going to jump to another subject right
now.
The $12 billion projects that deploy carbon capture at a
commercial scale, okay? We know that CCUS is going to be
necessary for us to meet our targets, our goals, as far as
emissions reductions. This Administration continues to wage war
on coal. They can say what they want to, but I am from coal
country so I know what's happening. The wells that we are
talking about require a Class VI permit from EPA. We had $12
billion to deploy carbon capture at a commercial scale, the
infrastructure bill provides the EPA $75 million for Class VI
well permitting, including providing grants to states that take
over the responsibility for permitting these wells. However,
only two active Class VI wells have ever been permitted, and at
least 30 applications are pending at the EPA. What is that
going to do to meet the timetables that we have?
Mr. Turk. So, as I said, we have a phenomenal opportunity
on CCUS and the tools that you have given us.
The Chairman. Yes, but not the way they are moving.
Mr. Turk. What we are trying to do at DOE, and Senator
Cassidy and I were just talking a little bit about this before
the hearing began, we are trying to work with EPA. I have had
several conversations with my counterpart.
The Chairman. We are going to bring them in here too, if
you all want. Okay, we are bringing EPA here too.
Mr. Turk. I have had several conversations with my
counterpart, Senator, Deputy Secretary McCabe. We are engaged
right now with them on technical----
The Chairman. Well, you know the problems that we are
dealing with here, and we are never going to meet what we need
to do with carbon capture because of the permitting process----
Mr. Turk. We understand the urgency. We are trying to work
with our interagency colleagues and are doing everything we can
from our end.
The Chairman. With that, I apologize.
Senator Barrasso, your questions.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Mr.
Turk.
You know, in commenting on the Infrastructure Act, the
Office of Inspector General, Department of Energy, has said
that, ``History is clear: when money moves quickly, so does
waste, fraud, and abuse.'' So the question I have is, is the
Department taking enough time to review the grants to reduce
the chance of waste, fraud, and abuse?
Mr. Turk. So we are certainly moving urgently because
communities need this help, but we are also trying to do this
right. And with the IG we are not only trying to support the
funding for our IG on the back end, but we are in extensive
conversations with the IG, with her team, to hear any lessons
learned that they have about setting up these new offices,
these new programs in the right way. We are spending an awful
lot of time in due diligence on that.
Senator Barrasso. There does seem to be a value to set
those programs up before money starts going out the door.
Mr. Turk. So we are in the position of trying to move
urgently and doing it right. And so we take both of those
responsibilities very seriously, but we appreciate that $62
billion is an awful lot of money. I came from a pretty humble
background. That is a lot of money.
The Chairman. A lot of zeros.
Mr. Turk. And we are trying to make sure we leverage that
as best as we can.
Senator Barrasso. As I mentioned in my earlier statement,
the Department has awarded this $200 million grant to
Microvast. The Chairman mentioned it as well. In its filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company
states, and it is right here on the board behind me, that it is
under the substantial influence--the substantial influence--of
the People's Republic of China, the PRC. It goes on to say,
``our success depends on our ability to obtain, maintain, and
protect our intellectual property rights.'' The very next
sentence, ``we may not be able to protect our intellectual
property rights in the PRC [the People's Republic of China].''
[The poster with the aforementioned quotes follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. So the term PRC--this is the SEC filing,
there is a lot to it--the term PRC is mentioned 471 times in
the company's filings. The term China is mentioned 110 times in
the company's filings. So you know, how did the Department let
this happen? Did the Department rush the process? I know this
is long, but did anyone at DOE actually do their homework? Do
you know if anyone actually bothered to read this?
Mr. Turk. So again, we are in the stage right now, again,
no taxpayer funding is going to any of these companies yet. We
are doing a due diligence review. We are making sure that
everything that was included in the application was truly
represented, any awardee, any potential awardee, that is the
responsibility that they have on that end. As a broader
perspective, one thing--we are in a hole right now.
Unfortunately, most of--in fact, the vast majority of battery
manufacturing is in China right now. And a lot of that IP is in
China right now. And so we have to have an eyes-wide-open
strategy, spending taxpayer funding in the way that we all
would want taxpayer funding to be spent, reasserting our
leadership, and trying to bring as much of that, as quickly as
we can, to Chairman Manchin's point, here in the U.S. And that
is what we are trying to do.
Senator Barrasso. I mentioned the letter and then you said
it would be in my inbox. It has come in. It was dated
yesterday, arrived today, on taking some of these selections
for something like this. The letter says that we do a thorough
post-selection, risk-based due diligence review--after
selection. It makes you wonder why we don't make those
decisions before, as opposed to after the decision. Why
wouldn't we assess the risk before making a grant decision
about something like this?
Mr. Turk. So our goal is to be thorough and diligent
throughout the process, just to be incredibly clear. Certainly
before we spend any taxpayer money we go through a due
diligence process with these companies that were selected and
negotiate an award and do it again, and make sure we are being
diligent on that process. And again, making sure that our
intelligence colleagues are part of the process, our other
colleagues who have worked on these issues for years and years.
So we do this eyes-wide-open, looking for our strategic
interests.
Senator Barrasso. And I would just suggest that eyes-wide-
open would have been before making the selection, before making
the decision when you have this, to this level and this kind of
a history.
I want to move on to something that the Chairman also
mentioned, which were gas stoves. Last month, in an interview
with Bloomberg, Richard Trumka, Commissioner for the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, said that any options are on the
table, products that cannot be made safe can be banned. In
response, the White House said the Consumer Product Safety
Commission is not banning gas stoves. Secretary Granholm called
the story ridiculous and not true, she said. Well, I have
obtained the memo from October 25, 2022 from Commissioner
Trumka. Notice for proposal, ban on gas stoves--ban on gas
stoves. Here it is. This is the Administration.
[The memo referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. First sentence of this: ``The need for
gas stove regulation has reached a boiling point.'' I would say
what has reached a boiling point is anger against the Biden
Administration's insanity of proposing to ban gas stoves. It is
astonishing.
So who is lying? Is Mr. Trumka lying? Is the White House
lying? Is the Secretary lying? Because they are saying very
different things.
Mr. Turk. Let me be very clear, and the White House has
been clear on this. The President does not support banning gas
stoves. The Department of Energy does not support banning gas
stoves. We do efficiency regulations for all sorts of
appliances, household appliances. We have some pending right
now, some for electric stoves and gas stoves. We treat those
separately. And what I am told--and we need to make sure that
we are not talking past each other, Chairman, the nugget that
you referenced--what I am told is that these rules that would
come into effect in 2027, every major manufacturer already has
models, gas stove models that meet or exceed the level that we
are proposing for 2027.
So again, we are talking past each other. Let's figure that
out and make sure that we know what we are dealing with here.
Senator Barrasso. And my last question--the Infrastructure
Act included $6 billion for a credit program to prevent
existing nuclear reactors from closing prematurely. Since the
enactment of the bill, existing reactors become eligible for a
production tax credit. The tax credit is more than sufficient
to address the economic needs of the existing reactors. These
same reactors are now facing a new challenge, a different
challenge, and that is eliminating their dependency on Russian
uranium. Now, I believe a portion of the $6 billion should be
used to ensure the availability of U.S. nuclear fuel rather
than continuing to be dependent on Russia. America's nuclear
utilities agree. Do you support redirecting a portion of this
funding to ensure that we can supply our existing and advanced
reactors with U.S.-produced nuclear fuel?
Mr. Turk. So we support both taking care of our existing
reactors and we support a very robust, aggressive uranium
strategy for low-enriched uranium and HALEU. And thank you,
Senator, for your leadership on this issue for many, many
years.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just ask,
finally, unanimous consent to put this SEC filing in the
record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[Microvast SEC filing of December 14, 2021 follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Deputy Secretary Turk, thank you for your statement this
morning and for the agency's leadership in implementing these
important pieces of legislation. I think you captured it
correctly, we are making a record level of investment in the
United States to unleash an unprecedented level of private-
sector investment so we can win the innovation and opportunity
war, I guess, of the future, and to also make our grid more
secure. And while we hear a lot of different things here this
morning, the bottom line is, I know you were intimately
involved in the aftermath of the Colonial Pipeline, so I know
that you have been on the front lines of this fight. And so,
this is about strengthening both our resiliency and building a
system that makes the United States economy more secure. So I
appreciate your leadership on that.
