    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         POWERING AMERICA'S FUTURE: UNLEASHING
                                     AMERICAN ENERGY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                FEBRUARY 5, 2025

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 119-3

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                       govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    58-962 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

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

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                            BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
                                     Chairman

    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia           Ranking Member
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                PAUL TONKO, New York
    DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice       RAUL RUIZ, California
        Chairman                         SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                DARREN SOTO, Florida
    DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
    ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          KEVIN MULLIN, California
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
    THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
    GABE EVANS, Colorado
    CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
    JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                         MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
                    SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
                   TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
                             Subcommittee on Energy

                             ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
                                     Chairman
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas, Vice     KATHY CASTOR, Florida
        Chairman                           Ranking Member
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 KEVIN MULLIN, California
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
    DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 PAUL TONKO, New York
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio               JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    GABE EVANS, Colorado                 FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas                  officio)
    JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex
        officio)
                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     2
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Florida, opening statement.....................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
    Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    17

                                   Witnesses

    Amanda Eversole, Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy
      Officer, American Petroleum Institute..........................    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
        Additional material submitted for the record.................    27
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   170
    Gary Arnold, Business Manager, Pipefitters Local 208.............    43
        Prepared statement...........................................    45
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   176
    Tyler O'Connor, Partner, Crowell & Moring LLP....................    54
        Prepared statement...........................................    56
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   180
    Brigham A. McCown, Senior Fellow and Director, Initiative on
      American Energy Security, Hudson Institute.....................    66
        Prepared statement...........................................    68
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   182

                               Submitted Material

    Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
    List of documents submitted for the record.......................   134
    Letter of January 17, 2024, from James ``Spider'' Marks,
      President, The Marks Collaborative, et al., to President Biden
      and Michael S. Regan, Administrator, Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................   135
    Letter from Cody Carbone, President, Digital Power Network, to
      Subcommittee on Energy members.................................   139
    Letter of February 4, 2025, from Paul N. Cicio, President and
      Chief Executive Officer, Industrial Energy Consumers of
      America, to Mr. Latta and Ms. Castor...........................   141
    Letter of February 4, 2025, from Matthew T. Durand, Deputy
      General Counsel, National Association of Convenience Stores, to
      Mr. Latta and Ms. Castor.......................................   145
    Statement of Ben Johnston, President, Fidem Energy, February 5,
      2025...........................................................   147
    Report of the Colorado Energy Office on Federal funds............   152
    Article of January 30, 2025, ``Trump is About to Wreck U.S. Oil
      Refineries,'' by Robinson Meyer, Heatmap.......................   154
    Letter of January 7, 2025, from American Clean Power Association,
      et al., to Senator Mike Crapo, et al...........................   162
    Report of Aurora Energy Research, ``Impact of reform to clean
      energy tax credits on investment, jobs and consumer bills,''
      January 6, 2025 1A\1\
    Letter of February 4, 2025, from Anne Bradbury, President and
      Chief Executive Officer, American Exploration & Production
      Council, to Mr. Latta and Ms. Castor...........................   164
    Statement of Jennifer M. Granholm, Secretary, Department of
      Energy, on Updated Final Analyses..............................   167

    ----------

    \1\ The report has been retained in committee files and is included in
    the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
    IF03/20250205/117867/HHRG-119-IF03-20250205-SD003.pdf.

