    [Senate Hearing 118-328]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-328

                         THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST
                           FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                          ENERGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 16, 2024

                                   __________

    [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
    55-890                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   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
    JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
    ALEX PADILLA, California             JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri

                          Renae Black, Staff Director
                          Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                Zahava Urecki, Senior Professional Staff Member
                  Justin J. Memmott, Republican Staff Director
               Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
           Valerie Manak, 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........................................................     4

                                    WITNESS

    Granholm, Hon. Jennifer M., Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy.     7

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
        Chart entitled ``Changes in Energy Prices''..................     6
    Granholm, Hon. Jennifer M.:
        Opening Statement............................................     7
        Written Testimony............................................     9
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    53
    Hawley, Hon. Josh:
        Poster depicting question from Senator Hawley to Secretary
          Granholm at April 20, 2023 hearing of the Senate Committee
          on Energy and Natural Resources............................    42
        Poster displaying timeline from 2022-2023....................    44
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    United Against Nuclear Iran:
        Letter addressed to Secretary Granholm and NREL President
          Martin Keller, dated March 25, 2024........................   145

                         THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST
                           FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                          ENERGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2024

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 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 would like to start by welcoming my friend,
    Secretary Jennifer Granholm, who is here today to discuss the
    President's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request for the Department
    of Energy. Thank you for being here today, Secretary.
        As Chairman of this Committee and Senator from one of
    America's energy powerhouses, it has been incredible to witness
    how transformative the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the
    Inflation Reduction Act have been so far. We are more energy
    independent today that we ever have been, and we're producing
    more energy cleaner than ever before. In 2023, the United
    States produced a record 38 trillion cubic feet of gas, a
    record 4.7 billion barrels of crude oil, a record 238 million
    megawatt-hours of solar power, and a record 6.4 gigawatts of
    new batteries installed on the grid. That's the type of all-of-
    the-above energy production that we need as a country and that
    we aspire to have.
        Now, these laws were also crafted with the goal of securing
    our energy supply chains and using innovation rather than
    elimination to reduce emissions. I fully believe that when it
    comes to goals or regulations, if it's not feasible, it's not
    reasonable, and there are a lot of technologies that have
    received minimal federal support in the past that could help
    reduce emissions that could use a boost. A great example is
    hydrogen, which we heavily invested in through both of those
    laws. Since we last had Secretary Granholm here, the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law's Hydrogen Hubs were announced, which will
    benefit 16 states and attract more than $40 billion in private
    investments. West Virginia is proud to be part of the ARCH2
    Hub, but the impact of these bills for West Virginia and
    America doesn't stop there.
        Instead of being left out, as our energy mix evolves,
    traditional energy communities are going to play a major role
    in our energy future and investments in new energy
    manufacturing facilities. This includes brand new projects like
    Form Energy's iron-air battery plant in the legacy steel town
    of Weirton, West Virginia, which is supported by the advanced
    manufacturing tax credits from the IRA. It also includes
    upgrades and improvements for existing facilities, like the
    Constellium plant in Ravenswood, West Virginia, which has
    received $75 million from the IRA and Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Law to help them decarbonize.
        And it's not just West Virginia. For example, the IRA has
    enabled DOE to guarantee a loan for the first-ever restart of a
    nuclear power plant, the Palisades plant in Michigan, which
    will provide dispatchable and clean power to meet our country's
    growing energy demand. The IRA has also mandated federal
    offshore oil and gas leasing to continue, and as a result, we
    have received the most bids for offshore leases since 2014 and
    generated more than $600 million in revenues to help reduce our
    debt. And since America's offshore oil and gas production has
    among the lowest greenhouse gas emissions in the world, these
    projects will displace dirty fuels produced elsewhere. These
    bills created a lot of opportunity, which is why I am so
    frustrated about the numerous ways the Administration is trying
    to reinvent them to fit their political agenda in picking
    winners and losers, the law be damned.
        Last year, we talked a lot about EV tax credits, which had
    been revamped in the law to secure supply chains and very
    quickly watered down by the Administration in an effort to
    bribe consumers. No sane person can compare the letter of the
    law and the proposed guidance and see it any other way. And
    unfortunately, we are already seeing the impact of these
    deviations from the law. Last week, Treasury announced that
    they have reimbursed more than $580 million for EV tax credits
    so far this year, which is well beyond the $451 million CBO
    projected for all of the year 2024. But we've talked a lot
    about how frustrated I am about that and the detrimental impact
    I believe it will have on our national security to have our
    transportation sector beholden still to China.
        Let me raise an issue that has happened since the Secretary
    was here last year--the new unworkable requirements for the
    hydrogen industry to be eligible for tax credits that were
    invented out of thin air. These were things we never heard of.
    Adding on these, which are ``additionality,'' ``hourly
    matching,'' and ``geographic proximity''--the requirements
    could be a death blow to this critical new sector, and you
    won't find those words in the law anywhere. Where you will find
    them is in a letter sent to the Administration by the climate
    groups who want to see hydrogen fail. Meanwhile, the
    Administration is also distorting the rules to give an extra 10
    percent in tax credits to offshore wind projects located in the
    ocean by making the bogus argument that they are in a legacy
    energy community. I don't think there's any coal communities in
    the ocean that were supposed to get the extra 10 percent to try
    to reinvigorate their economy. So, on the one hand, the
    Administration is trying to liberalize the credits for the
    selected technologies that the left-wing activists want, and at
    the same time, they are trying to limit the credits for
    technologies they don't like, such as hydrogen, carbon capture,
    and domestic mining.
        To make it worse, they are doing all of this as proposed
    rules--and I think we've spoken about proposed rules--so that
    they can avoid any legal action against them to rectify the
    situation when they put out the permanent rules. Unless they
    change course, we're missing a tremendous opportunity to
    realize the full promise of these bills. I bring this up today
    because while the implementation of these tax credits is
    technically being done by Treasury, the Department has been
    working closely with Treasury and playing an important role in
    developing the guidance. And I implore you to please step in
    and fix the craziness before it's too late.
        Now, the tax credits aren't my only concern. The
    Administration has put a political pause on LNG export
    permitting--at a time when U.S. natural gas prices are as cheap
    as ever--before doing any analysis on whether our growth in
    exports will actually outpace our reserves or how this will
    impact our allies abroad and our own economy. I believe that
    studies must be done to make sure that Americans aren't paying
    a premium while companies are making a bigger profit by
    exporting, but making decisions to appease activists without
    any data to back them up is just not how our government should
    work. DOE has also tried to rush a transition to efficiency
    standards that put U.S. manufacturing at risk. But I was very
    glad to see that DOE backed off its original proposal for
    distribution transformers and move to a standard similar to
    that which I proposed in a bipartisan bill with Senators Brown,
    Cruz, and others.
        But of course, we're here today because of the President's
    budget request for Fiscal Year 2025. I would be remiss if I did
    not register my grave concerns about our nation's growing debt
    and the larger consequences if we don't get our spending in
    check. The Department of Energy's budget request has a 2.3
    percent increase over the 2024 levels. So I look forward to
    discussing how to ensure the Department has the resources it
    needs to stay on the forefront of energy innovation and bolster
    our energy security without spending beyond our limits. Within
    the request, I was pleased to see funding proposed for several
    priorities that are important to my State of West Virginia and
    to a lot of other of our colleagues here on the podium. This
    includes $385 million for the Weatherization Assistance
    Program, which I know is important in all of our states; $900
    million for DOE's Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon
    Management; a $3 million increase for the Interagency Working
    Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities; and continued
    support for the National Energy Technology Laboratory, which is
    NETL, located in Morgantown. These are important because they
    keep West Virginia on the cutting edge of innovation while
    ensuring no one is left behind.
        Secretary Granholm, I appreciate you being here today to
    discuss the issues that are important to all of us. And we may
    not always see eye-to-eye, but we have always been friends, and
    we always will be. And I have so much respect for you and the
    work that you and your Department has always been accessible to
    work with. I look forward to hearing your perspective on these
    issues.
        With that, I am going to turn to our Ranking Member, my
    friend Senator Barrasso, for his opening statement.

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

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks for holding the hearing. Secretary Granholm, welcome
    back to the Committee.
        You know, looking at America's energy sector, there's some
    really good news, and there's also plenty of bad news. The good
    news to me is that in 2023, America pumped a record amount of
    oil and natural gas. A normal Administration would be cheering
    record production, but not this one. No, no, boasting about
    record production of oil and gas would offend the climate lobby
    in an election year, so the Administration chooses not to take
    credit for something. And there's another reason that President
    Biden has kept quiet--because he knows that we're producing a
    record amount of oil and natural gas despite him, not because
    of him. The credit belongs to the innovators, the risk takers,
    the roughnecks in my home state of Wyoming and elsewhere. They
    are the people who in 2019 made America energy independent for
    the first time in 70 years.
        And how did Joe Biden celebrate their achievement? Well, as
    a candidate, he threatened to throw them out of work. As
    President, he's killed pipelines, he's canceled lease sales,
    rescinded existing leases, slow-walked permits, and blocked
    access to more and more of America's energy resources.
    Meanwhile, this President has failed to enforce sanctions on
    Iran and has waived sanctions on Venezuela. This is a disgrace.
    The reason that we had record production in 2023 has nothing to
    do with Joe Biden. It is because more of our energy is produced
    on private lands and state lands. There, the producers don't
    need permission from Washington to drill. You know, in 2005,
    about 68 percent of our oil and 62 percent of our natural gas
    was produced on private and state lands. Today, those numbers
    have increased dramatically. It's 75 percent of our oil and 90
    percent of our natural gas that are produced on private and
    state lands. So, while oil production is at a record high, we
    actually should be producing even more. In 2020, the year
    before Joe Biden took office, the Energy Information
    Administration predicted that production would be 14 million
    barrels a day by 2023. Well, we actually produced 1.1 million
    barrels a day below that forecast in 2023.
        When it comes to the production of oil and gas on federal
    lands, we're living on borrowed time. We have been able to
    maintain output thanks to production on leases that were issued
    before Joe Biden became President. In fact, the Biden
    Administration has offered the fewest onshore acres for lease
    of any Administration since the end of World War II. The
    outlook offshore isn't any better. In 2022, the Administration
    canceled three lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska.
    After Congress restored those sales, the Administration did all
    it could to make the leases unattractive to bidders. Then, the
    Administration issued a five-year offshore plan with the lowest
    number of sales in history. This isn't just incompetence, it's
    an ideological effort to choke off American energy production.
        So what does it all mean? It means that Joe Biden is
    setting America up for a fall. It means that if we don't
    reverse the President's policies, it will be difficult to
    maintain American oil and natural gas production in the years
    ahead. But we don't have to wait years to know the effects of
    President Biden's decisions. American families are feeling the
    pain right now. This chart shows how much energy prices have
    increased since Joe Biden has become President, since he's
    taken office.
        [The chart referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. It shows what happened four years ago
    between 2017 and 2020--March 2020--under President Trump.
    Gasoline prices down. Natural gas prices down. Home heating oil
    prices down. Electricity prices up only three percent. Total
    energy cost unchanged. January 2017 to March 2020, under
    President Trump. In every case, prices are not only worse under
    Biden, they are significantly worse. Gasoline up 48 percent.
    Natural gas up 27 percent. Home heating oil up 44 percent.
    Electricity up 29 percent. Total energy costs up 39 percent
    since Joe Biden has come into office. This is a record failure.
    This is why Joe Biden, for one reason or another, is called the
    President of high prices. Between energy costs and grocery
    prices, the people of this country are being hurt by this
    Administration and its policies.