One thing I wanted to ask about--we were able to author and
include the $2.5 billion transmission facilitation program as
part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill. So that helps
support the establishment of microgrids and updating
transmission lines. And we also--through the forthcoming anchor
tenant contract aspect of this--try to make sure that we are
enabling the kinds of development that we think are so
essential for a more secure, smarter grid. And that is
everything on fire and helping us with more intelligent
responses to fire. It is helping us with, as I said, on moving
energy around more effectively. So the deadline for those
proposals was just yesterday, February 1st. Can you share any
initial assessment, and do you anticipate a second round of
those RFPs in 2023?
Mr. Turk. Well, thank you, Senator. Let me thank you for
your leadership, not only for that particular provision--your
focus on grids and transmission for many, many years, but also
your leadership in the Science Committee as well. As we are
deploying and demonstrating, we have to keep our eye on
innovation in science and our national labs, and you have just
been a phenomenal leader. So I just want to appreciate that.
This transmission facilitation program, $2.5 billion, this
is a big, big deal. I am not sure people appreciate how
important this is as part of the overall package of what we are
doing. Part I did close just yesterday and we are moving into
Part II. I am very pleased with how things are moving along
with that program and happy to get into depth as helpful as
appropriate going forward, but----
Senator Cantwell. So you think there will be a second
round?
Mr. Turk. There will be a second phase of this. A lot of
what we are doing here to try to make sure we are spending this
money as wisely as we possibly can is having a part one and a
part two, similar to what we are doing on the hydrogen hubs,
where we have a concept paper and then ask for much more
fleshed-out information. We are trying to move deliberately
along those lines.
Senator Cantwell. Okay. So you just don't know if that is
2023 or not, is what you are saying.
Mr. Turk. We will move as quickly as we can, but again,
doing it right.
Senator Cantwell. Right. I appreciate that. I am just
trying to get a picture of----
Mr. Turk. Yes.
Senator Cantwell [continuing]. How we are doing on that.
But you like the projects, so that is important and I mean, are
you seeing quality investments is, I guess, my question.
Mr. Turk. We are seeing quality investments, and the need
here is just immense. One data nugget for this, and the
importance of transmission--and I know you understand this,
Senator, and I think a lot of your colleagues do as well--all
of the climate benefits that we get out of the bill and the
Inflation Reduction Act, if we can't improve the rate of
transmission build-out in our country, we lose 80 percent of
those climate benefits. So just to underscore how important
transmission is, and this program in particular.
Senator Cantwell. Exactly. Thank you for making that point.
That is exactly why we did it because the transformation needs
to include the grid. And if you don't make the grid smarter,
more capable, you are not going to be able to implement any of
it.
Mr. Turk. Absolutely.
Senator Cantwell. So you can't spend the money on electric
vehicles and then not have a grid that is capable of the
intelligence required.
Okay, let me turn to hydrogen. You know, one of the
provisions there in the bill was how can we accelerate the use
of hydrogen, both as an energy storage medium and to power
transportation, and it's particularly certain more in areas
that are difficult to decarbonize. And one of the provisions
was to produce and deploy benefits from green hydrogen. So on
the production side, our region is obviously blessed with
abundant carbon-free hydropower, and we already have several,
what I would call hydrogen fuel production facilities, and more
are in development, and I wanted to hear what you are thinking
as it relates to--I mean, this is so important for us in the
Northwest because we are already a big transportation area, so
you know, we want a robust freight network. We want our
maritime ports, you know, these applications, we continue to be
a big driver. The agricultural sector alone, on driving down
fertilizer cost, a key issue.
The infrastructure bill included $8 billion to establish
Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs. And one, at least, that is
produced from renewable energy. So what are you guys thinking?
What should applicants be thinking about as it relates to this
particular program? Can you describe how the Department is
thinking about this issue?
Mr. Turk. Yes, happy to do it, and just as you said, the
opportunity space here for us on hydrogen, whether it is in the
Northwest or Louisiana or many parts of our country, is just
huge, and this can be part of not only our solution here in the
U.S. to decarbonize hard-to-decarbonize sectors, but there is
also a global race going on right now to develop hydrogen
technologies and to be the manufacturing hub of the world for
these technologies as well. So as I mentioned in my opening, we
have a phenomenal opportunity in front of us, the $8 billion in
hydrogen hubs, $7 billion of which we have in a first tranche.
We had proposals from all across the country and what we
decided to do there is have a shorter concept paper, and now we
are in the stage of encouraging 33 of those applications, and
we discouraged an additional 46 of those applications to try to
give them an early signal before too much work is done that
this is meeting the criteria to get the most out of this money
as part of the overall hydrogen solution.
We now are going over those more detailed applications.
April 7th is when those are due, and we will be able to fully
look at those, and we are going to get the funding out by the
end of this year. So we are moving quite quickly on that front.
But that is just one part of our hydrogen strategy. We have
$750 million in green hydrogen, which is very much part of that
$7 billion. We also have the $750 million to drive the cost
down of electrolyzers, which are what make green hydrogen work.
And we have incredibly potent tax incentives for hydrogen,
especially green hydrogen production. That is part of the
Treasury tax regulations. All of these things work together.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I know I am out of time, Mr.
Chairman, but if I could just get further--I will follow up
with you, but I want to talk to you about the Advanced Nuclear
Demonstration Program, particularly in our state. So thank you
so much.
And I will just say, WSU, Washington State University, is
doing great work on hydrogen. It is amazing what we are going
to unleash. So thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cassidy.
Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Turk.
Mr. Turk, when one of your coworkers, Mr. Crane, was here,
he and I spoke about the DOE's proposed definition of clean
hydrogen that would change the legislative definition from two
kilograms of CO2 equivalent per kilogram of hydrogen
produced at the point of production to a life cycle requirement
of four kilograms of CO2 equivalent per kilogram of
hydrogen. Now we are told that an all-natural gas grid would be
counted in the life cycle analysis, but that an all-renewable
grid would not be required to take into account the mining,
refining, and manufacturing that went into developing that
renewable grid life cycle analysis. We are also told that small
producers of natural gas, who have received no compensation in
the hub, would nonetheless be considered contributors to the
life cycle analysis. This really seems like a thumb on the
scale, again, against natural gas--this, kind of, war on fossil
fuel the Administration seems to pursue.
Now, just let me ask. Where are we with this? And have we
modified those definitions that go against that which was
legislated?
Mr. Turk. Well, thank you, Senator, for your leadership on
hydrogen and CCUS and a variety of other key technologies for
your state and for our country. You are referring to the
production standard, which is trying to take a beyond-the-
fence-line life cycle analysis, making sure that we take into
account all the emissions associated with it. That is not a
regulatory standard and that is not a barrier to any applicant,
whether it is the hydrogen hubs or otherwise. And so we are
trying to be true to the legislative intent and trying to make
sure that with all of our funding, we are taking into account
the full range of emissions and being smart, smart about that--
--
Senator Cassidy. Now, but let me ask. When you said full
range, you are not including the life cycle of the renewable
grid and you are talking about solar and you are talking the
mining of lithium, the transportation of it, typically from
Asia, et cetera, et cetera. It's pretty dirty, actually.
Mr. Turk. So we need to take into account all of these----
Senator Cassidy. So is it? So I know you need to, but is
your current life cycle analysis still taking into account the
upstream on natural gas, if it is a natural gas fired plant,
and not taking into account the mining associated with lithium,
et cetera, to develop that solar panel farm?
Mr. Turk. So let me talk further. You mentioned David
Crane. Brad Crabtree is our colleague in charge of our Fossil
Energy and Carbon Management office as well. Our life cycle
analysis should be life cycle analysis and take into account
all the emissions throughout the life cycle.
Senator Cassidy. And so, again, I don't mean to drill, but
``it should''--that is a subjunctive. Is it?
Mr. Turk. That is what I need to talk to our colleagues on.