             POWERING AMERICA'S FUTURE: UNLEASHING AMERICAN ENERGY

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                                Subcommittee on Energy,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in
    the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
    Hon. Robert E. Latta (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Latta, Weber, Palmer,
    Allen, Balderson, Pfluger, Harshbarger, Miller-Meeks, James,
    Bentz, Fry, Lee, Langworthy, Rulli, Evans, Goldman, Fedorchak,
    Guthrie (ex officio), Castor (subcommittee ranking member),
    Peters, Menendez, McClellan, DeGette, Matsui, Tonko, Veasey,
    Schrier, Fletcher, Ocasio-Cortez, Auchincloss, and Pallone (ex
    officio).
        Also present: Representative Joyce.
        Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations; Clara
    Cargile, Professional Staff Member, Energy; Jessica Donlon,
    General Counsel; Andrew Furman, Professional Staff Member,
    Energy; Sydney Greene, Director of Finance and Logistics; Emily
    Hale, Staff Assistant; Calvin Huggins, Clerk, Energy; Megan
    Jackson, Staff Director; Daniel Kelly, Press Secretary; Patrick
    Kelly, Staff Assistant; Sophie Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff
    Director; Mary Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy; Joel Miller,
    Chief Counsel; Ben Mullaney, Press Secretary; Kaitlyn Peterson,
    Policy Analyst, Environment; Kristen Pinnock, GAO Detailee,
    Oversight and Investigations; Jackson Rudden, Staff Assistant;
    Chris Sarley, Member Services/Stakeholder Director; Peter
    Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; Kaley
    Stidham, Press Assistant; Matt VanHyfte, Communications
    Director; Keegan Cardman, Minority Staff Assistant; Austin
    Flack, Minority Professional Staff Member; Waverly Gordon,
    Minority Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel; Tiffany
    Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; Will McAuliffe, Minority
    Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Kristopher
    Pittard, Minority Professional Staff Member; Emma Roehrig,
    Minority Staff Assistant; Kylea Rogers, Minority Policy
    Analyst; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications,
    Outreach, and Member Services; Medha Surampudy, Minority
    Professional Staff Member; and Tuley Wright, Minority Staff
    Director, Energy.
        Mr. Latta. Well, good morning. The Subcommittee on Energy
    will come to order, and the Chair recognizes himself for 5
    minutes for an opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        I want to thank all of our witnesses for being with us
    today for today's hearing on ``Powering America's Future:
    Unleashing American Energy.''
        Today we are discussing the state of our Nation's energy
    system, reviewing the Biden administration's actions that
    undermined our economic and national security, but most
    importantly, looking forward to how our subcommittee will meet
    our ever-expanding need for more energy.
        In the last Congress, I asked every witness that appeared
    before us in this subcommittee the same question--``Do we need
    more energy or less energy?''--and all of those witnesses
    responded by saying we need more.
        The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects the
    United States will consume record amounts of electricity in
    2024 and 2025. The Department of Energy's Berkeley Lab
    estimates that U.S. data center load growth, which already
    encompasses half the data centers in the world, is projected to
    double or triple by the year 2028.
        Last Congress, we heard extensive testimony from grid
    experts and operators about the impacts of burdensome
    regulations, like the Clean Power Plan 2.0, that would drive
    out resources that are essential to keeping the lights on and
    our economy flowing.
        Households and businesses alike continue to struggle under
    high energy prices that have followed excessive Federal
    spending and anti-fossil-fuel policy decisions of the Biden
    administration.
        In 2008, House Republicans first showcased the all-of-the-
    above energy strategy that supports this diverse mix of energy
    sources without the government picking winners or losers, which
    is better for meeting demand and better for the environment.
        Intermittent energy sources, such as solar and wind, have a
    role to play in a diverse energy mix. However, we must maintain
    our baseload power that is delivered from fossil fuels,
    nuclear, and hydropower.
        While resources are strained, the next-generation economy
    will require massive amounts of reliable, affordable, and
    abundant energy.
        My district in Ohio is home to over 86,000 manufacturing
    jobs and has seen the data center energy demand arrive.
        When it comes to winning the AI race, all energy solutions
    need to be on the table--small modular nuclear reactors,
    traditional nuclear power, intermittent renewables, batteries,
    natural gas, fuel cells, just to name a few.
        But our Nation's energy future is at a turning point, and
    the world is not going to wait for us. Adversarial nations
    actively seek to exploit our energy demand to undermine our
    position on the world stage.
        Unfortunately, misguided actions from the Biden
    administration, like the LNG export ban, handicapped diplomatic
    tools of energy abundance.
        Instead, the Biden administration's electrification-or-
    nothing and rush-to-green approach has only emboldened
    adversaries like Communist China who manipulate critical
    mineral markets and limit exports of key materials for our
    manufacturing sector and defense industrial base.
        Meanwhile, China is doubling down on their efforts to gain
    a leadership position in the global race for AI development in
    the next generation economy.
        Here is the good news: It is a new day in America, and
    President Trump has led a necessary reset of our national
    energy strategy.
        As we look to the future of our Nation's energy needs, this
    subcommittee will be essential to ensure our electric grid is