        Joe Biden needs to stop playing politics with our energy
    security. He needs to stop worrying about what the TikTok
    climate influencers think, and the ones who apparently are
    driving the energy policy, according to the New York Times, the
    reports related to how policies are being made at the White
    House today. The President and his Administration ought to
    start worrying about how American families are going to pay
    their bills now, as well as 10 years from now.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        And now we are going to turn to Senator Granholm for
    opening remarks--or Secretary Granholm.
        Secretary Granholm. Thank you so much for the promotion.
        The Chairman. A lot of us would probably like to change.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM,
                  SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Secretary Granholm. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member
    Barrasso, and members of the Committee, I am honored to be with
    you again today to discuss President Biden's latest budget
    request for the Department of Energy. Three years ago, I joined
    this Administration believing that if America could come
    together around a national energy strategy that we could
    restore manufacturing, that we could create jobs, that we could
    address climate change, and we could lead the world in clean
    energy. And today, we are doing just that. America is back.
    Thanks to Congress's efforts and the President's vision, we are
    executing a focused, deliberate strategy that positions us to
    become energy independent and secure. The strategy positions
    our businesses to dominate, our workers to compete, and our
    communities to thrive. And it is already working. Since the
    passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, companies have
    announced 600 new or expanded clean energy manufacturing plants
    on American soil, nearly $200 billion in planned investment for
    batteries, for electric vehicles, for solar, wind, nuclear, and
    more. Tens of thousands of jobs being created from Anchorage to
    Atlanta, from Louisiana to Las Vegas, from Wyoming to Weirton,
    West Virginia, and everywhere in between, thanks to the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act.
        Sustaining such growth, though, requires us to complement
    that historic funding with durable, long-term investments. So
    we're grateful for a Fiscal 2024 year that appropriates more
    than $50 billion for the Department. The President's budget
    request for Fiscal Year 2025 will empower us to make even
    greater progress. Our commercialization tools are giving
    American businesses the confidence that they need to capitalize
    on this moment while deepening our energy security. But
    deepening our energy security is an ongoing project and we need
    to fund it year over year. And that's why the budget calls for
    significant appropriations for our demonstration and deployment
    programs, including our Office of Manufacturing and Energy
    Supply Chains and our Grid Deployment Office. We're also making
    sure every community can benefit from reliable, affordable
    clean energy and efficiency technologies. DOE does this, for
    example, through, as the Chairman noted, our Weatherization
    Assistance Program, which Congress granted transformational
    funding to in the Infrastructure Law. I have seen personally,
    firsthand, how that program changes lives, as well as, I have
    seen the overwhelming need for it. The budget will bring us
    closer to meeting that need for 40,000 more low-income
    households. It also dedicates funding for our Interagency
    Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities, and I have
    seen firsthand how that, too, gives communities the gift of
    rebirth. It instills pride for the workers who defined
    America's energy past and will help to power our future.
        It's not just energy workers--after decades of
    disinvestment, we are finally rebuilding our manufacturing base
    and developing the skilled workforce necessary to power it.
    We're also planning our future by doubling down on R&D with an
    $8.6 billion request for basic science research and $3 billion
    for applied R&D. We will make sure each new generation of
    energy technologies is more innovative than the last, from
    industrial decarbonization solutions, to geothermal, to fusion.
    We're also requesting nearly $2 billion for critical and
    emerging technologies, like AI and quantum. Both are key to
    economic competitiveness and defense, and DOE is uniquely
    positioned to drive them forward. The budget also includes a
    historic $25 billion for our National Nuclear Security
    Administration. Russia's continued war in Ukraine makes nuclear
    deterrent paramount in our national defense and for the
    security of our allies. The President's request would give the
    NNSA the means to deliver and adapt in the face of evolving
    threats, and it would advance the NNSA's wider priorities
    around arms control, non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, and
    the safe use of civil nuclear power.
        So thanks to the bipartisan assistance we've received from
    Congress, America is back. We are the envy of the world, but we
    cannot afford to lose our momentum, and that depends on your
    continued support. Thank you for the opportunity to address you
    today. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Granholm follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary.
        And we're going to go now, my questions are going to be
    deferred to Senator Padilla, who has to go preside.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the
    consideration, and I will be respectful of the five-minute
    limit.
        Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. It's not news to
    anybody that from coast to coast extreme weather events driven
    by the climate crisis have increased both in frequency as well
    as intensity. And one of the byproducts of these storms is that
    power outages become more and more common, and it can be the
    impact of extreme heat in the summer months, freezing
    temperatures and ice storms in the winter. Our nation's
    electric grid is frequently tested. In many cases it is not
    able to weather the storm--pun intended. A weak grid disrupts
    the lives of millions of Americans, and beyond that, really
    costs the economy billions of dollars by not only impeding
    emergency services, for example, but temporarily closing
    schools, businesses, and other locations, and in many cases,
    even causing massive and dangerous wildfires. This is an issue
    that I have been working on since I got to the Senate, together
    with you. Can you discuss how the Fiscal Year 2025 budget
    supports a resilient grid both at the transmission at the
    distribution levels?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, thank you so much for this
    question, because the grid, of course, is the foundational
    piece of infrastructure for all energy, and it is a grid that
    was built, in many cases, decades and decades ago and needs
    significant upgrading, in addition to expansion. That is
    exactly what we're working on. Thank you for the tools given in
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for the Grid Resilience
    Innovation Program, for example, for the tools given in the
    Loan Programs Office to be able to support additional expansion
    and hardening of the grid. All of that is necessary.
        Unfortunately, for the grid program, for example, the
    competitive solicitations are far oversubscribed. Even though
    the generosity of Congress to be able to give us $20 billion
    for that was, obviously, very needed, but we need so much more
    going forward. The bottom line is--both on the transmission
    side and getting power from where it's generated to where it's
    used, and on the distribution side, in the local communities--
    both are critical. On the distribution side, I am pleased to
    say that we have been--and part of this budget requests
    additional funding for our Grid Deployment Office for
    microgrids, to be able to create that resiliency at the local
    level, in addition to what we're doing on the transmission
    side--both very important. We really appreciate the support
    this Congress has given us.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, and I'll just plant a seed,
    looking forward to working with you and our Chairman on
    reconductoring of transmission infrastructure----
        Secretary Granholm. Yes.
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. Both for capacity and
    efficiency objectives.
        One additional question I wanted to make sure to raise
    today is in regards to geothermal, right? As part of our shift
    toward cleaner sources of energy, geothermal energy is
    considered renewable gold. It has the potential to provide 24/7
    clean, reliable, and dispatchable power to the grid, and it's
    vitally important in the face of a changing climate and the
    extreme weather events that I discussed. Now, scaling these
    technologies is especially urgent in places where geothermal
    resources are abundant, like my home state of California. Can
    you speak to the importance of supporting the full spectrum of
    technology development for geothermal technologies, everything
    from early stage R&D to commercialization and upscaling?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, thank you so much for this. Our
    Geothermal Technologies Office has been working on this for a
    long time, but we got a big boost with the ability to use tax
    credits to incentivize the generation of geothermal power. We
    also have just launched an enhanced geothermal commercial
    liftoff report. And I meant to say in the last question, we,
    just today, are announcing a liftoff report for innovative grid
    technologies, which include reconductoring and grid-enhancing
    technologies. But on geothermal, from conception--the best
    technologies, the best ways of using hydraulic fracturing to be
    able to get at places we wouldn't otherwise be able to get at,
    the best strategy from a commercial liftoff point of view and
    the best demonstration of geothermal, like with a company
    called Fervo, which is using skill set and technology from the
    oil and gas industry to do enhanced geothermal, and is very,
    very promising--to deployment of more traditional geothermal,
    and deployment of geothermal at home, in other words, heat
    pumps using geothermal. That full spectrum is exactly what the
    Department of Energy has been working on, and with your
    continued support, the one big hurdle that exists from our
    enhanced geothermal liftoff report is the fact that the capital
    costs of those projects are expensive. And so, figuring out a
    way to support those capital costs is teed up as the next
    hurdle we can challenge together.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. Thank you again for
    your consideration, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Granholm, in 2023 the U.S. produced a record
    amount crude oil, natural gas. Good thing or bad thing for the
    country?
        Secretary Granholm. Good thing.
        Senator Barrasso. Great.
        Largest exporter of liquefied natural gas in the world.
    Good thing or bad thing?
        Secretary Granholm. Good thing.
        Senator Barrasso. Our allies, more or less secure as a
    result of what we've been able to do?
        Secretary Granholm. It's a good thing.
        Senator Barrasso. So world demand for liquefied natural gas
    is expected to increase significantly between now and 2040.
    Energy needs are up. I mean, they are talking about in the next
    five years, U.S. energy demand may be adding a new California,
    just in terms of the amount of energy that's going to be
    needed. The New York Times had a front-page story about that.
    So, are America's interests better served if the world buys LNG
    from us or from Qatar?
        Secretary Granholm. We think that our LNG is produced in a
    cleaner fashion, and that's why one of the reasons the demand
    for our LNG is up to 14 billion cubic feet per day that we are
    exporting currently, including the 48 billion that have been
    authorized, but have not yet exported----
        Senator Barrasso. Same with Russia? Better using ours than
    Russian?
        Secretary Granholm. Of course.
        Senator Barrasso. Better using ours than Iran? Great.
        So the Inspector General has included a written statement
    in the President's budget and we have a letter to that affect.
    And the Inspector General explains that the President's budget
    will substantially inhibit her from performing the duties of
    her office. She said we won't be fully funded in the office in
    terms of the things that they need, which is the amount of
    money that you talked about that's going out. Is there a reason
    you're not willing to fund the Office of Inspector General in
    the budget?
        Secretary Granholm. The Office of Inspector General has
    gotten the second largest percentage increase in their budget,
    a 73 percent increase in her budget, to be able to correspond
    with the increased amount of funding that is going out the
    door. We support the Inspector General. We meet with her all
    the time, and she is getting a significant increase in funding
    under the 2025 budget.
        Senator Barrasso. Even with the President's budget request,
    the Inspector General is going to still be short about $170
    million to deal with the amount of money that the Department of
    Energy has gotten over this period of time in the legislation
    that you have outlined this morning.
        Secretary Granholm. We support the Inspector General, which
    is why we've asked for such a large increase in her budget.
        Senator Barrasso. Jigar Shah, the head of the Department's
    Loan Office, recently stated, ``I don't think anyone is really
    accusing us, except rhetorically, of pushing money out the door
    quickly.'' The Inspector General said, ``There is no precedent
    in the Department for this level and pace of financing,'' and
    she said, the Department's funds are already moving quickly and
    internal controls are ``untested.'' So who is right? Mr. Shah,
    who says nope, or the Inspector General, who has said we have
    gone out really fast and the internal controls are still
    untested?
        Secretary Granholm. We are testing those internal controls
    thanks to the advice that she has been providing on how to
    create them. The reason why it seems fast is because literally
    no loans were set forth in the previous Administration.
    Currently, there are 18 loans that have either closed or
    provided a conditional commitment and 205 in the pipeline,
    which tells you that the Loan Programs Office is doing a
    terrific job of being open for business. But, that said, it
    does take time to get a loan through, and that's because of the
    internal controls that LPO is using.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, as we've had a previous hearing on
    this, I can tell you, Mr. Shah is open for business, and I
    think it's distressing and it's a terrible situation going on
    with him right now.
        Different topic--last month you testified that it is
    possible the Administration could impose its own ban on imports
    of Russian uranium. You also said the legislation solidifies
    the ban more concretely than if just the Department had done
    it. So your preference is for Congress to enact a ban on
    imports of Russian uranium. Is that correct?
        Secretary Granholm. That would be my preference, yes.
        Senator Barrasso. And I agree with you, and so, I think, do
    American's nuclear fuel suppliers.