Senator Cassidy. And is it still taking into account the
small producer of natural gas who has no relationship
whatsoever to the hub, and yet we were told previously that
whatever the profile would be of that, would go into an
industry average as to the production of natural gas.
Mr. Turk. Well, we appreciate your continued guidance and
feedback on the hubs. We were trying to do this in the right
way to solicit information, to make sure that what we are
looking at, the criteria that we are looking at, we certainly
are being very solicitous, rightfully so, of not just looking
out for the big players, but also----
Senator Cassidy. But that is beside my point because I
don't--you mentioned earlier we are talking past each other.
Right now we are told that on the average emission profile of
the natural gas that will go to the natural gas-fired plant,
they have taken into account the smaller producers, which may
have not as good a profile. They are lumping it into an
average, so the folks that really care about this are not at an
advantage. In fact, they are being disadvantaged by including
those who, for whatever reason, may not have the same positive
profile. So again, I am asking specifically, does the current
rule still include those small producers in an industry average
when taking into account the life cycle profile?
Mr. Turk. So let me take that back with my colleagues, and
I am happy to have further conversations with you, Senator. I
don't know the current state on that particular nuance. So I am
happy to take that back.
Senator Cassidy. Sounds good. And I appreciate you coming
back with that.
Now, let me move on, kind of echoing what some of my
colleagues have spoken about. The issue of how do we--you
mentioned you have these different proposals for hydrogen hubs.
And in blue hydrogen we need to sequester that carbon.
Louisiana has worked incredibly hard, and collaborated with
Oklahoma and Arkansas to put together a proposal. Now, on the
blue hydrogen aspect of it, obviously, you sequester the
carbon. Louisiana cannot get primacy. We are told that our
application is actually being referred to as a model as to how
to get primacy when other states come and say, okay, what
format should we use? And we are told, and all due respect to
my Ranking Member, Wyoming, which is the only state, I
understand, or maybe one of two, that has gotten primacy, that
ours written a few years after meets more concerns of the
Federal Government. Theirs was good, ours is better. And we
still can't get it. It has been held up for, I think, years
now.
And so, if we are going to achieve these goals with all
these great, kind of, ``oh my gosh, don't we want to do it,''
and we can't get primacy. I feel like quoting Pogo--``we have
met the enemy and he is us,'' except in this case, it is the
Federal Government. So what can DOE do to actually move from
``yes, we really want it to happen,'' to ``yes, it has
happened.''
Mr. Turk. So we have a phenomenal opportunity on CCUS.
Thank you for the tools in our tool belt at DOE. We have got
the tax credit, which I think is going to be a game-changer,
and the 45Q enhancement as well. And we are trying to do
whatever we can with our EPA colleagues. I have had several
conversations. We have teams of ours working with EPA
colleagues, trying to inform their decision-making process and
we are certainly happy to continue that----
Senator Cassidy. But can the EPA stop this by themselves?
Is there no one over at the EPA that says, listen, you were
supposed to give us the decision a year ago last October and
yet, now we are still past October, not to mention past a year
ago October, and we still don't know when it is going to
happen?
Mr. Turk. So I am happy to talk about this with our White
House colleagues as well and try to make some progress and
understand the urgency of what you are saying. And we need to
make sure--whether it is permitting more generally or Class VI
wells--we need to make sure all parts of the equation are in
place so that we can move forward aggressively and ambitiously.
I Certainly take your point on that.
Senator Cassidy. I will finish by saying this: Part of the
goal of the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill is to leverage
private dollars. It was a lot of money but it is going to
unleash a lot more. One thing that lot more needs is certainty.
And the only thing they are getting right now is uncertainty.
So if the Administration actually wants to trigger this, and
the President really wants to be known for being an
environmental President, then we have got to unleash that
capital, and it will not, as long as they continue just to kind
of mess with people.
Mr. Turk. Point incredibly well taken. I think this is why
the tax incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act are so
important. Those are ten-year tax incentives. There is a lot
more window of certainty. There is a lot more planning horizon
out there. But I certainly take your point. We have got to have
all parts of the equation moving forward so that we have
certainty across the front for private-sector developers.
Senator Cassidy. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Now we have Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Deputy Secretary, it is great to see you again. Thank you
for joining us.
You know this, that there are exciting times right now in
Nevada with the emerging technology, and because of it, the
exciting economic boon it has been to my state. I do want to
talk about the battery grant program because I did work with
Chairman Manchin to include the creation of that battery grant
program at DOE for both manufacturing and recycling. And
obviously, we have to bolster the growth of our supply chains
in North America. So I do want to associate myself with some of
the concerns mentioned today about making sure that DOE is
vigilant about not funding operations with connections to the
Chinese Communist Party. That is why we included language that
related to foreign entity of concern. So I appreciate your
comments today on it, but can I just clarify what you said
today, that the money has not been allocated to Microvast. Is
that correct?
Mr. Turk. That is right. The term of art is ``selected to
negotiate an award.'' And so, that negotiation and that due
diligence is going on right now.
Senator Cortez Masto. And because of what you are learning
today and because of what we know, there is still a possibility
of ensuring that the money does not go to Microvast?
Mr. Turk. So for Microvast or any other company that is in
that category, there are 20 total companies as part of that
$2.8 billion.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay, so, just verification that as
we sit here today, based on your review, still moving forward,
what you heard today from my colleagues, there is the
possibility, based on that new information that we are hearing
today, that Microvast may not get allocated funds from the
grant program.
Mr. Turk. So for Microvast and any other company, that is
the process that we are in right now. And there is a purposeful
reason we do this ``selected for negotiating an award'' so that
we can do that due diligence, the additional due diligence. We
can make sure we are learning from our intelligence colleagues.
We are verifying all the accuracy of all the information that
was submitted in that first selection.
Senator Cortez Masto. We are going to follow up because I
want to move on here, but I absolutely have similar concerns
here. So please, please, know that, and we will be watching as
well.
I also want to stress what I have underscored with
Secretary Granholm multiple times. There is a lot more interest
for federal support in job creation, as you well know, in
Nevada--good domestic enterprises that can help us ensure we
are less reliant on foreign competitors for our critical
batteries and their components. Given that, can you speak to
the timeline of rolling out the other half of the battery
manufacturing funding from DOE? Because I have, obviously, in
my state, there are companies like Borman Specialty Materials,
Cox Automotive, and others that can re-apply to help drive our
needed economy in our recovery in Southern Nevada.
Mr. Turk. Well, I should have said at the outset, thanks
for your leadership on this work. And Nevada is incredibly
well-positioned. Many of your states are incredibly well-
positioned to take full advantage to get the jobs out of this.
We have got the first tranche, that we are in the process we
just talked about. I was just talking with my colleagues this
morning. We are trying to get that second tranche out as
quickly as we possibly can, and at the same time, learn from
what we got in the first tranche. So the first tranche just had
lithium battery companies. We would like to make sure that we
are broadly building out a diversified battery supply chain.
And so we will make sure that there is additional language and
focus to make sure that we are having our eyes wide open and
the aperture wide open.
We also want to make sure there are battery supply
companies across the board, across the manufacturing. We do not
want to have a certain point in the supply chain still be
beholden. So we are going to try to make sure that is right.
But we are moving quickly on that. Our team is working to learn
lessons from the first tranche and trying to do that as quickly
as we can.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Mr. Turk. And you know our Secretary, she wants to move
quickly on these things.
Senator Cortez Masto. Quickly, but at the same time----
Mr. Turk. Do it right.
Senator Cortez Masto [continuing]. Making sure we get it
right.
Mr. Turk. Exactly.
Senator Cortez Masto. Good. Thank you.
Critical minerals are increasingly essential for our
country to have that reliable supply of domestic critical
minerals. Nevada is a key partner in supplying the critical
minerals and that is why I fought to secure authorization in
the $400 million for DOE in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
to prioritize grants that focus on strengthening, like you have
talked about, every stage in our domestic critical mineral
supply chain. What can we expect from the forthcoming DOE
Fiscal Year 2024 budget to support this and other critical
mineral programs?