    secure against physical and cyber attacks and natural
    disasters.
        We will unlock our abundant resources through permitting
    reforms that can ensure innovations and advancements are
    happening here in America. We will build on the bipartisan
    success of the ADVANCE Act and the Nuclear Fuel Security Act to
    usher in next-generation nuclear, discuss innovative solutions
    for spent fuel, like recycling and storage, and expand
    America's nuclear fuel infrastructure to restore our global
    nuclear leadership.
        This committee must address the growing energy demand and
    all the issues that come with it. I look forward to the
    constructive dialogue today as we embark on a path to reassert
    North American energy dominance.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. And with that, I yield 30 seconds to my friend,
    the gentleman from Colorado's Eighth District.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to take
    a quick moment.
        Today I am proud to introduce Mr. Gary Arnold, who serves
    as the business manager of the Pipefitters Local Union 208
    based out of Denver, Colorado.
        Local 208 represents almost 2,000 highly skilled jobs and
    hard-working journeymen and -women, many of whom live and work
    in my district, and Local 208 also covers all of my district.
        Looking forward to the vital perspective that you are going
    to offer about the passionate workforce that every energy
    product requires and project requires. So thank you for being
    here.
        And, Mr. Chairman, yield back.
        Ms. DeGette. Mr. Chairman, will you yield?
        Mr. Latta. I recognize the gentlelady.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        I just want to add my welcome to my friend Mr. Arnold, who
    is from my district.
        It is great to have you here.
        Yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And the Chair yields
    back the balance of his time.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida's
    14th District, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5
    minutes for an opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Latta, and
    congratulations to you on having the gavel of this great
    subcommittee.
        And welcome to all of the new Members on the subcommittee.
        The Democrats and I, we look forward to working on policy
    that delivers more affordable and reliable energy to hard-
    working Americans and businesses.
        We have an incredible opportunity to build on the successes
    of the past few years and the advances in lower-cost, clean
    energy, grid resilience, innovation, and efficiency.
        We can all take great pride in the new factories, the jobs,
    the progress activated by the historic infrastructure law of
    2021 and the clean energy and climate resilience law of 2022,
    because over the past few years over 750 new or expanded clean
    energy projects have been announced, along with 400,000 new
    jobs and $422 billion of private sector being invested because
    of what we have done.
        Across America, and in most districts represented in this
    committee, new battery plants, clean vehicle factories, and
    solar and wind manufacturing centers are breathing new life
    into communities, local economies, and small businesses. These
    are good-paying, many union jobs that can support a family.
        That is why the early actions of the Trump administration
    are cause for concern, including the firing of the Department
    of Energy Inspector General, who is responsible for rooting out
    waste, fraud, and abuse.
        Nothing in the early Trump Executive orders is designed to
    lower energy prices or help hard-working Americans. Instead,
    across the board, the actions are a gift to big oil companies.
    They are designed to boost their profits at the expense of
    working families across this country.
        It is outlandish that the President declared an energy
    emergency at a time when the United States is producing more
    oil and gas than any country in history.
        America is the second-largest producer of wind energy and a
    top-five producer in solar energy. We lead the world in nuclear
    energy and biofuel production. America is a dominant energy
    superpower.
        The stop-work order on energy projects now is delaying
    construction projects in our communities. It is causing
    companies to lay off workers. It is causing delays in upgrading
    transmission lines and building battery factories and bringing
    nuclear plants back online. And all of this adds up.
        Frankly, when you look at what is going on, it is illegal,
    and we are not going to stand for it. We are going to fight
    back to make sure that these dollars get to where they are
    supposed to go and build the clean energy economy that is
    important to all of us.
        Future projections show--and the chairman is right--that we
    are going to need to generate more electricity, but the
    President's prescription for the so-called emergency is to
    unnecessarily complicate energy projects and to ban lower-cost
    renewable energy sources like wind and solar.
        It doesn't do anything to lower costs for families and
    businesses, and, frankly, it doesn't make sense--until you
    understand that it is just a gift to polluters and big oil.
        We are in the grips of a real emergency, however, and that
    is the heating climate, which is leading to higher bills,
    stronger hurricanes, extreme heat, more destructive floods and
    wildfires.
        And if we don't reduce climate pollution, the cost of these
    catastrophes will continue to grow while our neighbors back
    home struggle to rebuild their homes, to afford their air
    conditioning bills, to afford property insurance.
        The climate stresses are not just about the weather. They
    are about our wallets.
        And another red flag in the President's early Executive
    orders that will hit consumers with higher energy bills is his
    call to expand liquefied natural gas exports, because studies
    show that increasing LNG exports will raise energy prices for