        Another topic: so along with Russian uranium, if the
    Administration does impose its own ban on Russian uranium
    imports, will you commit to adhere to the same limits and
    conditions in terms as found in the legislation that has
    already passed the House?
        Secretary Granholm. We would abide by whatever Congress
    passes, of course.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay, and will you commit to promptly
    notify this Committee if the Administration does issue any
    waivers on the ban?
        Secretary Granholm. Of course.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay. Additionally, in February, Deputy
    Secretary Turk defended the Department's decision to stop
    approving LNG exports. He cited a forecast by the International
    Energy Agency showing a decline in the world's demand for
    natural gas, but the Department's own Energy Information
    Administration forecasts that the world's demand for natural
    gas is going to grow significantly. Why did he ignore the
    Department's own forecast for world demand for natural gas, and
    do you think it's appropriate to cherry-pick data to justify
    different policies in the Administration, like the ban on
    natural gas exports?
        Secretary Granholm. I can only assume that what he was
    suggesting is that there's a range of projections regarding the
    world's use of natural gas, which is one of the reasons why we
    are doing our own modeling through the National Energy
    Technology Lab and the Pacific Northwest National Lab while we
    update our analysis.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, and I agree with that
    assessment because unfortunately, he chose one that was not the
    Department modeling, and I thought the Department modeling was
    a better response to what actually the needs are going to be.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Secretary, the immediate response to the Administration's
    proposed guidance of the 45V tax credit on hydrogen is clear.
    If implemented, it's going to jeopardize the viability of the
    industry before it even gets a chance to get off the ground.
    All the hubs are in jeopardy and all of them have basically
    sent letters requesting a change immediately. Treasury's
    requirements on additionality, time matching, and regionality
    are just not workable. They are saying you have to have new,
    dedicated power located directly to support the hydrogen
    operation, which was never in there. We just want to make sure
    hydrogen gets a foothold. The industry response includes a
    letter from all seven DOE hydrogen hubs, who wrote in February
    of this year that the projects will no longer--no longer be
    economically viable unless the guidance is significantly
    revised.
        So, the only thing I would ask is, are you involved or do
    you think that we should heed the warning of DOE's own seven
    hubs that you all--that you have been involved, I think, in all
    seven, basically, of how they've come out and how we heralded
    these wonderful opportunities and success? And do you have any
    insight to what you all are thinking and what might be changed?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, thanks for the question.
        Obviously, we want these hubs to succeed and we put out--we
    meaning the Administration, the Treasury Department--put out
    specific questions that they were inviting responses for as
    they finalize the rule. We've gotten over 30,000 responses, and
    they are working through those responses, but the bottom line
    is, clearly, we want the hubs to succeed.
        The Chairman. They understand the concerns that the hubs
    have, and they are all in sync on this too. It's not just one.
    When you have the California hub and the West Virginia hub in
    sync, you've got a problem. And I hope they understand that. So
    we're looking forward to those changes so we can get started
    with our hubs.
        My next question is that we've spent a lot of time on DOE's
    critical role in our nation's scientific research enterprise
    for the Endless Frontier Act, which ultimately became law as
    the CHIPS and Science Act. It's clear the research facilities
    that the DOE stewards are imperative for scientific innovation,
    national security, and economic growth. The current
    conversation around the future of artificial intelligence (AI)
    is no different. America must accelerate our efforts to compete
    and defend against our adversaries like China on AI, and the
    Department of Energy has a central role. The Department and its
    national labs have the computing resources. We have those in
    our national labs. Our Majority Leader, Senator Schumer, is
    pushing for this to go toward the National Science Foundation,
    which is a duplication--in my evaluation, it is just
    duplicating, and we're not going to get further ahead or as
    quickly as we need to get ahead if we go back and try to
    reinvent the wheel again.
        I don't know what your input is on this, but being over the
    labs, I think you might have some thoughts about this.
        Secretary Granholm. I appreciate you anticipating--yes, I
    think our national labs are obviously in the driver's seat on
    both the technology--we have the tools, we have the largest
    exascale computers in the world, we are obviously using AI in
    all of the labs, but we also recognize that the National
    Science Foundation has a role for AI at the level of
    democratization of AI. Our collaboration with our Office of
    Science and Technology Policy at the White House has been very
    important. We really appreciate the fact that Congress has
    identified AI as a priority as well. I am very concerned, both
    about the bad uses of AI, but hopeful about the good uses of AI
    and I am concerned about the amount of energy that AI----
        The Chairman. We are just very much concerned about the
    money, the limited amounts of money we're going to have. It's
    going to be divided up, and it has more--those resources could
    get better results----
        Secretary Granholm. Yes.
        The Chairman [continuing]. If we stay with what we already
    have. That's going to be the question we all have to probably
    get our heads around.
        My final one is about our SPRO. Our Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve contained about 640 million barrels of crude oil. About
    290 million barrels, more than 40 percent, was sold from 2021
    to 2023, bringing us to its lowest level in 40 years. The
    majority of those sales was the Administration's 180-million-
    barrel emergency release in 2022, when oil prices were high and
    gasoline was going to $5. But Congress is also to blame. We
    ordered over 80 million barrels in sales since 2021 to offset
    spending in other areas. I am glad to see DOE has begun
    refilling the reserve. I am told there is only enough funding
    to bring us back to around 400 million. Do you think the 400
    million is a large enough reserve? Has DOE done an analysis
    about the right size of the reserve that we need to face an
    emergency? And if it's not enough, what do we need to do to fix
    that?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, we are--first of all, we have the
    largest oil reserve in the world right now. And we are----
        The Chairman. Which is less than 400 million----
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, 365----
        The Chairman. Yeah, right.
        Secretary Granholm. It is less than what it was, and I'm
    glad you recognize that the responsibility for the drawdowns
    occurred both, yes, the Biden Administration during the war in
    Ukraine, but also Congressional sales. Actually, Congressional
    sales have accounted for about 217 million barrels since the
    peak, and there's about--and we appreciate Congress's
    willingness to cancel the 140 million in Congressionally
    mandated sales that were teed up. There's about another 100
    million more that will be teed up between now and 2023. We can
    talk about that.
        But we are buying back, and we want to buy back at a rate
    that is good for the taxpayers. So, we----
        The Chairman. You're not buying right now at the $85 to $90
    range?
        Secretary Granholm. In the past few months we had because
    it was below $80.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Secretary Granholm. And in fact, we were shooting----
        The Chairman. That's your cutoff?
        Secretary Granholm. But in the latest round it came in
    above, so we canceled that one, but we still have a strategy of
    continuing to do this at a value for the taxpayers, noting that
    we sold at $95 per-barrel and we want to buy back at a rate
    that saves them.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary, thank you so much for coming to the Pacific
    Northwest and looking at all the transformation that's underway
    that our region is helping with and you are leading. We very
    much appreciate that.
        I wanted to ask you, obviously, about the Hanford budget.
    We're very pleased that the request is an increase from what we
    secured last year. So thanks to the Administration and Senator
    Murray and my colleagues for that. We're proud of the work that
    we need to do to meet the milestones. In a couple of weeks, the
    U.S. Department of Energy and the State Department of Ecology
    and Environmental Protection will be announcing a conclusion of
    holistic negotiations to update the consent decree. And you
    know how important that Tri-Party Agreement is. This is the
    result of long talks to improve the removal of waste from 177
    underground tanks that contain the most dangerous and difficult
    decades of plutonium. And so, obviously, I want a commitment on
    the future tank negotiations to make sure they have milestones,
    and can you detail how you will roll out the agreement and get
    comments so that we know that they are taking--you, DOE--is
    taking that seriously?
        I also, sorry to throw a lot at you, but I figure I would
    just throw it all out and you can help respond and if we run
    out of time, we can respond for the record. I do hear concerns
    about, also, the transformation of the Tri-Cities past these
    things. You know, they obviously think, and are, really, a
    clean energy hub for a lot of deployment. So they want to know
    what can happen on the transformation of acreage to a broader
    range of clean energy development. So I understand a vision has
    been shared with DOE officials, but the current DOE plan would
    not allow for this kind of development. So I want to make sure
    that we're continuing to think about how the Tri-Cities
    continues to play this massive leadership role on energy
    transformation.
        You answered Senator Manchin's point about the hydrogen
    hubs. I just want to weigh in because I feel like this is such
    a critical point to get these 45V credits done correctly. I'm
    assuming you agree that the whole point of this is to
    decarbonize hard-to-decarbonize sectors like maritime and
    aviation, fertilizer, and things of that nature. So our goal,
    and my question is, should our goal really be reaching this
    decarbonization within these sectors? I think some people are
    thinking that we should go a different route. I mean, it would
    be like if we said at the very beginning of electric vehicles,
    you could only charge an electric vehicle from clean energy.
    And so the whole point is, what is the milestone going to give
    us for 45V? I'm assuming that we want to try to, by 2050, cut,
    in these sectors, cut the carbon by some significant amount,
    and that should be the goal of the 45V. So you can tell me
    whether you agree with that.
        I am curious on fusion, whether you think 48C should be
    applied to fusion. We're also a hub in this particular area and
    want to know whether you think we should be thinking about
    broadening that. And then, on the transmission, to my
    colleague's point, we will need 56 percent more transmission by
    2040. That's according to you and your estimates. And the
    Pacific Northwest Power and Conservation Council calculates the
    region will need 3,500 megawatts of new renewable energy by
    2027. So what can you do to help us make sure, since most of
    our transition comes from EPA, how can you help us make sure
    transmission gets built?
        Oh my gosh, I can see I am----
        Secretary Granholm. Can I just quickly hit them?
        Senator Cantwell [presiding]. Since I think officially I'm
    chairing at the moment, yes, go ahead.
        Secretary Granholm. Okay, so Madam Chairman.
        Senator Cantwell. Quickly, because my colleagues.
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, yes, just very quickly.
        Hanford, yes, exciting that they are reaching conclusion.
    Obviously, we'll work with the community and make sure that
    it's transparent. Clean up to clean energy, which is one of the
    things you talked about. We've taken requests for proposals.
    We've gotten those. We're evaluating them. We're also in the
    process of transferring about 150, I want to say, acres to the
    Tri-Cities area for economic development, too. So, again,
    continuing to work with them very, very closely.
        Hydrogen is the Swiss Army Knife, as everybody has said, of
    clean energy. And yes, decarbonization has to be a key
    component of it in addition to its other uses.
        Senator Cantwell. So you think--just on that point--you
    think in the next few years, if we went for some short-term
    goal of just driving production of the hydrogen--look, we're a
    very green source, I mean, that's why, I think, we won the hub,
    because we're a green source.
        Secretary Granholm. Of course.
        Senator Cantwell. But the whole point is to significantly
    decarbonize the sector, is that correct?
        Secretary Granholm. That's correct.
        Senator Cantwell. Okay. So that overall goal should be part
    of the calculation.
        Secretary Granholm. Absolutely.
        Senator Cantwell. Okay, thank you.
        Secretary Granholm. Absolutely.
        Fusion and 48C, interesting, I hadn't thought about that
    and I'd like to have further conversations about it. I know
    that those decisions have been made by Treasury already in the
    first round of 48C, and we don't have insight into that since
    it's tax information and proprietary. So I'm not even sure,
    unless the entities who receive the designation raise their
    hands.
        Senator Cantwell. But do you think if we really do, or are
    on the precipice of a fusion hit that the manufacturing aspect
    for the United States in acceleration of this would be a good
    idea?
        Secretary Granholm. Certainly, of course it would be a good
    idea.
        Senator Cantwell. Yes, thank you. Okay.
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, absolutely.
        And on transmission, I just refer again, I want to just
    say, we have got to increase our transmission capacity.