Mr. Turk. Critical minerals are absolutely key. It is a key
part, and I know you know that, Senator. I know others on the
Committee know that as well. We did an extensive piece of
analysis, I think it was 12 total reports. Other agencies did a
number of other reports analyzing where the critical minerals
are right now, not just the mining piece, and a lot of people
focus on the mining piece. It's important. But it's the
processing. It's the separation. It's all those intermediary
stages that, right now, are dominated by China, just to be very
clear.
Senator Cortez Masto. That's right.
Mr. Turk. And so we have to have a robust strategy that
takes that on. The bill funding is incredibly helpful here. The
IRA tax incentives and other funding, incredibly helpful here,
but we do think there are other things that could be done. Our
FY24 budget request, which we are negotiating right now with
the White House, will have significant additional funding and
programs to make sure we are moving very aggressively in that.
And it is domestic strategy, but there are also key partners,
whether it is Canada, countries in Latin America, or others, we
want diversified supply chains for critical minerals.
Senator Cortez Masto. Well, and I would hope as you move
through this process, you come back to us. It's one thing to
have the funding available. It's another not to have the
infrastructure at all for that funding. So I am hoping that you
are talking to us about the full supply chain here and where we
can continue to make investments.
Mr. Turk. Absolutely, and we need your continued guidance
and feedback, absolutely.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for being
here.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
And now we want to welcome our newest member, Senator Josh
Hawley, and thank him for gracing us with his appearance here
and also being part of this great committee. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would
also like to welcome Senator Hawley to the Committee. We are
delighted to have you representing the great State of
Missouri--excited, look forward to your continued advocacy for
American energy. Welcome to the Committee.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thanks to the Ranking Member.
The Chairman. And now for your questions, but if you have
any comments we are glad to have them too.
Senator Hawley. Well, no, I just want to say it is great to
be here. Thank you for having me.
Mr. Turk, you are familiar with the Manhattan Project, I
assume?
Mr. Turk. I am.
Senator Hawley. Are you familiar with the effects of the
Manhattan Project's radioactive waste on schoolchildren in
Missouri?
Mr. Turk. I am familiar with not only schoolchildren in
Missouri, but we have projects all across our country. We have
an environmental management program, about $8 billion a year
that works on those efforts.
Senator Hawley. Great. Well, let's talk about Missouri, if
we could. In the Hazelwood School District in the St. Louis
area, I would hope that you are aware that radioactive material
has been found in Coldwater Creek, which runs right near Jana
Elementary School. Are you familiar with this?
Mr. Turk. I am. I have had several conversations with our
team on this.
Senator Hawley. Good. Well, you will be aware then that
radioactive material has been found within 600 feet of Jana
Elementary School. Coldwater Creek has long been a site
designated with radioactive waste and material. Again, it goes
through the school district. There are multiple schools in the
Hazelwood School District. There was private testing done in
Jana Elementary itself, in the school building itself, paid for
by private parties that found radioactive material in the
building. On the basis of this, the Jana Elementary School is
now closed. The School Board took the very difficult decision
in having to close that school. Those students have been sent
home. They are now distance learning, which as we have learned
through COVID, is really not much learning at all. You have got
working parents who now have kids at home not able to learn,
all closed down.
I have asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to do
additional testing on Jana Elementary. They have refused. The
school district has asked them to do additional testing. They
have refused. The school district has now written to your
department, asking DOE to authorize testing of Jana Elementary
and every other school in the Hazelwood School District. Have
you seen their letter? They sent it to you a week ago.
Mr. Turk. I have seen their letter. We have talked about
it.
Senator Hawley. Good.
Mr. Turk. And we are eager to work with you and your staff
on this.
Senator Hawley. Okay. Does that mean you will be doing the
testing?
Mr. Turk. So we have had conversations, including with the
Army Corps, and I don't particularly understand where the Army
Corps is coming from.
Senator Hawley. Neither do I.
Mr. Turk. And so we are having conversations with them in
terms of the jurisdictional nature of it. But happy to have
conversations, happy to do right by citizens in Missouri and
elsewhere where we deal with the Manhattan Project
implications.
Senator Hawley. Well, with all due respect, I am not
particularly interested in the conversations. I am interested
in getting a result here. These parents have been waiting for
years, frankly, years, to get some cleanup done. I don't think
it's too much to ask that this school district, beginning with
Jana Elementary, but the entire school district, get proper
cleanup done and these kids be able to go to school in a place
that doesn't have radioactive waste within 600 feet of their
school or maybe in the building itself. So what the school
district has asked you to do is to authorize testing
immediately at the Jana Elementary site and every other school
building in the Hazelwood School District. They are not asking
the Army Corps for that, we have already tried that. They are
asking you. They are asking DOE.
So my question to you is, will you authorize it?
Mr. Turk. So I am happy to work with you on that, Senator.
I need to talk to the team and understand the particulars of
what is involved there. I don't understand right now the
particular intricacies of jurisdiction from the Army Corps and
what our involvement is. We need to have the statutory ability
to get involved in cases along these lines. So I just need to
talk to the team, but happy to work urgently on this.
Senator Hawley. What does that mean, you need to have the
statutory ability? Unlock that for me----
Mr. Turk. So the way it has been described to me is, the
Army Corps has been the principal government agency that has
been involved here, relevant here, as far as these issues go. I
just don't know what our involvement is from the DOE side of
things. What is our particular jurisdictional hook? What is our
ability to help in this particular situation? So that is what I
need to go back to our team on and get an answer for you.
Senator Hawley. Well, let me tell you how this sounds to
the parents. How this sounds to the parents is, they have, for
years, been asking to have the site cleaned up. Then they are
told that there is radioactive waste in a creek that their kids
play along, right adjacent to their elementary school
playground. Then they are told that another analysis has found
radioactive waste in the building. Then they are told that
their school will be closed and their kids were sent home.
So now the parents are wondering, have the kids been
exposed to radioactive material? The kids are now at home, not
able to learn. And what they hear from the Federal Government
is, and I have gotten the same runaround--``oh we're not sure,
oh we don't know.'' The Army Corps says ``well, I am not sure
we have authority to do any testing.'' You say you don't know
what your statutory authorizations are. Can we get some people
in a room together and figure this out so that we can get this
school tested and get it reopened? And if you are sensing a
certain impatience in my voice, it is because I am very
impatient about this.
Mr. Turk. Well, I am a parent too, and can certainly
appreciate and understand----
Senator Hawley. Well, let's do something about it.
Mr. Turk. Happy to get in a room. Happy to do it with the
Army Corps. We got the letter just a few weeks ago. We have
already had several conversations about what we can do to help
from the DOE side.
Senator Hawley. Well, if you got it weeks ago, I mean, why
is it that you don't have anything for me today?
Mr. Turk. I need to go back to our team and see where they
are at.
Senator Hawley. Okay.
Mr. Turk. The last communication I had was about a week and
a half ago on it.
Senator Hawley. Oh, for heaven's sake. Well, listen, while
we are sitting here talking----
The Chairman. Senator, if I could help you, maybe, on that,
because I just got information from staff. Sam has been here
longer and seen most of this legislation and I was told that
back maybe 20 years or more ago, Congress transferred that
authority to the Corps.
Mr. Turk. That's what I was alluding to.
The Chairman. He is trying to find out. We have to do that
here. And I agree with you, it should be done. It should be in
their hands. He doesn't have the authority right now. I am
understanding that it is still within the Corps' jurisdiction.
That's why it's so confusing. That should have never have
happened.
Senator Hawley. That may be true, Senator, and I appreciate
that. It's not so clear to me, actually. It looks like to me
there is maybe overlapping authority, but what I am trying to
do here is to light a fire.
The Chairman. No, I think----
Senator Hawley. And I just want, just on behalf of the
parents.
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Hawley. I just want them to, you know, they have
gotten the runaround for, literally, years. I just wanted to
let the record reflect that as we are sitting here chatting
about this, their kids are at home not getting educated. So
what I am asking you to do is figure it out and get me an
answer. And if we need to do something legislatively, we are
going to do it.