    American families. Exporting gas outside America raises costs
    on small businesses and industries that rely heavily on it.
        Plus, China is the single biggest LNG importer in the
    entire world. The least we could do would be to ensure that our
    LNG exports are not subsidizing China's industrial build-out at
    the cost of higher domestic gas prices for Americans.
        We are in a great competition with China on electric
    vehicles. They want to put our automakers out of business, and
    the President and the Republicans should not help them.
        Competitors like China are eager for President Trump to
    kill America's clean energy economy so they can dominate the
    global market instead.
        And while you can see we are going to have plenty to debate
    here, I also see a lot of room for bipartisan common ground.
        Chair Latta is interested in strengthening the aging
    electric grid, as am I, and many Members are interested in the
    next generation of nuclear power, critical minerals, and
    battery recycling. And I know together we can ensure that
    Americans are energy secure and encourage innovation. That is
    the hallmark of America.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the chair of the full
    committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Latta. I really
    look forward to working with your leadership guiding the Energy
    Subcommittee with the ranking member, my friend from Florida.
        And to all of our new members, welcome, and I look forward
    to your contributions as well.
        The availability and affordability and reliability of
    American energy and its delivery systems is fundamental to
    enabling our Nation to make and do things--to grow
    manufacturing, advance AI, heat our homes, fuel our cars, and
    produce the goods and services we all rely upon.
        Our work this Congress will aim to enable the Nation to
    grow, prosper, and assert global leadership in an adversarial
    world, and we will work hard to improve the lives and economic
    security of those in the communities we represent.
        Today's hearing opens our discussion of the reforms needed
    to usher in a golden age of American energy. We will explore
    the benefits of--and the urgent need for--energy policies of
    abundance and dominance.
        We will look at how responsible stewardship of our
    tremendous oil and gas reserves--and the infrastructure to
    deliver those resources--will support new industries and
    manufacturing.
        This hearing will also provide the beginning of our
    discussions and exploration of the enormous demand for energy
    for AI.
        Further, today we will continue to make the case for
    American leadership in energy production and technology to
    support our allies, including through the export of LNG,
    advanced gas turbines, and nuclear.
        We all have seen the increasing strains on our electric
    grid, including failure to provide reliable power utilizing
    coal, natural gas, and nuclear, when it is needed the most.
        Grid and energy experts warn the frequency of these outages
    will only increase if State and Federal renewable energy
    policies continue to drive the premature retirement of
    traditional baseload generation.
        Now, the new and growing demand for advanced manufacturing
    capacity and data centers to fuel the AI race have exposed the
    limits of our current energy systems as well.
        This new reality adds to the urgency to look at what is
    needed to provide the energy we need to win the competition
    with China and achieve the tremendous benefits of advanced
    computing.
        I appreciate the time that the subcommittee chair has
    yielded, and I will yield to the vice chair of the
    subcommittee, Mr. Weber, for the remainder of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Weber. I thank you, Chairman Guthrie, for yielding.
        I am thrilled to serve as vice chair of this Energy
    Subcommittee for this Congress. I look forward to working with
    Chairmen Guthrie and Latta on energy policy, which is the
    driver of so friggin' much of our economy.
        Today's hearing is critical to this committee's role in
    advancing an energy future that can lower cost and fuel
    economic growth in Texas, my home State, and across the country
    for that matter.
        America is blessed with abundant natural resources that can
    lift up small communities, solidify our geopolitical position
    on the world stage, and create workforce opportunities for
    generations to come.
        Nowhere is this clearer than in my southeast Texas
    Congressional District 14. My Gulf Coast district, which many
    consider the energy capital of the world, is home to seven
    ports, three LNG facilities, seven of the largest refineries in
    the United States, and 60 percent of the Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve is stored in our district.
        Unfortunately, my district was also ground zero for the
    Biden administration's anti-fossil-fuel agenda. So whether it
    was the ban on LNG exports, SPR gimmicks that drained our
    capacity, or the overburdensome regulatory environment designed
    to drive out fossil fuels, southeast Texans bore the brunt of a
    disastrous American energy strategy for the last 4 years.
        Southeast Texans know firsthand that these facilities not
    only create family-sustaining careers that allow people to
    achieve the American Dream, but they also fund schools, local
    hospitals, they fund public safety resources, as well as a
    myriad of other community benefits.
        Under President Trump's leadership, our Nation has an
    opportunity to once again regain control over our own energy
    future. I look forward to the discussion today that will
    highlight the urgency behind our need to actually expand
    American energy production and fuel what we call a golden age
    of opportunity.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
    the balance of his time.
        The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
    committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