    Reconductoring is one of the ways to do that. Grid-enhancing
    technologies, like dynamic line reading, are another way to do
    that. We have got to have a full suite of strategies in
    addition to building new transmission, but making our current
    transmission stronger, better, and able to have greater
    capacity is also a key component of it.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, I just want to thank you. I mean,
    we've had other Energy Secretaries and they've been part of
    this equation, but you are making the transformation happen.
    It's not easy, and you're able to articulate how and why it's
    so critical. So thank you.
        Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
        Senator King [presiding]. On behalf of the Chairman,
    Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, good to see you. I was out in Chena, and
    the proprietor, Mr. Karl, sends his regards. In that vein, we
    had an opportunity to talk further about geothermal, and I have
    had the chance to talk with you about the Makushin project. It
    has been kind of reconfigured, if you will, and I don't think
    that's the right word. But I do want to have further discussion
    with you and Deputy Secretary Turk about geothermal and how we
    really work to remove some of the barriers that I think we see
    with regards to the promise of geothermal. And I know that
    there are good intentions, but for some reason, we're not
    seeing them translate into the opportunities that we need. So
    that's not a question for you, but more of an ask, and just
    kind of an alert that I would like to follow up, specifically
    with regards to geothermal and the potential there.
        Water energy--marine hydrokinetic energy. As you know,
    we've got more than our share of water around us, whether it's
    in our rivers, the potential for more hydro. I'm not sure why
    the Administration has proposed a 20 percent cut to the Water
    Power Program in its FY25 budget request. It looks like you've
    increased funding for just about every other renewable. And
    again, we seem to focus a lot on the favored children--wind and
    solar--but we have such opportunity within our marine energy
    opportunities. I don't know if you have proposed a target for
    marine energy deployment, whether we can expect something in
    this area. What can you tell me that's good and exciting,
    because I'm talking to a lot of people that are very, very
    excited and they feel like they are just having to do it on
    their own because they are kind of alone out there in trying to
    advance any of these technologies.
        Secretary Granholm. Okay----
        Senator Murkowski. Go ahead.
        Secretary Granholm. One, on the cut. The two main reasons
    for that cut were that one, we have funding provided in 2023
    and 2024 for hydropower demonstrations and irrigation
    modernization and low-impact hydropower. They were already
    funded. And so they were pulled out because those
    demonstrations are already ongoing. We could come back and talk
    about 2026 and whether we need to re-up that again, but we're
    funded already in 2025. And similarly, we had a $29 million
    reduction for the marine energy infrastructure support at the
    Marine Coastal Research Lab and PacWave. And again, in 2024,
    because we got that funding late, the 2024 funding provided
    funds needed for both sites. And so, PacWave is expected to be
    completed in the summer of 2024. So we didn't need that
    funding.
        Bottom line, though--completely agree with you on kinetic
    hydropower, on all hydropower.
        Senator Murkowski. All hydro.
        Secretary Granholm. Hydro, I mean, dams, et cetera, we need
    to really lean in on this clean baseload power. And a lot of it
    is that it's expensive. The upfront capital is expensive for
    people, and that's, you know, figuring out that because there
    wasn't that sort of carve-out for that in the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Secretary Granholm. I totally would be very supportive of
    that.
        Senator Murkowski. But I think you see this looming threat
    with the average age of a U.S. hydropower production facility
    in this country right now being 64 years old.
        Secretary Granholm. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. And so, we have to modernize. We have to
    upgrade. We have to make these investments again in this
    extraordinary baseload resource. And so how we're going to move
    forward with that, again, I want us to be leaning in.
        I want to ask, very quickly, on critical minerals. You and
    I have had the conversation about the need for more natural
    graphite. The opportunity that we have in Alaska with Graphite
    One, a natural graphite project, identified a graphite source,
    probably the most exciting in the country right now. And we've
    gotten minimal support from Department of Energy right now, and
    it hurts to kind of look at some of the support that the
    Administration is giving for imported critical minerals from
    places like Mozambique to process here in this country. But I
    want to ask more specific to this, because in January, when
    Secretary Turk was here, I asked him at the time to confirm if
    DOE funding programs like the LPO only consider non-mine
    project infrastructure investment, and are not able to assist
    domestic extraction projects. And he was vague on it. He said
    that DOE is trying to be creative, but we made very, very, very
    clear in IIJA that DOE had the authority to ``support mineral
    production, processing, manufacturing, and recycling
    activities.'' And yet, what I hear, at least from Graphite One
    and from others, is that no, the Administration actually will
    not provide such assistance, and they've said that you have to
    have a pilot project operating before they are eligible, and at
    that point, only supporting or processing and downstream
    infrastructure, not the mine itself. And so it's contrary--what
    they are being told is contrary to what we wrote into law. So
    this is something that I have asked for clarification on. I
    don't know if you have anything further that you can add. If
    you can share with me that DOE will support this, then that's
    good news and we want to follow up with that.
        Secretary Granholm. I would like to come sit with you and--
    --
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Jigar Shah in your office
    to talk about this. It's my understanding, and again, I don't
    look under the hood of what LPO is doing while it's in process,
    but I believe that there may be a mine that is coming through
    the system. I don't know or have any further details about that
    and I don't know that it's anything in Alaska. But the bottom
    line is, we have to use all these tools to get the supply chain
    in the United States, and that means the supply chain for
    extraction, and it means extracting the critical minerals. So
    whatever we can do to ensure that the tools we have get us to
    where we need, I agree with you that we should be using them.
    So I want to talk with LPO and come to see you about what's
    possible, and also maybe about the follow-up on the Makushin
    project.
        Senator Murkowski. Let's do that. I'll look forward to
    that. And again, Deputy Secretary Turk was looking into this
    too. So, between the two of you, and Jigar----
        Secretary Granholm. Great.
        Senator Murkowski. It would be important information to us,
    but hopefully we can move out on that. And I also have a lot of
    questions for the record that I'm going to be submitting.
        Secretary Granholm. For sure.
        Senator Murkowski. Great interest in BABA. Everybody is
    talking about BABA in Alaska right now and whether or not there
    will be an opportunity for a continuation of the waiver, the
    tribal waiver that people are really anxious about. So I look
    forward to more discussion.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        On behalf of the Chair, Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Secretary Granholm, it's great to see you again. I have
    heard a lot of talk this past week about Yucca Mountain. So I
    just want to set the record straight here, if you're able to,
    with some yes or no answers to my questions.
        Does the Department's Fiscal Year 2025 budget include any
    funding to restart the Yucca Mountain project?
        Secretary Granholm. No.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Does the Biden Administration have
    any intention to move forward with nuclear waste storage at the
    Yucca Mountain site?
        Secretary Granholm. No.
        Senator Cortez Masto. And does your Administration support
    consent-based siting?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Can you please provide an update of where we are on DOE's
    consent-based siting efforts and what are some of the ways that
    the Fiscal Year 2025 budget contributes to this initiative?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes. The consent-based siting strategy
    is in three phases. We're in the first phase. The first phase
    was to fund 12 different consortia of entities that were
    exploring whether communities would be willing to raise their
    hands. And so those conversations are happening now. The second
    phase will be to identify the volunteers because, of course,
    communities that raise their hand, they want to know what's in
    it for them, what are the benefits, jobs, but also other kinds
    of benefits. So that will be phase two. And phase three will
    actually be starting operations. So we're only in phase one
    right now. It's still going to take, as it has in other
    countries that have done consent-based siting, it takes time.
    You have to build trust. You have to answer all the questions.
    So it takes a little bit of time. So, in this budget year, I
    don't think we have funding for consent-based siting because
    we're in the process of that first phase, but we will come back
    to you in phase two with a funding request.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        And then, let me associate myself with Senator Murkowski. I
    think she and I are both interested in ensuring that the
    critical minerals that we need, that the United States plays a
    key role, including that supply chain. And you and I have
    talked about this. I am so excited about Nevada right now for
    our battery technologies. You may have called this out--for
    critical mineral development, for cleaner transportation, you
    have been there. Thank you so much for visiting Nevada. It
    really is truly the center of the clean energy economy. One
    example is the administration's recent designation of a
    national regional innovation tech hub for critical minerals
    through the CHIPS and Science Act for the University of Nevada,
    Reno. We are very excited about that.
        Secretary, I'd be interested in learning more about DOE's
    recent announcement of the METALLIC project, if you are able
    to, and the creation of a future critical minerals supply chain
    research facility. Can you talk a little bit about that?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes. I don't have the details on the
    METALLIC project, but I can tell you that we are, because of
    Nevada's unique position in having such an abundance of
    critical materials and the processing, actually, which has
    begun, which is, of course, something that we lack in this
    country, as well as the uses, like batteries, where they end
    up, right? So you have the full supply chain happening. So
    having a research component that is an anchor for both the
    early-stage research and development, but also the applied
    aspects of it, is very important, and that is why having it
    centered in Nevada was critical.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        I also want to talk about the workforce. We've talked about
    this. In your written testimony you specified the Fiscal Year
    2025 budget request calls for about $1.6 billion to support our
    clean energy workforce projects across the country. I know the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law mandated the creation of the 21st
    Century Energy Workforce Advisory Board at DOE to further
    develop that skilled workforce. Can you talk about the progress
    that we have made, if any, on really developing this workforce
    that we need for clean energy?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, let me just give you an example.
    We have announced, in partnership with the AFL and the UAW, a
    battery workforce initiative, which has--the idea is to create
    modules that community colleges could then plug in or that
    apprenticeships could plug into with all of the components
    necessary to be able to create a workforce for this whole new
    industry that we're creating in the United States. And so, I am
    pleased to say that we have completed that right now, the
    curricula is finished, and we are now taking it on the road to
    be able to get community colleges, especially those adjacent to
    a battery manufacturing factory, to be able to take on. But
    that's just one example of the kinds of--first of all, they
    have to be place-based. You have to train people for jobs that
    are there, right, so that then you can take advantage of the
    apprenticeships and the apprenticeship tax credits associated
    with the Inflation Reduction Act.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, Secretary.
        Mr. Chair.
        Senator King. On behalf of the Chair, Senator Hickenlooper.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Secretary,
    thank you so much for all of your work and for coming to
    Colorado. I read in the papers you go to blue states, red
    states, everywhere. Energy really is the universal connector in
    this country.
        Secretary Granholm. Totally.
        Senator Hickenlooper. So I agree with our friends here that
    you're doing a great job.
        The Biden Administration has been clear that increasing
    domestic mining, and Senator Cortez Masto was kind of touching
    on this, that we need more mining and processing and refining
    to have sufficient raw materials to address the major changes
    we're going to make in our energy future. I support and am
    interested in helping to expand DOE's Mine of the Future
    initiative. I thought it would be interesting to--you know,
    this approach to revolutionize mining technology and make sure
    we have socially responsible techniques in place. Can you talk
    a little more about that?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes. The Mine of the Future is a way of
    being able to do extraction in a sustainable way that is sort
    of more laparoscopic, if you will, that you really go in a
    using a small opening and doing your exploration and extraction
    without disturbing the ground around you. And so, that Mine of
    the Future notion is something we would love to support and
    encourage mining companies to take on in partnership with us.
    We see an opportunity there for pilots. I also would be remiss
    if I didn't say thank you to those of you who are eager to
    update the Mining Law so that we can really embed the notion of
    sustainability into our practices, like our allies have done--
    like in Canada, for example. There is a way that we can lead on
    extraction in a sustainable way as a nation, and I applaud your
    interest in making that happen as well.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Well, we're all in. And just
    tangential to that, the R&D around the alternative materials
    and, you know, battery chemistries, that research. You're
    pushing full speed on that as well. I really support that.