The Chairman. We have to do it. He cannot do that, what you
just asked him. We can and we must and we should do it as
quickly as possible. If you put your staff in touch with Sam
Fowler, we will have it ready for you immediately.
Senator Hawley. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I still
want an answer from you. I would like the school district, the
school district has a letter in to you. I would like you to
answer that. I want to be copied on it and I would like to see
a response.
Mr. Turk. We are more than happy to make this a top
priority, work with Sam, work with the Chairman, work with your
staff, Senator, and try to do whatever we can from our end to
be helpful. If there is legislation that is needed, great. This
is what we do. This is what our environmental management
program does.
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
And now we have Senator Kelly.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turk, thank you for being here again. I want to talk a
little bit about the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. It contains
a provision that I authored, which directs the department to
promote the installation of demand-response technology in
federal buildings. And as you know, demand-response technology
includes smart thermostats and appliances that could save
consumers money and also stabilize the electrical grid during
those times when we have peak energy demand and demand is too
high.
DOE promotes demand-response in federal and commercial
buildings already, but the Infrastructure Law explicitly added
demand-response to the mission and authorizes grants to states
to implement this. And we have seen this work in Arizona. In
2020, in the summer, there was a regional heat wave that
spanned 12 western states and it forced the State of California
to implement some rolling blackouts, or brownouts.
Arizona, though, was able to keep its lights on and the air
conditioning running because our utility providers deployed
networked smart thermostats in tens of thousands of homes and
buildings. And these smart devices, they were remotely adjusted
by utilities to conserve power. So they turned down or they
turned off, essentially, the air conditioning, in tens of
thousands of homes, just temporarily. If this happened in your
house and you wanted to turn it back on, you could just walk
over to the thermostat and turn it back on immediately. But
that saved Arizona from a significant problem that summer. In
exchange--and this is a good deal--in exchange for voluntary
participation, customers got a rebate or a discount, and some
Arizona utilities were able to sell excess electricity to
California and post the revenues as savings to customers'
monthly bills. And this was done--remember this--this was done
during a heat wave.
So Mr. Turk, could you provide an update on the
implementation of the demand-response provisions in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and to the extent you can today,
here, but also, could you provide us with a more detailed
written report of where we are?
Mr. Turk. Yes, thank you, Senator, and thanks for your
focus on demand-response. This is a big, big deal, and done
right, could be, just as you said, a winner for everybody
involved--saving money, making sure that we are using the
assets that we have, especially in peak load and challenging
weather situations. We have focused on this for many years. The
additional tools that you and other colleagues have provided in
the bill are going to be incredibly helpful on this, including
working through FEMP, but otherwise as well. We have something
called the Smart Buildings Accelerator that is trying to get
this out there even more broadly. Our Building Technology
Office is a real leader in this area, working with states,
local communities, and utilities across the country.
So this is a big deal and will leverage those build
resources as much as we can, but we are building demand-
response into a lot of our other tools in the tool belt,
looking at ways we can use our loan program to help aggregators
and others make sure we get the most out of these tools. But
this is a big deal now, and it is going to be a big deal even
more in the future. And thank you for your leadership and
Arizona's leadership on this.
Senator Kelly. Yes, if you could get us, you know,
something in writing----
Mr. Turk. Happy to do it.
Senator Kelly [continuing]. About where we are, how many
buildings to date, if there have been any that it has been
implemented in, and you know, what are the future plans.
Mr. Turk. Happy to do that, Senator.
Senator Kelly. Thank you.
Another subject: as you know, the West has been
experiencing its driest period in 1,200 years, and we are in a
drought that has been going on for over two decades. And
according to DOE estimates, the drought has reduced hydropower
generation at our federal dams on the Colorado River by 30
percent already. And DOE's Western Area Power Administration,
WAPA, and the Bureau of Reclamation deliver that hydropower to
certain public entities, like irrigation and rural electrical
districts, tribes, and local governments. In exchange, these
public entities pay rates and maintenance fees for the dam and
the transmission infrastructure that goes with it.
Unfortunately, their power contracts require that these public
entities pay the operation and maintenance fees even when the
dams can't generate electricity. And for a lot of us in the
West, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
You know, additionally, these customers, at the same time,
have to buy more expensive electricity on the open market when
the dams cannot generate the electricity that they were
intended to produce. So Mr. Turk, could you direct the
Department and WAPA to provide my office with an estimate of
the amount of funding needed to cover the operations and
maintenance obligations of the public entities that receive
hydroelectric power from federal dams on the Colorado River?
Mr. Turk. Yes, absolutely, Senator, and the drought is a
big, big deal, including on the energy infrastructure--
hydropower, in particular. So we are spending a lot of time,
including working with the Department of the Interior and
others on this.
The estimate I have right on hand, and we will get you the
full details, is about $125 million, but we will follow up with
a lot more detail on that. Happy to work with you and WAPA and
others on that.
Senator Kelly. All right, thank you. I appreciate it.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turk, thank you very much for visiting Hawaii last
month to take part in the Hawaii Clean Energy Forum hosted by
the University of Hawaii. I am glad that you were able to meet
people directly and see for yourself part of what Hawaii is
doing to achieve its goals of 100 percent renewable power by
2045 and to build an economy with net-zero carbon pollution
emissions by the same date. And Hawaii is creating a blueprint
that others can follow. I am going to give you a broad
question. What did you learn in your trip to Hawaii, aside from
that it is a beautiful place, about Hawaii's leadership on
clean energy?
Mr. Turk. Well, it was a pleasure to come and visit your
beautiful state. I was there for about 36 hours and then got
back on a red-eye plane coming back to DC.
Senator Hirono. Yes.
Mr. Turk. I have to say, I came away incredibly impressed.
Your new Governor, Governor Green, who I had a chance to spend
several hours with, and his new team coming in, was incredibly
impressive. Everyone who is involved in energy, especially in
clean energy, and Hawaii has been a leader for many, many
years, including having some of the most ambitious goals,
earliest, of any state out there. It seemed like there was a
wind at the back and everybody was working well together. So
the conversation we had and we are following up on is, all
these tools now in our tool belt--expanded tool belt--how can
we bring those to help, whether it's on PV, whether it's on
grid, whether it's on wind, onshore and potential for offshore,
geothermal potential in Hawaii. I visited an agri-voltaic site,
which I think is incredibly exciting, to do the PV, but also at
the same time, grow crops, incredibly, for potential use in
Hawaii, but elsewhere as well.
So I came away incredibly impressed, and especially in the
Governor's new term, it feels like this is a real window to
double down, working with you, working with your staff and
again, trying to leverage all these tools that you all have
given us through the Bipartisan Infrastructure legislation and
the IRA as well.
Senator Hirono. We put in a lot of money to enable states
like Hawaii to get on with moving away from dependence on
fossil fuel, which Hawaii has made incredible progress on,
because we were the most fossil fuel dependent state in the
entire country, and we paid more for our electricity than any
other state, and all of the things that we are doing are for
the purpose of not only environmental issues, but to enable us
to pay far less. Part of what we need to do is grid
modernization. And as we move forward with enabling more homes
to get the storage units into their homes and get a rebate, or
an incentive to that, so grid modernization will enable the
homeowners to not only pay zero for their home energy, but also
to be able to put energy into the system. So the grid has to be
able to handle all that. It is pretty complicated. So, is part
of the kind of tools and resources that we have made available
through the various bills that we enacted going to help Hawaii
be able to modernize its grid so that all this can be happening
in as rapidly a fashion as possible so we can meet our 2045
goals?
Mr. Turk. So the short answer is yes, but we have to work
deliberately and with an urgency and sense of purpose and look
at the tools on the tool belt. We have this new Office, the
State and Community Energy Program Office. The head of that
office was actually with me in Hawaii to make sure that we had
that follow-up so that we can work hand-in-hand following the
lead of what Hawaii wants to do, but use these tools to support
that. One effort that I referenced to the Governor, which I
think is a pretty impressive tool, is something our National
Renewable Energy Lab, NREL, has developed. They worked with Los
Angeles on LA100. The Secretary actually is, right now, down in
Puerto Rico for Puerto Rico 100 (PR100). The idea is to use the
technical expertise that we have in the U.S. Government,
working hand-in-hand, not only with elected officials, but
local groups and utilities and others, and develop a plan going
forward.