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

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Committee Republicans want to talk about unleashing
    American energy at a time when President Trump is blatantly
    breaking the law--a law that is helping us unleash American
    energy and reduce energy costs for American families.
        On his first day in office, President Trump illegally froze
    billions of dollars in investments in the energy sector that
    were passed into law by Congress. That action was followed by a
    broader directive from the Office of Management and Budget that
    halted funding across the government, including Medicaid.
        And Trump is stealing from the American people, but
    congressional Republicans appear to have no problem with that.
    They have been virtually silent as Trump and his administration
    continue to defy the law.
        Fortunately, the courts have already ruled in favor of
    parties seeking to put a stop to this unconstitutional power
    grab, and today I am sending letters, with the subcommittee
    ranking members, to the Department of Energy and other agencies
    within our committee's jurisdiction demanding that these
    congressionally approved funds be distributed immediately.
        We also want to know what funds are being sent out and what
    funds are still being illegally withheld.
        Now, President Trump has a long history of stiffing
    contractors, particularly in my home State of New Jersey where
    all his casinos went bankrupt but he didn't pay anybody. But
    America, our government, can't be like Trump. We have to uphold
    our commitments.
        The chaotic rollout has left communities and organizations
    that are owed Federal funding reeling. Workers and businesses
    are being harmed. Americans in need of care are being harmed.
    Congress and the American people deserve answers, and we are
    going to fight to find them.
        Unfortunately, as I said, House Republicans have been
    virtually silent. They too are dead set on eliminating these
    funds through the legislative process so they can pay for
    trillions of dollars in tax cuts for billionaires and big
    corporations.
        House Republicans' energy plans will increase costs for
    American families. Repealing the clean energy provisions in the
    law could result in a 10 percent jump for American families on
    their energy bills.
        Republicans ignore the fact that the Inflation Reduction
    Act is also growing our economy for the future and helping us
    combat the worsening climate crisis.
        But, frankly, it is difficult for me to comprehend how
    senseless the energy policies of the new administration are.
    Trump declared a bogus emergency--or I should say energy
    emergency--yet on the very same day he illegally attempted to
    cut off Federal support for nearly all energy investments in
    the United States.
        And Republicans spent years saying that they supported an
    all-of-the-above energy strategy, yet they are now trying to
    kill solar and wind, both onshore and offshore, I should add.
        And what is especially distressing is that the Republican
    Party is attempting to decimate a portion of our energy
    industry just when we need it most.
        The subcommittee heard repeatedly last Congress that, after
    20 years, demand for electricity in this country is starting to
    increase. And to be clear, this is actually a good thing
    because it means that artificial intelligence companies are
    choosing to build data centers in America, it means that
    manufacturing is making a major comeback in America after a
    generation of decline, and it means that more Americans are
    shifting towards cleaner ways of driving and heating and
    cooling their homes.
        All of these are promising trends that will benefit the
    country, but not if the power sector cannot meet the challenge.
        Grid operators across the country are sounding the alarm,
    and they are saying that they need every new electricity
    generator they can get to come online over the next 5 years and
    that we need to interconnect as many resources as we can as
    quickly as possible.
        Power generation projects take a long time to build in this
    country, and according to the Lawrence Berkeley National
    Laboratory, over 95 percent of the generation in the so-called
    interconnection queue is wind, solar, and batteries.
        So if Republicans are really interested in unleashing
    American energy, they should work with us to clear
    interconnection queues and let resources get on the grid as
    quickly as possible.
        We should work together to make sure that we have
    sufficient infrastructure, whether it is transmission lines,
    transformers, circuit breakers, or other vital equipment, to
    make sure that we can hook those new sources of electricity up
    to the grid.
        And these are actions that we have to take. Our Nation's
    ability to compete in the 21st century depends on it.
        Unfortunately, it appears that Republicans are determined
    to, once again, do the bidding of their big oil and gas
    friends, and I don't think that is progress, and Democrats will
    fight this partisan effort every step of the way.
        So, finally, to all the career staff at the Department of
    Energy who are doing such hard work under challenging
    circumstances, please stay in your jobs. America really needs
    your expertise.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
    the balance of his time. This concludes Member opening
    statements.
        The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
    committee rules, all Members' opening statements will be made
    part of the record.
        And before recognizing our witnesses, I also want to just
    thank all of our new members that are on the subcommittee. A
    hearty welcome. We are going to have a lot of work to do this
    Congress, and I look forward to working with everyone.
        I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today and
    taking the time to testify before our subcommittee. Each
    witness will have the opportunity to give a 5-minute opening
    statement, followed by a round of questions from the Members.
        Our witnesses for today's hearing are Amanda Eversole, the
    executive vice president and chief advocacy officer at the
    American Petroleum Institute; Mr. Gary Arnold, business manager
    at the Denver Pipefitters Local 208; Mr. Tyler O'Connor,
    partner at Crowell & Moring LLP; and Mr. Brigham McCown is
    senior fellow and director of the Initiative on American Energy
    Security at the Hudson Institute.
        I want to thank you all for being here.
        And before we recognize our first witness, just a little
    housekeeping. With the box in front of you, you will see the
    light will be green. At 1 minute it will go yellow. And when
    your time expires after 5 minutes it will go red, and if you
    could finish up, we would appreciate it.
        And so what we would like you to do is pull that mike up
    close and turn it on, and we are ready to go.
        The Chair recognizes Ms. Eversole for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