        Secretary Granholm. Oh, yes, we certainly are. I mean, we
    want to have the full spectrum, soup to nuts. So from
    responsible extraction to processing, and obviously, all of the
    battery components--the anode, the cathode, the separator
    material, the electrolyte, we want all of those components of
    the supply chain built in the United States. And we're seeing
    it happen, and this is what's so amazing is that policy is
    actually working and that we're seeing all of these battery----
        Senator Hickenlooper. Don't sound surprised.
        Secretary Granholm. Well, sometimes you wonder, but this is
    such great news that people should take home and say, look, I
    mean, we have such a low unemployment rate in part because of
    the work that has been done here to generate investment in
    manufacturing across this country, and the battery place is
    exactly one place. Of the 600 factories that I talked about in
    my opening statement, 400 are in the EV or battery space, all
    pockets of America, and that's all of these components. So it's
    so exciting to see those incentives actually having an impact.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, it's been gratifying for all of
    us, I think.
        You also said that you're obsessed with geothermal energy.
        Secretary Granholm. Yes.
        Senator Hickenlooper. And I have a copy of the next
    generation geothermal liftoff report and I'm excited. I mean,
    that is, I think, one of the most--you know, for a dry,
    scientific study--one of the most exhilarating reads you could
    have right now. And I thought I'd give you a moment just to
    talk about that because I think, you know, you begin to read
    how much more widely accessible it is and the potential--pretty
    close to 15 percent of the new energy we're going to need and
    especially baseload energy. So, talk a little bit about that.
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, I mean, this is--as we consider
    the energy demand increases that we're all seeing, right,
    whether it's from AI or from electrification or from all these
    new factories coming online, we have to identify clean,
    baseload solutions. And geothermal is clearly a clean baseload
    solution, as is hydroelectric, right, as is batteries with
    renewables, but I think that geothermal is such an untapped
    source. And the notion of us actually achieving these
    technology breakthroughs for enhanced geothermal that allow us
    to extract geothermal, not just where it's super, super hot,
    but even where it's not super hot, where you can almost get
    geothermal in ubiquity across the country. That is an amazing
    breakthrough in technology, and therefore can really help us to
    achieve the goal which we have of meeting that increased energy
    supply.
        The big challenge, I think, Senator, and this is something
    I'd love to work with you all on--and there seems to be a great
    interest in geothermal--is this up-front capital cost. Now,
    some of that can be addressed through, for example, the Loan
    Programs Office, and we're encouraging geothermal companies to
    go to the Loan Programs Office, but some of it could be
    addressed through additional up-front capital help and support
    from Congress. And we should talk about that because obviously
    the Production Tax Credit is terrific, but we may need a little
    juice on the capital up-front.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Sure.
        Well, I'm reading that as a commitment to work with our
    staff----
        Secretary Granholm. Yes.
        Senator Hickenlooper [continuing]. To find that $4 or $5
    billion to do a demonstration project that could really make a
    difference, because it is wildly exciting.
        I yield back to the Chair.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        On behalf of the Chair, I call on myself.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator King. Madam Secretary, you've covered a lot of
    ground today, and just to refer back to the final question from
    Senator Hickenlooper, one of the problems with a lot of these
    energy technologies is high capital cost, but they have
    extremely low or no operating cost.
        Secretary Granholm. Right.
        Senator King. And so that's why we have to develop
    incentives to get these in place because then, with hydro very
    close to zero, nuclear, geothermal--in the long run, if we can
    get over the capital hump, we can really make a difference in
    people's bills at home.
        Now, let me turn to another--I take it you agree, you
    nodded.
        Secretary Granholm. I agree.
        Senator King. Thank you. Nods don't show on the record.
        But let me turn to another issue--transmission, which you
    have discussed. Transmission, in many states now, is more
    expensive than generation. And it's going to get more so
    because of the enormous buildout of the grid that's necessary
    for the electrification of the country. You have mentioned
    several times grid-enhancing technologies, reconductoring,
    which I am all in favor of, very much so. The problem is, the
    incentives in the industry or toward building and the cost,
    it's a rate-based, you know, you understand how that works. So
    we need to have incentives for doing the cheaper things first
    or perhaps even mandates that say you have to demonstrate that
    you've done the grid-enhancing technologies--that dynamic line
    monitoring or reconductoring--before you build the big, new
    transmission line, which may be obviated by the grid-enhancing
    technologies. Your thoughts?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, it requires a different mindset,
    perhaps a slightly different business model----
        Senator King. Right.
        Secretary Granholm [continuing]. On the part of the
    utilities who, you know, are understandably conservative.
    However, you're seeing a lot of utilities----
        Senator King. But their financial incentive is to build----
        Secretary Granholm. Is to build, right, because they get a
    return on investment----
        Senator King. Right.
        Secretary Granholm. That corresponds. And you know, what a
    fantastic thing it is, and I encourage you to take a look at
    the liftoff report that we issued one hour ago on innovative
    grid technologies because if you just look at what the
    estimates are of the necessary expansion of the grid between
    now and 2033, which is according to NARUC, I think it's about
    90, 91 gigawatts. The grid-enhancing technologies and
    reconductoring can achieve between 20 and 100 gigawatts, and
    they are at five percent of what the cost is of buildout.
        Senator King. I hope you'll communicate with your friends
    at FERC because they just issued an order that did not require
    the utilities to even study these grid-enhancing technologies
    before embarking on a transmission project. I disagree with
    that decision. I don't understand it, but I think that's
    something we need to continue to press on because it's not
    going to happen by us talking about it----
        Secretary Granholm. Right.
        Senator King [continuing]. But there have to be incentives,
    and it may be shared savings to the utilities, if they use
    these lower-cost technologies.
        Let me change the subject for a minute, just to clarify.
    The pause in the approval of LNG terminals is indeed a pause,
    is it not?
        Secretary Granholm. Correct.
        Senator King. It's not a ban. It's not a stop.
        Secretary Granholm. Correct.
        Senator King. And all you're doing is using that time, a
    matter of months, I understand, to update the data on impacts
    on domestic prices and environmental impacts. Is that correct?
        Secretary Granholm. That's correct.
        Senator King. And the problem is, I sat in this seat seven
    years ago, when a representative of the gas industry said
    exports of LNG will never exceed nine percent of production.
    Well, right now, they are at 14 percent of production. As you
    testified, they are going to 48. And it just seems to be
    prudent to understand the implications of that before we
    approve massive new projects that may end up significantly
    increasing domestic prices or environmental impacts. Is that
    the case for the study?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes. Prices at home--hugely important
    on our manufacturers, et cetera, and also the impacts of on our
    allies overseas.
        Senator King. Our low domestic gas prices are a huge
    asymmetric advantage around the world.
        Secretary Granholm. Yes.
        Senator King. And I'm concerned that we will, in effect,
    export that advantage by not understanding the implications of
    going from 48 percent of production to something approaching 60
    or 70 percent of production. We've got to understand that, and
    that's what the pause is all about, is it not?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, to do the update.
        Senator King. I appreciate that.
        Finally, on methane--fossil fuels are going to be part of
    the transition. Methane is the low-hanging fruit of climate
    change. I hope that you will be working--we now have space-
    based assets that can detect methane leaks to find out how to
    detect leaks, how to remedy them, and how to bring them to the
    attention of the manufacturer, because this is one of the
    places where we can really make a significant difference with a
    relatively low cost.
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, in fact, if you talk to the oil
    and gas industry, they'll say ``we can do this, we can button
    this up.'' It's the detection that has been slow, but now we do
    have, as you noted, satellite assets as well as on-the-ground
    assets to be able to regionally detect where these leaks are
    happening. It makes sense from a financial point of view and
    certainly it makes sense from a climate point of view.
        Senator King. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Granholm. Yes.
        Senator King. Thank you for your testimony and your adept
    answer to our questions.
        Senator Manchin.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Chairman, thank you.
        Good to have you here, Secretary.
        Secretary Granholm. Nice to see you.
        Senator Daines. It has been two and a half months since
    President Biden paused LNG exports in order to study their
    impacts. We are no closer to knowing when this pause will be
    lifted or if it ever will be lifted. If DOE follows the facts
    and looks at previously published reports, this study will come
    back the same as all the other previous studies. U.S. LNG
    exports builds jobs, it strengthens the economy, and it reduces
    global emissions. But I fear, and I'm not alone in this--I just
    met with the Ambassador from Croatia, and they are just shocked
    around why the United States would pause LNG exports in the
    midst of a war on the continent of Europe where Putin has
    weaponized LNG, weaponized natural gas. But I look no further
    than the White House website, where the first quote in their
    press release lauds, and let me quote, ``this Administration's
    historic efforts to meet the global commitment to phase out
    fossil fuels.''
        Is LNG a fossil fuel?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, it is.
        Senator Daines. This is followed by the second quote, which
    features ``hashtag stop LNG.'' So, Secretary Granholm, if this
    pause is truly about updating studies, then why do the majority
    of the quotes in the President's own press release say stop LNG
    and phase out fossil fuels?
        Secretary Granholm. I haven't seen those, but I can tell
    you that this is a pause.
        Senator Daines. I encourage you, if you haven't seen it,
    we'll make sure you get it. It's right on the White House press
    release. You work for the President of the United States.
        Secretary Granholm. I have not seen that press release or
    that quote, but I can tell you that it is a pause to update the
    study because so much has happened since the last time the
    study was done. We were only exporting four Bcf of LNG at that
    time, and now we are exporting 14 with another 12 Bcf under
    construction and another--and 48 total authorized. This pause
    doesn't affect any of that.
        Senator Daines. Well, you know, we've been exporting LNG
    since 2016. And DOE has done numerous studies since then,
    including one that showed that LNG exports to Europe have the
    lowest life cycle emissions. So, what exactly is DOE looking
    for that hasn't already been published?
        Secretary Granholm. Well, first of all, as Senator King
    noted, the fact that we would be potentially exporting up to 48
    billion cubic feet, when at the last study it was just four,
    and we use natural gas here at home. We produce about 100
    billion cubic feet of natural gas at home. That would mean that
    we would be exporting--if, in fact, it was all built, and I'm
    not saying it's all going to be built--half of our production.
    What does that do for prices at home? Volumes of these----
        Senator Daines. When will the study be completed?
        Secretary Granholm. Around the end of the year.
        Senator Daines. Around the end of the year.
        So, what information could DOE find during the study that
    would cause it to deny all future export applications?
        Secretary Granholm. We're not in this to deny all future
    exports.
        Senator Daines. But the website--I'd love to have you go
    see the White House press release that says ``phase out fossil
    fuels'' because I don't believe what you're saying on prima
    facie. I think there is an ideology here, as clearly
    articulated on the White House's own release that says ``phase
    out fossil fuels'' and ``hashtag stop LNG.'' That doesn't seem
    to be talking about pricing. That seems to be a radical
    ideology now to go to zero fossil fuels.
        Secretary Granholm. Well, I can tell you that our
    instructions to the national labs who are doing the study is to
    follow the science and the data. And that's all it is. It's
    look at what the science and the data show, both on prices at
    home, what the global demand will be in light of all of these
    countries saying that they are making different pledges, what
    the demand will be on the part of our allies so that we can
    assure they are well supplied.
        Senator Daines. As we're watching Russia continue to
    destroy Ukraine, when our allies are pleading with us for more
    U.S. LNG. I was over----
        Secretary Granholm. Our allies are getting their LNG. I'll
    just be super-clear about that.
        Senator Daines. But no, Madam Secretary, with all due
    respect, the chilling message you send by pausing LNG permits
    is being heard around the world.
        Secretary Granholm. It is a pause.
        Senator Daines. I get that.
        Secretary Granholm. It is a pause for a study. You don't
    need to hype it out beyond what it is. It is a pause to get
    data.