How do we actually build out that grid? The grid is so
important, just as you mentioned, along those lines. So we
would be eager to have further conversation to see if that kind
of broader analysis, that kind of stakeholder engagement--
obviously, it will be Hawaii-driven and Hawaii-led, but we are
eager for the Department of Energy to support that in any way
we can.
Senator Hirono. So speaking of things like technical
assistance et cetera, could you provide an update on what DOE
is doing to implement the 21st Century Advisory Workforce
Board, because presumably all of this effort to get us to a
renewable situation is going to create different kinds of jobs.
So this was an amendment that I offered to the IIJA, with
Senator Cantwell, to establish a board of experts to promote or
provide recommendations to the Secretary of Energy supporting
current and future energy sector workforce needs. So can you
update me on what is happening with the creation of this
workforce board?
Mr. Turk. Well, first, thanks for your leadership with
Senator Cantwell on this incredibly important provision. The
charter for this is coming out in two weeks and then we will
have nominations in May. So we are trying to move very quickly
on this.
Senator Hirono. Good. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turk, thank you very much for being with us today.
I think the three essential priorities to getting us to a
clean energy future are: number one, storage; number two,
storage; and number three, storage. You are astride a whole
series of provisions of the infrastructure bill involving
research and development for storage technologies. I guess the
first thing is to get from you, I hope, a sense of urgency
about this.
Mr. Turk. So there is an absolute sense of urgency on this,
and not just for the near-term storage, the battery technology,
but the long-duration energy storage as well. It was one of our
very first--I think it was in our second Energy Earthshot that
we put out a very aggressive goal to drive down those costs of
long-duration energy storage because we will need to have that
in our tool kit as well.
Senator King. Well, long-duration, and one of the concerns
I have is there is a bipartisan letter that went out just in
the last week----
Mr. Turk. I saw it.
Senator King [continuing]. On how we can't just put all of
our eggs in the lithium-ion basket, and I hope that there is a
diversity of research on other technologies. We had testimony
here, fascinating testimony, about iron-oxygen, which I think
is happening in West Virginia and other--you know, molten salt
and old-fashioned pumped storage. So I am very much hopeful
that the Department will have a wide aperture in terms of the
technologies that you are looking at.
Mr. Turk. So absolutely. There is a wide variety of really
impressive technologies, a lot of them that have been developed
in our labs or in partnership with private companies out there.
As you referenced in the letter, and thank you very much for
the letter, the first $2.8 billion that went out on battery
manufacturing did just have lithium. It was open to other types
of technology, but those were the ones that our team--and these
are civil servants making these judgments--felt were most
mature for this first tranche. What we have said is, let's go
back with the second tranche, which we are trying to get out as
quickly as we can, and make sure that aperture is open wide.
But that is just one tool in the tool belt. We have ARPA-E. We
have any number of other funding streams that are working on a
wide variety of other energy storage technologies. And because
it is so important, we need to have a diversified array of
potentials.
Senator King. And one of the potentials that you did not
mention that I think is important is recycling, in two ways--
recycling batteries themselves, but also using after-life
automobile batteries in accumulation to provide longer-term
grid storage.
Mr. Turk. I completely agree. And one of the best parts of
this job is going out to our labs and visiting with
entrepreneurs who are working on some of these technologies.
And some of the technologies have the greater potential for
recycling. And we certainly want to take advantage of all of
these. We are building out our battery manufacturing here in
the U.S., $92 billion of public and private investments----
Senator King. Amazing investment in the last----
Mr. Turk. It is just amazing. That is going to be an awful
lot of batteries out there, and we need to make sure we have a
plan in place to recycle, to make the most out of that
resource.
Senator King. Well, that leads me to my next question,
which is the establishment of standards. There is a provision
in the law, I think it is Section 40111, that talks about
establishing standards and safety measures because--you say an
awful lot of batteries--we have got to be sure they are safe
and effective. And I hope that is also a focus of your work.
Mr. Turk. Absolutely, a real priority. Thanks for flagging
that one in particular.
Senator King. Well, I think that is very important. Now,
this leads us to permitting reform, Mr. Chairman. Permitting
reform is--we are in a race against time here and we can't--we
have had testimony before this Committee that it takes over ten
years to permit a pumped storage project, which is a 100-year-
old technology. It is very well-established and well-known. We
cannot afford that. And the same thing goes with whether it's
acquiring lithium. I did some research recently. It turns out
that about 70 percent of the lithium that we use comes from
Australia. That's good. The problem is, 87 percent of the
processed lithium comes from China. And we have got to develop
that kind of technology as well, and that is going to involve
being able to do it on a timely and predictable basis because,
again, the goal here is clean energy, but we cannot allow the
permitting process itself, not standards, but the process
itself, to become a barrier to having us achieve that clean
energy future. It would be ironic if environmental objections
to copper, for example, which we need to expand the grid, ended
up compromising or crippling our ability to expand the grid in
order to accommodate a cleaner energy future. Do you follow me?
Mr. Turk. I completely agree, and we have to do a better
job, and we have to do a better job across the board on
permitting. And it's not just the mining piece, it's the
processing piece, it's the separation and diversifying those
supply chains, working with Australia and other partners, but a
lot of those jobs can be here in the U.S. as well. One area in
particular that we are very focused on is transmission
permitting.
Senator King. Well, I was just--that was my next question.
And one of the issues about transmission is, there is this odd
incentive structure in the utility business where you get your
rate of return based on how much you spend to build the
project. What we have got to talk about in transmission is
improvements to the existing grid that may be way less
expensive than building all new towers and wires, but would
give us increased capacity. And perhaps this should be a
discussion with FERC, but I think we really need to talk about
how to develop the technology to increase the grid's capacity
without starting all over.
Mr. Turk. I think it makes perfect sense, and one of our
new offices we created with the bill funding is the Grid
Deployment Office. Phenomenal leadership in that office,
phenomenal team, working on exactly those kinds of things and
being smart about it.
Senator King. And I think we do need to talk to FERC and
NARUC about the disincentive to cost-effectively upgrade the
grid as opposed to building a whole new transmission.
Mr. Turk. We don't have the time to just let things
organically happen. We have got to accelerate. We need to
connect those dots.
Senator King. And the permitting is a lot easier if you are
putting gizmos on existing towers rather than cutting a new
path through the people's backyards.
Mr. Turk. Absolutely.
Senator King. Final, just quick point. How are you doing on
staffing? What you are stepping into now is a huge undertaking
in terms of grants and monitoring, frankly, and the accounting
and all of that, the contract work. I have heard recently you
were about a thousand people down. You have done some hiring
back. Where does that stand?
Mr. Turk. Yes, so I have been very pleased with the
applicant pool, even though it is a tight labor market, when we
established our clean energy corps, which was a way to build up
our staffing to staff all these new provisions. We ended up
getting tens of thousands of applications, incredible talent,
not just----
Senator King. People that are interested in the mission.
Mr. Turk. I think they are interested in the mission. They
are interested in doing what we can in the U.S. to save our
planet, and at the same time, an awful lot of jobs and
communities benefiting from it.
So we are now at an additional 400, just over 400 new staff
that have come on for the bill and IRA provisions as well. We
have got about another 100 in the pipeline that will be coming
on shortly, and we will need to staff-up further from there.
But we are trying to do it in a very disciplined way and in a
very deliberate way, but still urgently as well. And some
phenomenal talent--I have to say, it is one of my favorite
things to meet with some of the new staff coming on, the
mission drive, the excitement to be part of the Department of
Energy at this golden era is really inspiring.
Senator King. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great, thank you for your testimony
and your time and your service.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The IIJA--I-JA, as we call it--revived an important federal
authority to identify areas that need transmission, and it
provided a federal path for siting and permitting when states
fail to do so, and some of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission started their process for implementation of the
backstop siting authority. Can you update us on that timeline
for DOE's identifying and designating corridors of interest?