      STATEMENTS OF AMANDA EVERSOLE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
      CHIEF ADVOCACY OFFICER, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; GARY
        ARNOLD, BUSINESS MANAGER, PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 208; TYLER
    O'CONNOR, PARTNER, CROWELL & MORING LLP; AND BRIGHAM A. McCOWN,
       SENIOR FELLOW AND DIRECTOR, INITIATIVE ON AMERICAN ENERGY
                       SECURITY, HUDSON INSTITUTE

                      STATEMENT OF AMANDA EVERSOLE

        Ms. Eversole. Good morning. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Latta, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Castor,
    Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, my
    name is Amanda Eversole, and I am the executive vice president
    and chief advocacy officer at the American Petroleum Institute.
        I am honored to be invited by this committee to discuss the
    profound opportunities that we have by working together to
    build a better energy future for all Americans.
        API is a national trade association representing all
    segments of America's oil and natural gas industry, from large
    integrated companies to small independent producers. This
    industry represents 11 million hard-working men and women
    across all 50 States and supports energy that powers every
    district in this Nation.
        API is proud to have developed more than 800 standards that
    enhance operational safety, environmental protection, and
    sustainability across 140 countries.
        In fact, promoting technological, environmental, and
    regulatory innovation is a driving force for API and our
    industry to achieve what is most important to all of us:
    ensuring that we have the reliable, affordable, and cleaner
    energy that tens of millions of hard-working families and
    businesses need now and well into the future.
        As API's Lights on Energy literacy campaign reminds us, oil
    and gas fuel our economy, secure our future, and keep America
    moving.
        As we saw in the last election, the American people made
    their energy priorities clear. They voted for energy that is
    more affordable and more reliable. They want the freedom to
    make choices about what to drive and how to cook and for an
    energy policy that keeps costs down and our country
    economically strong and secure.
        Now, this committee and Congress can advance these
    priorities through commonsense policies that support energy
    growth, while continuing our shared commitment to environmental
    performance and innovation.
        We can build on the $2 trillion of value that this industry
    generates for our economy, an amount larger than 95 percent of
    the GDPs of countries around the world.
        As energy demand surges due to population growth and the
    massive impact of artificial intelligence, we must ensure that
    America remains the world's energy powerhouse.
        Today we account for about 17 percent of global crude oil
    production. That is up from just 8 percent in 2010. That is
    good for our economy, and it is good for our national security.
        And let's not forget that greenhouse gas emissions in the
    U.S. are at a generational low, and the biggest reason for that
    is replacing higher-emitting fuels with natural gas.
        Yet despite the incredible strength of our industry and its
    people, America's continuing energy leadership is far from
    guaranteed. Ineffective policies have put investment at risk
    and ignore the reality that hundreds of billions of dollars in
    capital are required every year just to keep production at
    current levels.
        To address these challenges, API released its five-point
    policy roadmap to secure American energy leadership.
        Our plan outlines five specific principles.
        First, we must protect consumer choice. Let Americans
    choose what is best for their families, whether it is their
    car, their stove, or their furnace. We must avoid misguided
    policies that threaten to raise costs for families and for
    businesses.
        Second, we must bolster our geopolitical strength. Energy
    security is national security. Lifting the LNG export pause was
    a major step in reaffirming the United States as a cornerstone
    of global energy security.
        Third, we must leverage our natural resources. We have the
    resources, so let's use them--responsibly. Unnecessary
    restrictions limit our ability to harness these vast resources
    and discourage long-term investment in domestic energy
    production.
        Fourth, we must reform our permitting system. Right now we
    cannot get things done, and it simply doesn't have to be that
    way. A more efficient permitting system will unlock billions in
    private investment, create jobs, and ensure that the U.S. has
    the infrastructure to meet growing energy demands.
        Specifically, we need Congress to act to prevent statutes
    like NEPA and the Clean Water Act from being weaponized in the
    courts by opponents of energy development.
        And finally, we need sensible tax policy for sustained
    energy investment. API supports policies that help achieve
    long-term energy security and environmental goals.
        To build on the successes of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,
    Congress should pass legislation that maintains the corporate
    rate, facilitates domestic infrastructure investment, and
    preserves critical international provisions.
        Put simply, we need policies that encourage investment
    rather than restrict it. It has never been more vital that the
    U.S. control our energy future, and this committee and Congress
    have an opportunity to seize this moment to pass meaningful
    legislation that will move our country forward.
        Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member, and distinguished
    members of the committee, this concludes my prepared statement,
    and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Eversole follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        And, Mr. Arnold, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
    opening statement.