        Senator Daines. So why couldn't you do the study in
    parallel here instead of putting a pause on permits? Because
    time is of the essence.
        Secretary Granholm. Because there are----
        Senator Daines. We're talking about a couple of permits.
    The message that sends, I will just tell you----
        Secretary Granholm. Well----
        Senator Daines. Maybe you're talking to different allies
    than I'm talking to but they are wondering what's going on.
        Secretary Granholm. I am sending a different message
    clearly than others have been sending. The message I am sending
    is, all of your LNG that you have under long-term contract is
    going to be all right because you are already exporting and it
    has already been authorized. We are taking several months to do
    a study to determine what the impacts are of additional LNG
    authorizations both globally and at home.
        Senator Daines. I respectfully ask you to stop this highly
    political pause and get back----
        Secretary Granholm. It is a scientific pause, sir.
        Senator Daines [continuing]. To the mission of the
    Department of Energy.
        Secretary Granholm. It is a scientific pause. We're
    gathering the data.
        Senator Daines. Well, I think you are yielding to the
    radical elements of the left who want to see--go back to the
    White House press release that says ``stop fossil fuels,
    hashtag stop LNG.'' That doesn't sound like a pause. That
    doesn't sound like cost. That sounds like an ideology that
    wants to keep LNG from ever being shipped anytime. That's a
    radical ideology. It's out of step with the American people.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. We have Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just to briefly refer to what the Secretary was just
    testifying to, my understanding is that there are already a lot
    of LNG permits out there and it's not as though we need to have
    more, but just to have a pause. And I mean, really, for some
    people on the Right to keep talking about this, and you know, a
    lot of them don't think that global warming is a problem
    either. They think global warming is a myth.
        So let me get to wildfire risk. It has been over eight
    months since Maui experienced the deadliest wildfire in the
    U.S. in over a century, and this disaster demonstrates the need
    to invest in upgrades to the electrical grid that improve
    monetary and reduce the risk of wildfires and help restore
    power. The Infrastructure Law established the $10.5 billion
    Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) program to
    improve the resilience of the power system against growing
    threats of extreme weather and climate change. You told Senator
    Padilla that the grid resilience funding Congress provided in
    the Infrastructure Law is oversubscribed. What level of demand
    for grid resilience improvements is DOE seeing, and what is
    DOE's role in helping lower-income areas still have a reliable
    grid in the face of wildfire and other climate change risks?
        Secretary Granholm. We are grateful for the Grid Resilience
    Innovation Program because it did give us a significant amount
    to be able to address these needs but, as I mentioned, we could
    not possibly fund all of the requests out there, and they were
    good. They are all good requests. I am hopeful that we can
    revisit this with Congress in a future budget year because I
    think it is hugely in demand. We're in a second round of grid
    funding. There's a second round of the competition that is
    occurring. It is right now underway. In this second round, we
    are prioritizing things like grid-enhancing technologies and
    reconductoring to make sure that we can get the biggest bang
    for our buck so that the rate-basing of transmission lines is
    not forced upon ratepayers, that we can really encourage the
    cheapest form of grid-enhancing technologies.
        But this is a huge issue, not just in Hawaii, and I know
    Hawaii won in the first round of GRIP funding for the Lahaina
    and Maui wildfires that HECO received. More needs to be done
    though.
        Senator Hirono. Did it surprise you that this program would
    be so oversubscribed?
        Secretary Granholm. Well, I wouldn't say it really
    surprised me given the size of the grid and when it was built
    because we have such massive needs and such a crickety old
    grid. So we're going to have to, as a nation, decide that this
    is a piece of the infrastructure, like the national highways,
    that we've got to get serious about investing in, and investing
    in a smart way by prioritizing the things we know we can do
    that are less expensive, but also building out what we need to
    do to get power in where it needs to be.
        Senator Hirono. I agree with you.
        I want to talk about the transitioning to electric
    vehicles. Hawaii has the second most expensive gasoline prices
    in the country at $4.74 per-gallon. And whenever global oil
    prices increase, we see the impact in Hawaii, the cost of
    gasoline. So one of the reasons I supported the Inflation
    Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act
    was to help people find a more American-made, affordable
    electric vehicle to avoid high prices at the gas pump. How is
    the transition to electrical vehicles going in your view, and
    do you know if more people are using the EV tax credits now
    that they are available at the time of the sale--the purchase
    of the car?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, thank you for that question, and
    Treasury just put out--I think yesterday--an assessment of the
    uptake, which is very robust at the dealership. Last year we
    sold just slightly less than 10 percent of the fleet of light-
    duty vehicles, which were all electric, and if you added
    hybrid, it would get to about 17 percent. So there is great
    interest because of the price of gas, because people want to
    see more choices in terms of their transportation. We're
    excited about that, but we have also got to work continuously
    on building out the infrastructure necessary to get people
    comfortable to buy electric vehicles, and that means the
    electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
        Senator Hirono. And, I don't want to interrupt you----
        Secretary Granholm. Yup.
        Senator Hirono. But my time is--and one of the goals of
    this Administration is to lower costs for our families, and one
    of the ways we can do that is to encourage them to buy or to
    use energy-efficient appliances. So before the attack--Iran's
    attack in Israel--the House was spending a lot of time trying
    to undo this Administration's encouraging of the use of energy-
    efficient appliances. Can you just explain briefly the benefits
    the American people will enjoy from the DOE's improved
    efficiency standards for appliances?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, DOE has been doing efficiency
    standards since 1975, over 60 different products. I will just
    give you one example. If you bought a refrigerator in 1975 and
    you bought one today, your today's refrigerator would cost you
    half the amount that it did in 1975. It would be 20 percent
    larger and it would use one quarter of the electricity. Energy
    efficiency standards save money and they are certainly helpful
    in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        And we have Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. Madam Secretary, I actually thoroughly
    accept that we need to decrease emissions, but I'm afraid that
    the Administration is so ideologically focused that we're doing
    otherwise. Tell me, in the analysis of the natural gas export,
    are we looking at the fact that because we are exporting less
    natural gas that other countries are using more coal and the
    greenhouse gas footprint of Germany burning more coal is
    obviously much worse than if they were burning clean U.S.
    natural gas? Is the end-user having to substitute coal for
    natural gas part of the life cycle analysis?
        Secretary Granholm. First, just to clarify, we are not
    stopping the export of natural gas----
        Senator Cassidy. Yes, but you're stopping the permitting,
    which means it's creating uncertainty, which means that there
    are contracts that are going elsewhere, if you will.
        Secretary Granholm. We have authorized 48 billion cubic
    feet of natural gas. That is a massive amount. All of that is
    still going forward, if people can get final investment
    decisions. Currently, we are exporting 14 billion cubic feet.
    Another 12 billion cubic feet are under construction. None of
    that is stopped. None of it.
        Senator Cassidy. Yes, but let's not be disingenuous. The
    fact that there is a pause means that--this regulatory pause
    driven by an Administration which sometimes does not look at
    end results--means that investment decisions are being changed.
        Secretary Granholm. Well----
        Senator Cassidy. But my point being----
        Secretary Granholm. We have spoken with our----
        Senator Cassidy. But if I might go to the point.
        Secretary Granholm. Yes.
        Senator Cassidy. Is the life cycle analysis looking at the
    fact that countries may end up using coal instead of natural
    gas or import natural gas from countries which don't have our
    same stringent environmental standards?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, fuel switching is definitely part
    of the analysis.
        Senator Cassidy. So it'll show, just to be clear, that
    China will be using more coal, and the impact on global
    greenhouse gas emissions, as opposed to substituting U.S.
    natural gas, or Germany, or whomever.
        Secretary Granholm. Fuel switching by any country or
    countries will be part of the life cycle analysis.
        Senator Cassidy. I have to admit, the fact that it is so
    obviously and so transparently a major contributor to
    greenhouse gas emissions, that we still need to do the study,
    again, indicates to me that there's another reason to do the
    study. But that's an editorial comment.
        We had testimony here about a year ago, and I forget quite
    from where, but it was around, I think, Oklahoma, Kansas,
    someplace like that, and they were talking about how the
    regulations requiring them to go to renewables were endangering
    their capacity to meet surges, and you just talked about the
    rickety old grid. The fact that we have to bring electrons from
    the Panhandle of Texas all the way to Atlanta obviously makes
    the grid more important, whereas, if somebody is producing
    locally, the local grid is more easily maintained. It doesn't
    have to be as high wattage, et cetera. And I say that because a
    statement was just made that the Administration is focused on
    reducing energy costs. Can we hold up that chart? This is
    actually what has happened since the Administration has taken
    over. This is what the cost of energy has done. This is not
    holding down energy costs. There is a term used in Europe--
    energy poverty.
        [The chart referred to appears on page 6 of this hearing
    document, where first introduced by Senator Barrasso.]
        I remember reading an article in the New York Times--the
    ideological New York Times--about a family in western
    Massachusetts, in which the church had to pay the utility
    bills.
        Now, I say that because I think there has to be a little
    bit of table setting. A lot of these things which theoretically
    are going to lower costs, in reality have increased costs for
    the average American family. Pipeline permitting becoming more
    difficult, for example, means that it's more difficult to get
    cheaper burning natural gas, and therefore, people's utility
    bills are going up. I think Senators King and Manchin have
    discussed that in the past. Any comments on all that?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes. Number one, there is no doubt that
    we are all focused on reducing costs for people, and energy, of
    course, being a big component of that. Natural gas prices----
        Senator Cassidy. By the way, that chart would suggest that
    it's not being very successful as a----
        Secretary Granholm. Well, that chart also starts in January
    2021 in the middle of the pandemic. So let's be clear about
    what it actually looks like out of pandemic. Nonetheless, it is
    important to recognize that the price, for example, of natural
    gas is at very low prices right now. The price of solar, very
    low. What's causing the increase in energy prices? One
    contributing factor is the investments in the grid that are
    necessary, this old grid that gets rate-based among ratepayers,
    and it's one of the reasons why it's so important for us all in
    leadership to take a look at how we invest in the national
    electric grid so that we are not forcing ratepayers to bear
    that burden.
        Senator Cassidy. Now, may I say that also one thing
    contributing to the high cost is the inability to permit new
    natural gas lines? And if you can't get adequate amounts of
    natural gas to a utility, they are going to have to pay more
    for whatever source they get it from, and that's a major
    contributor. We can speak of power lines, but local generation
    is often natural gas, and that has been inhibited, that
    pipeline development has been inhibited by this
    Administration's policies.
        Secretary Granholm. Well, that's not under my jurisdiction,
    so I don't have data on that, but I know that this
    Administration is interested in lowering costs for people,
    which is why they've increased the amount of money for LIHEAP
    for weatherization, increased the ability for people to buy
    electric vehicles at the dealership by reducing those costs,
    increased the ability for people to do insulation in their
    homes so that they can reduce the cost, all of these things,
    all driving toward reducing the cost of energy. The cost of
    natural gas is not high. It is the cost of the infrastructure
    associated with the energy grid that is expensive.
        Senator Cassidy. Yes.
        I yield. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
        Welcome, Secretary. I want to ask you about the Loan
    Programs Office. Projects that are financed under the LPO
    undergo very extensive scrutiny and due diligence before being
    approved. Can you just elaborate on the rigor of the approval
    process, what safeguards are in place that ensure taxpayer
    funds are protected and administered prudently? Yes, go ahead.
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, thanks for asking that. It's, you
    know, the Loan Programs Office has really shifted its
    structure, I'll say, since this Administration came into being.
    So the first thing that's important to know is that the Loan
    Programs Office now is not the first dollar in, but the last
    dollar in, to safeguard the taxpayer, and the Loan Programs
    Office does not take risk on technology. They are funding a
    business model and they are looking at the risk associated with
    the market. And so, as part of this, there are seven steps to
    be able to get a loan.