Mr. Turk. Yes, so we are working very quickly on that. We
have got this Grid Deployment Office focused on it. And I am
told the report, the Needs Study, will be out very soon. So I
don't know, Jeremiah, if you have a further update on that, but
hopefully that is days and weeks. Days--oh wow.
Senator Hickenlooper. That's a good answer.
Mr. Turk. And that leads to the corridors, right? That is
the process.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, no, I got that. Good answer.
Thank you.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure bill's Regional Clean
Hydrogen Hubs program is a, I think, generational opportunity
for commercializing clean hydrogen across sectors. We have to
acknowledge that not all end-users are created equal. What we
are showing here is what Michael Liebreich, founder of
Bloomberg New Energy Finance, calls his Hydrogen Ladder.
[Poster of Liebreich's Hydrogen Ladder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1458.276
Senator Hickenlooper. It is simply one expert's prediction
as to where hydrogen will find the most promising uses, taking
into account both the attributes of hydrogen, but also the
competition it is up against from other clean resources.
Specific predictions aside, what is DOE doing to critically
assess the long-term promise of different end-uses with
evaluating applications for hydrogen hubs, and are you thinking
about supply or demand side support measures as well?
Mr. Turk. So we are absolutely thinking about both the
supply and the demand and the pipeline, another way to get the
hydrogen around. Michael Liebreich is a friend of mine. I have
worked with him for years, and I find his ladder incredibly
interesting and helpful. We are doing our analysis. We put out
our report--our strategy, our hydrogen roadmap that is trying
to think very comprehensively about this, what tools we have in
our tool belt. We have got a lot more tools now, thanks to your
leadership and others on the hydrogen front to really move out
on that. And we have the tax credit, which I think is going to
be a real game-changer on hydrogen as well. It is a very potent
tax incentive along those lines.
The other thing we have done internally so that we can be
coherent and strategic is, we have created a hydrogen joint
strategy team. So there are a lot of offices in DOE that have
some hydrogen tools in their tool belt, and we want to make
sure it is part of a comprehensive strategy. So this joint
strategy team, it is made up of dozens of people across many,
many offices, is working, I think, quite well, to make sure we
have a coherence in the strategy, just as you are suggesting.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great.
And last question--even if we stopped emitting all
CO2 today, we would still benefit considerably from
removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In our most recent
FY23 appropriations bill, Congress included language
establishing a pilot program expanding the kinds of carbon
dioxide removal technologies that could receive federal support
through the direct procurement of atmospheric CO2.
How does the Department plan on implementing this provision as
a complement to provisions in the IIJA?
Mr. Turk. Well, thanks for your leadership on that. I
completely agree, we are going to need cost-effective carbon
dioxide removal technologies, and there is a variety of
different technologies that are potentially relevant here. And
we are going to move out aggressively on that. We do have
funding from the bill, the Direct Air Capture Hubs, which we
are moving out quite quickly on, and I appreciate your thought
leadership and your guidance to make sure we are eyes-wide-open
with a wide aperture in terms of the technology space here and
trying to be smart about that funding.
Senator Hickenlooper. Right. Sometimes when you start off
on that slower rate you can actually have your eyes dilated and
you get more--I guess you see more color saturation is what
someone would say.
Mr. Turk. Well, in one of our Earthshots, it is exactly to
try to accelerate--compress timelines and use all tools,
including ARPA-E and other parts of our DOE offices to be
helpful in this space.
Senator Hickenlooper. You are either going to have a great
time or you are going to have a really hard time.
Mr. Turk. We have got to work it, we have got to work it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Got to make it work. You have no
choice. Thank you.
Mr. Turk. Absolutely.
Senator Hickenlooper. I yield back to the Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Really quickly on that--when do you expect to make some of
your announcements on the hydrogen hubs?
Mr. Turk. So the hydrogen hub timeline is--we have done the
33 encouraged, 46 not--April 7 is when the full applications
are in, and they are going to make selections no later than Q4.
But as you know from our Secretary, she is going to try to move
that timeline up, but do it right.
The Chairman. Got you.
Real quick, I just have a couple questions, if I may?
The infrastructure bill provided $300 million for DOE's
Carbon Utilization Program, which includes projects to
commercialize innovative uses of coal. The CHIPS Act also
authorized coal innovation projects at DOE. We know that coal
has so many values to it, not just for burning, creating fire,
and heating and making steam to produce energy. Projects have
shown that coal and waste coal can be used to process graphite
for batteries, metal composites, building materials, rare earth
elements, and other essential products that are going to be
needed for the construction, defense, and energy industries in
more sustainable ways than the traditional methods being used
today. However, the DOE recently terminated some promising
projects to commercialize new uses for coal. It seems like they
have a hard time accepting that coal has more values, since
they want to eliminate it. DOE has said that there is a lack of
funding for these projects, despite the hundreds of millions of
dollars that Congress has made available.
So my question would be, will you all continue to support
commercialization of innovations, uses for coal, including from
newly mined coal or from coal waste? We have a commercial
project now where rare earth minerals are being extracted from
coal waste. It has already been mined. You don't have to do
anything. Just clean it up. And are you all going to ensure
that funding from the infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act
will be used to support this work?
Mr. Turk. Well, and you know, Senator, we have been working
as a Department on this, including our NETL colleagues that you
know very well.
The Chairman. Very well.
Mr. Turk. Brian Anderson and the team there.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Turk. We have got a whole team, the Minerals
Sustainability Division in our Fossil Energy and Carbon
Management Office, focused on this. What I am told is, we have
got four smaller pilot projects out there.
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Turk. And there are plans to try to build from that. So
I'm happy to talk further with you and your staff to make sure
we are going forward in a way that makes sense.
The Chairman. I just think what we have to do is, you know,
I have already talked about using the all-of-the-above energy
that we have and all the resources we have. We have been, for
far too long, asking other parts of the world to do what we
consider the dirty work that we would not do for ourselves. And
we do it better and cleaner and more environmentally correct
than anyplace else in the world. So I will be talking to
Secretary Granholm more about this, and to the White House.
The other one I have is that the White House recently
issued guidelines about how greenhouse gas emissions are
considered for NEPA reviews. One of my concerns with this
guidance is that it clearly favors renewables over fossil
projects. Let me be very clear--this Administration has
misaligned the purpose of the IRA. The IRA is for energy
security, and it has been touted by the Administration as
strictly an environmental bill. I don't know if people know,
you cannot put a windmill up unless you are extracting. You
cannot put a solar farm on BLM lands unless you are extracting.
We have to have fossil fuels in our mix and be fossil fuel
independent rather than asking Iran to produce more oil to
bring the market prices down, knowing it has a global effect,
and we are saying, oh, let's ask Iran, the most prolific
terrorist supporter in the world, to give them more resources
to do more destruction to humankind. It makes no sense, but on
that, we seem to be fighting this continuously. And all we are
doing is saying we do it better than anyplace in the world. And
if we do it--replace our dirty fossil from around the world
with our clean fossil from the U.S.--that is a tremendous,
tremendous support of the environment. I like to think we take
a balanced approach.
The guidance says agencies should accelerate permitting for
projects that have no emissions, or that reduce emissions, and
the guidance provides only solar and wind projects as an
example. It does not even talk about, you know, the fossil fuel
emissions that can be reduced with carbon capture. So I guess,
how do you look at NEPA reviews for grants and loans, and are
you going to give carbon capture the same priority as you do
for renewables?
Mr. Turk. Well, thanks for the question, Chairman, and I
should say a big thanks, certainly on behalf of the Department,
and frankly, the American people, for all your leadership, not
only on the bill but the IRA and the energy security benefits--
--
The Chairman. Do you know how frustrating it is to
basically have a piece of legislation that every Democrat voted
for and see the Administration trying to change the
implementation of it? Do you know how frustrating it is to go
and fight the way we did and have to then go back and fight our
own Administration to do the right thing?
Mr. Turk. Well, just to put it on the record for myself and
our Department, the energy security benefits, the affordability
benefits, we are seeing benefits already from the IRA and the
bill, all across the country.
The Chairman. Well, how about the world? And if you could
talk about this, David, about the interest that the rest of the
world has in the United States. We came from last place--as far
as our investments, being convinced that we could do things
more innovative and creatively--to first. And now, because I
heard from all of Europe--trust me, I am hearing from Europe.