                        STATEMENT OF GARY ARNOLD

        Mr. Arnold. Well, good morning, Chairman Latta, Ranking
    Member Castor, and members of the committee.
        My name is Gary Arnold, and I am the business manager of
    Pipefitters Local 208 based in Denver, Colorado. I also serve
    as the international vice president of the United Association
    of Union Pipefitters and Plumbers, Local 208's parent union.
        Local 208 and the UA take great pride in providing the
    American people and our business partners with the highest-
    skilled and best-trained energy workers in the world.
        I also know firsthand that the careers pursued by these
    workers are life-changing and truly provide a path to the
    middle class where Americans enjoy family-sustaining wages and
    benefits without crippling student loan debt.
        So on behalf of our members, I want to thank you for the
    opportunity to be here to discuss a topic that is near and dear
    to us: unleashing American energy.
        Like most Americans, hard-working pipefitters want energy
    that is affordable, reliable, American made, and safe for their
    families and communities.
        We support efforts to make the energy we produce cleaner.
    However, we take exception to being asked to suffer lost job
    opportunities, higher energy prices, and power outages because
    of opposition to projects from fringe groups that is rooted in
    scare tactics and unrealistic solutions to real-world energy
    demand.
        Our members want to see America lead on energy because the
    good of the country and our own careers and livelihoods depend
    on it.
        We have a difficult time understanding why it takes several
    years to permit a natural gas pipeline in a country that is
    sitting on a mountain of reserves while at the same time seeing
    electricity prices rise.
        We struggle to comprehend why many still resist the
    expansion of nuclear energy when we have used nuclear for more
    than a half a century without a single injury or fatality and
    when it produces electricity on less land than any other clean
    source.
        We have a difficult time understanding how groups claiming
    to be focused on reducing emissions are having success
    undermining carbon-capture projects that would make existing
    power plants and industrial facilities cleaner.
        To unleash American energy, we must speed up the project
    approval process and reduce the needless uncertainty and costs
    that energy companies and consumers are being asked to endure.
        We must also reduce the ability of fringe groups to
    leverage every chokepoint that they can to punish companies for
    building the energy infrastructure we need.
        For these reasons, I am very encouraged by President
    Trump's Executive order on unleashing American energy. It is
    vital that we address regulations and policies that undermine
    the development of critical energy sources like natural gas,
    oil, nuclear, biofuels, and geothermal, as well as newer
    promising sources like blue hydrogen.
        Together with the steps that are already being taken, I
    encourage the administration and Congress to build on the
    Inflation Reduction Act and other laws that are moving the ball
    forward on energy in important respects--for example, the IRA
    tax credits, loan guaranty authority, and research to support
    the expansion of nuclear energy.
        In addition, the IRA's expansion of the IRS 45Q tax credit
    has led to a surge in development of carbon capture and
    sequestration systems. These systems will make it possible to
    extend the life of or even save plants that might otherwise be
    shuttered.
        The carbon captured by these systems can also be repurposed
    for various uses, including enhanced oil recovery and concrete
    production.
        As members of this committee work legislatively to unleash
    the American energy, we will be working to unleash the training
    needed to build these projects safely and to the highest-
    quality standards.
        Local 208 and our contractors invest about $2 million per
    year in training, and the UA collectively invests over $300
    million per year at over 300 training centers.
        These investments make it possible for us to deliver
    cutting-edge training to Americans at virtually zero cost to
    them. And let me emphasize that these are 100 percent private
    dollars. We don't ask for a dime from the taxpayer.
        With your support in unleashing American energy and giving
    our members the opportunity to build more projects, we can
    expand our training programs and produce even more qualified
    workers to meet the needs of future projects.
        And unlike some in our industry, we don't look to foreign
    countries or even other parts of the country to staff projects.
    We utilize local referral systems that provide opportunities to
    workers in the areas where the projects are being built.
        In addition, as more work becomes available, we recruit and
    train from within the local community to man that work. We
    believe--as we know you do--that if there is a project in your
    district, local workers should have the chance to work on it.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this
    important hearing, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Arnold follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
        And, Mr. O'Connor, you will be recognized for 5 minutes.
    But beforehand, welcome back to the committee. And what years
    again were you here on staff at the committee?
        Mr. O'Connor. The 117th Congress.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your service. And
    you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement.