        Senator Heinrich. Basically, because banks won't take the
    first risk, right?
        Secretary Granholm. Right.
        Senator Heinrich. They need to see something get proven out
    in the marketplace, and then they'll come in and build number
    three or four, but they typically won't build one or two.
        Secretary Granholm. Very well said, and I should have said
    that in that way, but that's exactly what it is. So, we'll
    first do a recruitment from our Business Development Office.
    They have a two-stage application that they have to go through.
    That application includes a risk assessment of their business
    strategy, their leadership team, their marketing strategy, and
    their technology strategy. Then there is an approval and a
    second part, and then it goes to due diligence, and then it
    goes to a conditional commitment, and then it goes to--before
    it goes to conditional commitment, it goes to the interagency
    for review--Treasury, it goes to Management and Budget, it
    comes back, there's a conditional commitment, there's a
    financial close, and then there is monitoring.
        So there are all sorts of steps that----
        Senator Heinrich. And in those steps, are political
    appointees involved, or is that being done by professional
    staff?
        Secretary Granholm. No, other than the recruiting, which
    Jigar Shah does, it is all done by professional federal
    employees.
        Senator Heinrich. I want to ask you about industrial
    decarbonization. We saw some pretty incredible announcements
    adding up to $6 billion in that sector. I think we're at a
    place now where we very much understand how to decarbonize the
    grid. We understand how to decarbonize transportation, which is
    now the leading source of pollution. The big thing that we need
    to make progress on is industrial decarbonization. It's cement,
    it's steel, it's aluminum. Talk about some of the progress that
    is being made there and what you're excited about within the
    industrial decarbonization bucket.
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, this is such a great story,
    because again, there has not been a decision on the part of the
    Federal Government to really invest in the technologies that
    decarbonize the hardest to decarbonize sectors. So, the funding
    that has gone out under the industrial decarbonization program
    went to all range of technologies, including cement, to help
    make green cement, steel, to help make green steel, to glass,
    all these glass providers, glass producers. And it is, you
    know, the decarbonization component of things is really a
    partnership with industry because they want to decarbonize as
    well. It saves them dollars. So we're very excited about the
    projects that we announced. And we will have another phase of
    this, but super-excited to get the enthusiasm that we saw from
    across the country in these projects that otherwise seem to,
    you know, they don't get as much attention, I think, as some of
    the other kinds of technologies, but these technologies are
    hugely important.
        Senator Heinrich. Yes, it's a shame because I think your
    recent announcements are probably the biggest thing to happen
    in this sector, ever.
        Secretary Granholm. Yes.
        Senator Heinrich. And you know, I don't think we were quite
    ripe when we did the Inflation Reduction Act for as much focus
    in this sector as we probably should have put in that
    legislation, but now, it is definitely moving quickly.
        I want to ask you one last question with my remaining time.
    Talk to me about the home efficiency rebates and home
    electrification appliance rebates. What's the time frame for
    getting those approved? I know my state was the first state to
    approve--to apply for both the home efficiency rebates and the
    home electrification and appliance rebates. How is that coming
    along?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, thanks for your leadership on
    this, by the way, because I know part of this was your baby and
    these states are very excited about it. There are 16 states in
    the pipeline. All these states have the opportunity and all
    have received preliminary funding to be able to build their
    program. New Mexico raised their hand right away and said we
    want to lean in and be among the first states, which is
    terrific.
        Once they are approved and they are submitted, it goes
    through a whole series of steps, but each program goes to NREL,
    their Golden field office, to be able to get the final thumbs-
    up. Once that happens, all the funding goes to the states for
    them to build their program. We are hoping that we can convince
    states to accelerate their strategies so that we have the
    summer of rebates, if you will, to be able to see people get
    these appliances in their hands, but it's up to the states.
    It's up to the state timeline. Some states have leaned in and
    some states have not, but we want to encourage all to lean in
    because it's all about the citizens.
        Senator Heinrich. So, just bearing out that there are a
    number of steps that states are going to have to take,
    potentially these programs could be up and running this summer?
        Secretary Granholm. Oh, they could be, sure, if the state
    were willing to go. Now, they have to get their stuff into us.
    We have a sample application on the website so it makes it
    easy. We have a sort of concierge service working with the
    states to encourage them to apply. A lot of states are
    resource-scarce. Their energy offices already applying for all
    these other grants feel very, you know----
        Senator Heinrich. Stretched.
        Secretary Granholm. Stretched. So that's why getting that
    initial money so they can hire up to be able to do the program
    is very important, and I understand that that takes time, but
    we're eager to encourage those who can to do the summer of
    rebates.
        Senator Heinrich. Chairman, I apologize for going a little
    bit long.
        Secretary Granholm. That was my fault.
        Senator Heinrich. I appreciate your discretion.
        The Chairman. No problem.
        Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, nice to see you again. When you were here
    last, I talked with you about the fact that more than 130
    officials in the Energy Department reported more than 2,700
    trades of shares, bonds, and options in companies that ethics
    officers said were directly related to the agency's work. This
    is institutionalized corruption. And I asked you, point blank,
    do you own any individual stock? And you told me, ``no.'' Let's
    just look at it.
        [Poster of the question and answer referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Hawley. It was not a difficult question. Do you own
    individual stocks, Madam Secretary? You said, ``no.'' In fact,
    you repeated it three times to me--``no, no, no.'' Turns out,
    that was false. You did own multiple individual stocks and you
    neglected to report it to this Committee for months afterwards.
    Why did you mislead this Committee?
        Secretary Granholm. Oh, my goodness.
        Senator Hawley. That was exactly my response. So why did
    you mislead this Committee?
        Secretary Granholm. Senator, I believed that I had sold all
    individual stocks, and I was incorrect. So I came back and
    told----
        Senator Hawley. So you just don't know your portfolio?
        Secretary Granholm. Pretty much.
        Senator Hawley. It's a big one, I guess, huh?
        Secretary Granholm. No, it's extremely small.
        Senator Hawley. Apparently not. Someone manages it for you?
        Secretary Granholm. So I came back as soon as I found out
    that, in fact, I had not sold all individual stocks.
        Senator Hawley. Wait, wait, wait, wait, no, that's not true
    either. Let's just look at the timeline.
        [Poster of the timeline referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Hawley. Let's not--I will just remind you you're
    under oath. Madam Secretary, you testified you didn't own any
    individual stocks. You didn't sell the stocks for a whole other
    month, and after you sold the stocks, you waited another month
    before you informed this Committee. Why did you mislead us and
    what were you hiding? Why did you wait so long? Why did you
    hide this?
        Secretary Granholm. I did not hide it because I brought it
    forth to the Committee when I realized that we had made a
    mistake.
        Senator Hawley. Really? What explains the delay? Why did
    you wait for a full month to explain your actions to this
    Committee, your false testimony?
        Secretary Granholm. That's less than a month, and I sent a
    letter explaining what had happened----
        Senator Hawley. May 15 to June 9. Are we going to----
        Secretary Granholm [continuing]. That I made a mistake
    because I owned a Ford stock that would----
        Senator Hawley. You mislead this Committee and you--wait,
    what were the stocks? What were the stocks that you owned?
        Secretary Granholm. It was a Ford stock that my husband had
    owned since he was very young and I just was not aware of it.
        Senator Hawley. And what were the others? You've sold six
    stocks. What were the other five?
        Secretary Granholm. I sold non-conflicting stocks.
        Senator Hawley. What were they?
        Secretary Granholm. Honestly, I don't even know. I do know
    the Ford one because that was a conflict and that's why I
    raised this.
        Senator Hawley. You're here before this Committee a year
    later after actively misleading us, after denying and delaying
    and delaying and now you won't tell us. Was one of them
    Proterra?
        Secretary Granholm. No.
        Senator Hawley. You sat on the Board of Directors of
    Proterra. You made millions in end reports and stock options at
    Proterra. Then you promoted Proterra stock and Proterra
    products as Energy Secretary.
        Secretary Granholm. Sir, sir, sir.
        Senator Hawley. Was that one of the stocks that you sold?
        Secretary Granholm. This is so--I mean really? Really?
        Senator Hawley. Was that one of the stocks that you sold?
    Yes, really.
        Secretary Granholm. No, no.
        Senator Hawley. You were presiding over institutionalized
    corruption in your Energy Department. You have violated the
    STOCK Act nine separate times. You have been referred by the
    Inspector General for violations of the Hatch Act. It is
    institutionalized corruption that you are now the face of. And
    here's what I'm trying to figure out--I just want to know who
    really runs the Energy Department. Is it you or is the mega
    corporations, whose stock that you own, that you're making
    profits on?
        Secretary Granholm. Oh, my goodness.
        Senator Hawley. Or maybe it's the foreign billionaires who
    fund your conferences. Let's try something else. Do you know
    the names of the foreign billionaires who fund the conferences
    you go to? Since you don't know the stocks, do you know the
    names of the foreign billionaires?
        Secretary Granholm. This is unbelievable to me, Mr.
    Chairman, to be accused like this.
        Senator Hawley. Let me help you. One of them is Hansjorg
    Wyss, a Swiss billionaire, who has used various dark money
    front groups----
        Secretary Granholm. I do not know what you are talking
    about.
        Senator Hawley [continuing]. To funnel foreign money into
    American politics. He has used the Berger Action Fund, $20
    million that then sent money to the Fund for a Better Future
    that then sent money to the Climate Power group that has funded
    conferences you've attended. Do you know who this is? Do you
    think it's a good idea to attend conferences funded by foreign
    billionaires?
        Secretary Granholm. I have no idea who that is. I have no
    idea what you're talking about. I have no idea what you're
    talking about.
        Senator Hawley. You don't know the stocks. You don't know
    the billionaires. You would take no responsibility.
        Secretary Granholm. The Ford stock----
        Senator Hawley. Meanwhile, your Energy Department--
    executives in your Energy Department are trading stocks in
    companies that they have direct oversight over, and you were
    too.
        Secretary Granholm. That is incorrect. Nobody in the
    Department of Energy, and we have a strong ethics office,
    trades stocks in anything that they have oversight over. People
    may own individual stocks----
        Senator Hawley. That is simply not true, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Granholm. Sir, this----
        Senator Hawley. The Wall Street Journal has reported on
    this extensively.
        Secretary Granholm. The Wall Street Journal----
        The Chairman. Senator, if I may? If I may, Senator? If I
    might just ask a question?
        Is it possible that maybe we can continue this at a later
    time, but if you had any questions on the direct energy
    policies?
        Senator Hawley. Mr. Chairman, this is directly relevant to
    institutionalized corruption in the Department of Energy that
    she oversees. You're, I think, about to say that the Wall
    Street Journal report is wrong.
        Secretary Granholm. The Wall Street Journal report did not
    say that people in areas that they were directly overseeing had
    stocks. They did not. Our Ethics Office consults with all of
    our employees that have a reporting requirement about their
    stockholdings. They do not own stocks in areas that they have
    any influence over, nor do I.
        Senator Hawley. Madam Secretary, all I have to say is, this
    record is just deplorable. It is despicable. It is outrageous
    that hundreds of officers in the Energy Department are trading
    shares. It is outrageous that you mislead us. It is
    outrageous----
        Secretary Granholm. That's incorrect.