Mr. Turk. I know you are hearing it. I am hearing it. I
think, frankly, there is a jealousy, and that is a good
motivator for others to get their acts together as well. And we
are seeing that in Europe with President von der Leyen and
others. We need to race to the top. And you, through your
leadership, have put us in the lead.
The Chairman. Well, all of us here.
Mr. Turk. All, thank you.
The Chairman. And the bottom line is, is that we met with
the representatives from the European Union yesterday in my
office, letting them know that we want to do things. The thing
I was discouraged by was that we could not, being the
superpower of the world, help our European friends and our
neighbors and our allies quickly enough when Putin weaponized
energy, trying to destroy their economy and harm their
citizens. That is why we said, let's do a piece of legislation
that uses the resources that we have in the cleanest fashion to
be energy independent, using the fossil power we have,
investing $369 billion to create the new technology--less
carbon, if you will, but also not replacing what we need now
until we have the other of them do the job. That is all we try
to do. And I don't know why we are in denial.
Mr. Turk. Well, my hope is we are going to have such cost
reductions because of all that you have done, other Committee
members have done----
The Chairman. We are accelerating.
Mr. Turk. That is going to help us not only in the U.S.----
The Chairman. That is----
Mr. Turk. But it is going to help the rest of the world,
including the developing countries of the world who need these
technologies so that they can have energy, they can have the
benefits----
The Chairman. I want to put this on the record too. When I
was meeting with all the Europeans, I said, listen, I did not
fault you all when you all went down and you wanted cap and
trade and you went carbon pricing. It did not accelerate the
innovative and creative spirits it would take to fix it. Once
the pricing got into the market, do you follow me?
Mr. Turk. Yes.
The Chairman. It was accepted, this is what you are going
to pay. This is the cost of the product. And it was all
accepted. We took the, you know, the carrot and the stick. They
used the stick for years and we were not able to mature and
accelerate quickly enough. We did not pick energy technologies
that were conceptual. We picked energy technologies that we
knew were already, you know, proven. We just never matured
them. Now we are going to mature hydrogen, small modular
reactors, and battery storage, all of the things that need to
be done to go the direction we want.
And I told the Europeans, we are sharing that with you all.
We will share it with you. If you can come to, you know, to
innovative and creative opportunities quicker than we, you will
share it with us. We did this because we were not able to, I
think, to be able to perform our responsibilities as a
superpower of the world, to help all the freedom-loving
democracies that we have to support, and we have taken an oath
to. That was the reason, what we have done. Please quit
fighting, just tell them. Work with us.
Mr. Turk. This is a race to the top and this is how we get
it done. And I think the dynamic and your leadership--our
leadership in the U.S.--is playing an incredibly helpful role,
and I know history will record this very favorably. People may
not appreciate that.
On Ukraine, I have to say, just to tell the Committee we
have a second tranche going over on military transport right
now of electrical equipment going to Ukraine. We have a third
tranche coming about a month from now, but that is just a
direct part of what we are trying to do to help our incredibly
brave Ukrainian friends and colleagues.
The Chairman. Senator King, I think you had a follow-up?
Thank you.
Senator King. First, I just love the image of you giving
them hell in Davos.
The Chairman. It was front and center. It was a frontal
attack, I will tell you one thing, but I had to convince them
that we are still allies and we are on the same side here. We
are trying to help each other and we think we can do it
quicker.
Senator King. I have this picture in my mind on that.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. I would've loved to have been a fly on the
wall.
The Chairman. You would have enjoyed it.
Senator King. I'm sure I would have.
The Chairman. Chancellor Scholz, myself, and Macron and the
whole group, it was something.
Senator King. I dare say they've never seen nothin' like
you.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I won't comment on that.
Senator King. Okay.
Mr. Turk, we have been talking about large projects--energy
storage, batteries, all those kinds of things. I hope that
there is attention being paid also to smaller, sort of,
individual things. I have an app on my phone that controls my
furnace at home and I can turn the temperature down to 65 or 66
during the day when I am not there and an hour before I go
home, I turn it up to 72 or 70. And I got a message from the
company that makes the thermostat--it saved me 29 percent on my
energy bill last year. And all over America, we are heating
space where nobody is, we are cooking water that nobody needs
at that particular moment, and I think there is a huge
opportunity for using personal technology.
The other factor is providing people with information about
their energy use. A simple dashboard that people can look at to
see what they are using in their home heating and their
electricity. There is something called the Prius Effect, which
is they find that people that drive automobiles that tell them
how much energy they are using tend to use less energy. Forget
about the technology of the automobile. If you ever hear about
me running into a tree, it will probably be because I am
looking at that chart trying to get an extra tenth of a mile
out of the mileage.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. So what I am suggesting is, think small as
well as big, and think about these technologies. There is
enormous potential in this device [the Senator holds up a
cellphone] for energy control and using energy much more
efficiently. The cheapest and cleanest kilowatt-hour is the one
that is never used. And I believe there is still room for
conservation and creative use of energy as opposed to the
profligate heat the house all day, even though nobody is there.
Thoughts?
Mr. Turk. So I could not agree more with you, Senator. Just
another nugget on there, and I think the potential here is
huge. And frankly, some of our IT companies are not doing what
they should be doing. This is a great way to leverage their
business resources and be a helpful corporate partner as well.
Google and Google Maps has a new feature, I guess it has
now been out for maybe a year or so. It has a little leaf when
you plot what course you want to go in. That leaf is powered by
NREL and our analysis. So our national labs are putting
information in there that allows Google Maps to say this route
is more energy efficient. You may consider doing this, and it
is only one minute longer than the route that you might have
been going otherwise. So I think that is an incredibly powerful
example of exactly what you are talking about,
Senator King. People will often make--or usually make--the
right decision if they have the data.
Mr. Turk. If they have the data and if you make it easy for
them, this is where, to Senator Hickenlooper's question, smart
demand-response, and automating it, and people can override it,
right, if they, if their Nest thermostat is doing something
that they don't want, override it, but you save an awful lot of
money if you are smart about it. And we need to have the
incentives in place for the aggregators, for the IT companies,
to leverage that. But I could not agree more on that.
Senator King. Well, I hope you might have a small bureau, a
small office of cool stuff.
Mr. Turk. We will call it the ``Cool Stuff Office.''
Senator King. Yes, of people that are thinking about, you
know, not the huge, big, multimillion or billion dollar
projects, but thinking about these kinds of apps and
technologies that can be used to conserve and save energy,
which, as I say, the cheapest and cleanest kilowatt-hour is the
one that is not used.
Mr. Turk. I was talking with Cass Sunstein, who may be
someone that some folks know. He was helping the Department of
Homeland Security. He called it the ``default effect.'' If you
are able to use technologies and get people using less energy
as a default, they can still override, but you save an awful
lot of energy if you do it in a smart, kind of, thoughtful way.
So I love your idea. I will take it back and we will see what
we can do to be even more helpful in this space.
Senator King. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper, do you have any follow-
ups?
Senator Hickenlooper. No, just, I think this is a great
conversation to have. As always, well put together and I really
appreciate you taking the time and the staff to really be well
prepared to come in and answer these questions quickly and
pretty much give encouraging, you know, ambitious answers,
which is, you know, what we need to do.
The Chairman. Well, let me just say, David, thank you. As
you can tell, the interest everyone has here and all that, but
you know, truly if they--the position we are in right now is
enviable for the whole world. We never thought we would get
here. It was a very trying and hard time to get here. We have a
balanced approach, and that is all we are saying is the United
States of America should not depend on any other nation to
supply us the energy that we need to defend ourselves and help
our allies. That's it. What we should do is continue to be a
leader, and if you want to be a superpower, you had better be
energy independent and secure, and that's what we are trying to
do.
So please tell my dear friend, the Secretary, that we are
in this together. We are all working together and we will make
it happen. And I can tell you, you have the support from this
Committee.
So with that being said, members will have until close of
business tomorrow to submit any additional questions that you
may have for the record.
The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]