        Senator Hawley [continuing]. That you are continuing to
    mislead us and it is outrageous you're going to conferences and
    events funded by foreign billionaires using dark money to try
    to influence our politics. This has got to change. And frankly,
    you should go.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Secretary Granholm, demand for electricity is
    soaring. It's skyrocketing, in fact. This is happening for a
    number of reasons, including due to the emergence of AI, of
    data centers, semiconductor reshoring, clean tech
    manufacturing, and of course, electric vehicle use. A recent
    New York Times report addressed this issue and estimated that
    electricity demand from data centers alone without taking into
    account any of those other factors is going to triple by 2030,
    just in the next six years, using as much power as 40 million
    homes. Now, NERC has sounded the alarm and NERC sounded that
    alarm by, you know, regarding this pending reliability crisis
    that's coming, due specifically to the lack of electricity
    supply. Demand is soaring, and it's soaring at the same time
    when the premature retirement of coal-fired power generation
    units is happening, and it's happening without replacement
    dispatchable generation capabilities. And so, these factors
    have led to an overreliance on sources like wind and solar,
    sources that while clean, are entirely weather-dependent and
    can't give us a source of baseload energy supply. Grid-scale
    battery technology is often touted as the answer to this, but
    of course, grid-scale battery technology is nowhere close to
    being ready for deployment and use.
        So, Madam Secretary, do you dispute NERC's findings on
    this, or is it true that we have a reliability crisis looming?
        Secretary Granholm. We certainly have a looming demand-for-
    energy crisis, and NERC, I think, put 91 gigawatts to that by
    2033 that we would have to add to account for the increase in
    demand.
        Senator Lee. Okay. Now, in the meantime, and I'd like to
    get a yes or a no answer out of this one, if you can. Yes or
    no, does the Biden Administration support a transition to net
    zero?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes.
        Senator Lee. Okay. Now, look, the basic laws of supply and
    demand tell us that if we don't get our act together, we'll see
    rolling blackouts across the country. And yet, you continue to
    advocate for a transition, even a rapid transition, to net
    zero. According to a report compiled by McKinsey and Company in
    2022, ``Global spending on physical assets on the course to net
    zero would need to reach about $275 trillion by 2050, or $9.2
    trillion per-year on average.'' Now, this factor, of course,
    doesn't consider the economic ripple effects that would stem
    from more expensive energy and energy being made less reliable.
    One also has to consider the impact of lost jobs related to
    those same factors. It's fair to say that a net-zero transition
    is going to require enormous sacrifice by American families,
    with low-income households being hit the hardest. This is
    deeply concerning to every American. It ought to be concerning
    to Americans of every background, of every political stripe,
    but more than anything, this is isn't so much about Left versus
    Right, Democrat versus Republican, as it is rich versus poor.
    Rich folks can handle significant increases in the price of
    energy. Poor folks can't, especially when they find that
    increases in the price of energy spill over into literally
    everything they buy, into everything that they do. And when
    you're living at the margins like that, you're not going to be
    able to handle that.
        So, Madam Secretary, if the United States, consistent with
    your ambitions, with your plans, with the ambitions of the
    Biden Administration, if it completely transitions over to get
    to net zero, exactly how many degrees will global temperatures
    decrease as a result of moving to net zero?
        Secretary Granholm. Well, we want to keep global
    temperatures from rising more than one and a half to two
    degrees. Net zero is by 2050. So there is time to be able to
    get there. If we see temperatures rising greater than that, of
    course, the costs for poor people and for people overall,
    because of these extreme weather events, will be catastrophic.
        Senator Lee. Okay, but let's get back to my question. If we
    get to net zero--when we get to net zero, should we get there
    at some point--if we get there, what impact will that have on
    global temperatures?
        Secretary Granholm. As I say, the striving to net zero is
    to prevent the temperatures from rising more than one and a
    half to two degrees.
        Senator Lee. Yes, still not the answer to the question. The
    question is what impact is that going to have? We just talked
    about the fact that it's going to cost $275 trillion to get
    there and we talked about the fact that it's going to cost the
    global economy, you know, $9 or $10 trillion a year in order to
    get there. So what does that buy us? What does that do?
        Now, you're saying yes, we're trying to not have
    temperatures increase more than the defined amount that you
    just described, but what impact does this have? What does it do
    for global temperatures if we get to net zero?
        Secretary Granholm. Perhaps I'm not understanding your
    question. I think I have answered that, and the whole point is
    to prevent these extreme and accelerating weather events we
    have had--year after year of record heat. We've had year after
    year of increased extreme weather events, just in this country.
        Senator Lee. Look, I understand the Biden Administration's
    affinity for blaming everything, including bad weather on
    Republicans and on climate change, which they always associate
    together. And I fail to understand how you can definitively say
    that a complete transition to net zero is necessary when you
    don't even know the impact that it would have on global
    temperatures. You can't tell me, sitting here today, what it's
    going to do. You tell me what you fear might happen if we don't
    do that. You tell me that you think temperatures will increase
    less if we do this than if we don't. I don't get this,
    especially when, if what you're talking about is, you know, a
    large number, it would seem fanciful and not backed up. If it's
    a smaller number, it could be dismissed as a rounding error.
        And meanwhile, you're talking about completely changing the
    global economy. And given the way the United States tends to
    honor its legal obligations and its commitments more than other
    countries do, we can rest assured that it is going to cost the
    United States a lot more money than it is going to in a lot of
    places, meaning poor and middle-class Americans will suffer by
    far more than anyone and everyone else. I find this completely
    unacceptable. This is reverse Robin Hood. It's talking about
    stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Nobody supports
    that. And we can't endure it. America's poor and middle class
    certainly shouldn't have to shoulder this burden.
        The Chairman. Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary, for being here today.
        One of the things that, as you know very well from visiting
    the Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC), is that
    we're working very hard to develop these new technologies so
    that we can keep our baseload energy in place, whether that's
    our coal-fired electric plants, but also the work that we do in
    oil and gas. You know, we have the best stewardship in the
    nation--in the world. Our country has the best stewardship in
    the world, and it's because we are leading the way in all these
    technologies, which, obviously, you saw at the EERC, and DOE
    needs to help us with that. One of them that we talked to you
    about is the Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership, PCOR.
    So we work on that with the EERC at the University of North
    Dakota. Senator Barrasso works on it in Wyoming with the
    University of Wyoming. Senator Murkowski, in Alaska, the
    University of Alaska at Fairbanks, as well as our esteemed
    Chairman, Senator Manchin, works with these regional
    partnerships in West Virginia. So they are very important and
    really cover the country. And so we, through the appropriations
    process, secured funding for those partnerships. There are four
    of them that pretty much cover the whole country. And we
    directed that Congress move ahead with multi-year funding to
    competitively select, you know, these partnerships to go ahead
    and provide, again, this work on how we can safely sequester
    CO2. And as you know, that's done both for
    sequestering as well as enhanced oil recovery.
        So my question is, we need to get going on that, and in the
    past, there's been disagreement between Congress, in terms of
    funding these things, and then the DOE coming in and how they
    have approached it. And so my question to you is, will you
    commit to promptly issue a funding opportunity announcement for
    the RCSP program that's consistent--this is the important
    part--consistent with the language that we included for 2024?
    Because we have been doing this for a number of years. These
    folks, these universities have done a good job across the
    country, and then DOE came in and tried to--and did change how
    it's being handled. So we put language in this year to make
    sure that we move forward with this funding and that it's done
    as we've done it in the past, which has been very successful.
        Secretary Granholm. The answer is yes--short answer. I was
    pleased to see that the Liberty Carbon Management Hub at the
    University of North Dakota received funding from the previous
    funding opportunity announcement. We are using that same
    language to go into this next funding opportunity announcement.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay. And it's very important--another
    project, you're aware of it, that we've talked about, is Dakota
    Gasification Company.
        Secretary Granholm. Yes.
        Senator Hoeven. Which takes lignite coal and coverts it to
    natural gas. Fifty percent of the CO2 stream goes
    for EOR, enhanced oil recovery. And now they are capturing
    another 35 percent, which takes it up to 85 percent for
    geologic storage. Same thing though, EERC, University of North
    Dakota, they measure, so you've got an independent entity
    measuring to make sure that the CO2 is captured, is
    put down a hole, it's sequestered, and then it's safe for the
    long term. You know, we've put a lot of programs in place in
    North Dakota. We're one of two states in the country that can
    do it right now, North Dakota and Wyoming. Same thing--you're
    working with them to fund that monitoring project. The first
    round, I think, was $1.4 million, but now there's additional
    follow-on funding as this project is ramped up. Again, the
    largest carbon capture project in the country. Again, I want to
    know, will you commit to promptly approving the necessary
    funding that you participate in with them as a partner in what
    I think is an incredible, you know, incredible project that's
    really leading the way forward?
        Secretary Granholm. Of course.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay. So both of those, I think, incredibly
    important.
        The last thing I do want to bring up, and I know you've
    been asked about it. I haven't been here for the whole hearing,
    but I was about a year ago in both South Korea and Taiwan. They
    need LNG from us. We don't want them to be dependent on Russia
    or somebody else. So, again, in terms of this moratorium on
    siting LNG facilities, it's just paramount that we move
    forward. And it's not just getting it in places the market
    signals that we send. You yourself just mentioned the cost of
    LNG is low now. So we need the facilities to provide it to
    customers.
        What can you do to help advance this process so that we get
    back to permitting LNG facilities?
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, I mean, as we said, this update
    process, which is done with our national labs, will be
    completed around the end of the year and the data will show
    what the data shows, but the important part is that it takes
    into account what our allies need, what we expect the global
    demand will be, what the impacts on the ground here are in
    terms of jobs and community, and what the life cycle issue is
    with respect to LNG. And so all of those, and the cost, of
    course, very importantly, the cost at home of exporting a large
    amount of LNG for our own manufacturers, for example, our own
    consumers of natural gas. So all of that is happening right
    now, and this will soon be in the rear-view mirror.
        Senator Hoeven. Yes, it is really important that we get
    that squared away, not only for our own national security, but
    also working with our allies.
        Secretary Granholm. But just to remember that everybody who
    is currently exporting, this does not affect. Everybody who is
    under construction, this does not affect. Everybody who is
    authorized, this does not affect.
        Senator Hoeven. Well, we both understand the issue, and
    your attention to it is very important, and so I thank you for
    that.
        Secretary Granholm. Great.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Secretary Granholm, let me just say you and your husband
    Dan and I have known each other for probably 20 years or more,
    and Gayle and I, we have had a great relationship. And I want
    to thank you for your service. No one has ever questioned that
    and your dedication and commitment to not only the State of
    Michigan, but to the United States of America. And I
    appreciate, more than you know, and I know that sometimes
    politics gets a little rough here, and I want to apologize for
    that. And if you wanted to make any statement whatsoever.
        Secretary Granholm. Yes, I just want to say, Mr. Chairman--
    --
        The Chairman. Sure.
        Secretary Granholm. Thank you for the opportunity--the
    previous statements made by a member of the Committee----
        The Chairman. You and I talked about this, too, afterwards
    and we went through all this.
        Secretary Granholm. Exactly. About the transparency of my
    personal finances, everything is online, everything is publicly
    available. So I just want to make sure everybody knows that.
        The Chairman. Let me just say one thing, living in
    Michigan, if your husband had not bought Ford stock, he would
    not be a good Michigander.
        Secretary Granholm. Exactly, especially since his dad
    worked for Ford.
        [Laughter.]
        Secretary Granholm. But anyway----
        The Chairman. Anyway, the bottom line is that we know the
    honorable service you have given and your commitment to this
    country and we just want to make sure you're able to continue
    that in the best way possible. We're here to support. We're
    here to work out our differences and talk about how we make
    things better for all and I think that's the spirit with which
    we should be approaching this, but we've got to get back on
    track, get this politics back on track to where the
    government--country comes first, it's not our politics.
        I want to thank the witness for joining us today and
    bringing your expertise.
        The members are going to have until the close of business
    tomorrow to submit any additional questions for the record.
        And with that, the Committee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                       [all]