                      STATEMENT OF TYLER O'CONNOR

        Mr. O'Connor. Thank you very much.
        Good morning, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor,
    Chairman Guthrie and Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the
    Electricity Subcommittee.
        Thank you for the invitation to testify today about
    American energy policy. As you just noted, as a former E&C
    staffer, it is exciting to be back here before the most
    important committee in Congress.
        For those of you I don't know, my name is Tyler O'Connor,
    and I lead the energy team at the international law firm
    Crowell & Moring. In that role, I primarily advise energy
    companies on Federal laws, regulations, and policies, giving me
    insight into how those policies can either unleash American
    energy or stymie it.
        This subcommittee hearing on unleashing American energy
    could not be more timely. Our country, as some folks have
    noted, is at a crossroads. We are already producing record
    amounts of oil and gas, American manufacturing is booming
    thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act, and our geopolitical adversaries, like
    China and Russia, are struggling to keep pace with American
    ingenuity and resolve.
        In other words, we have unleashed American energy.
        But there is still work to be done. So to that end, in the
    course of my testimony here today I hope to convey three key
    points that will hopefully inform the committee's work moving
    forward.
        First, the IRA and the infrastructure bill are catalyzing
    investments in the United States and adding gigawatts of new
    generation projects to the grid.
        In the last 2 years, as Ranking Member Castor noted, the
    IRA and IIJA have supported $422 billion in clean-energy
    generation and new manufacturing, resulting in more than
    400,000 new jobs across the continental United States and
    Puerto Rico. Of those, more than half are in Republican-held
    congressional districts.
        Point one: Undermining the IRA and IIJA, whether
    legislatively or by withholding Federal funding, will increase
    the cost of power and make it more difficult to serve growing
    load from AI and data centers.
        Second, I represent project developers, and I can tell you
    energy infrastructure projects are complex, they are time-
    consuming, and they are capital intensive and expensive under
    the best of circumstances. Actions that undermine business
    certainty and raise costs, such as pausing the issuance of
    Federal permits, repealing tax credits for generation projects
    and manufacturers, and imposing tariffs on key components, will
    reduce investment and harm the long-term interests of the
    United States. Ultimately, those costs will be borne by
    American families.
        And third, there are a number of commonsense measures we
    can take to promote American energy dominance, to maintain
    electric reliability, and to increase American competitiveness.
    I will just touch on a few of those here.
        There is a common refrain in the energy industry that
    electricity may only be 5 percent of the economy, but it is the
    first 5 percent, because without electricity nothing else
    works. We can't support our domestic military installations, we
    can't serve growing load from AI and data centers, and we can't
    power our homes and businesses.
        Unfortunately, extreme weather and load growth are
    stressing our electric grid and putting our country at risk.
        According to the North American Electric Reliability
    Corporation, the United States must build 35 gigawatts of
    interregional transport capability, of transmission, in order
    to reliably serve the demands of tomorrow.
        As Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recently testified,
    quote, "Strengthening, modernizing, and protecting the
    electricity grid and other critical infrastructure is a top
    priority."
        As such, the committee should consider what steps it can
    take to facilitate the permitting, planning, and cost
    allocation of critical transmission lines, including
    interregional projects.
        Likewise, while many supply chains have recovered since
    COVID, others have not, and there remains a shortage of
    critical electric grid components necessary to interconnect
    projects to the grid.
        The committee should investigate what measures Congress can
    take to facilitate the domestic production of needed
    transformers, breakers, switch gear, and other components.
        Finally, this committee and others have focused significant
    attention on the need to timely permit energy projects. And
    while certain laws may need reform, many projects are also
    delayed because agencies lack the staff and resources to timely
    review and permit projects.
        I would, therefore, encourage you, in the course of this
    Congress, to maintain staffing at agencies like FERC that play
    an important role in the permitting process.
        In conclusion, I say this as somebody who represents energy
    companies: America is the best place to do business in the
    world if you are an energy company, both because of American
    ingenuity and fortitude, but also because we have the rule of
    law and we stand behind our promises.
        If American companies cannot be confident that the U.S.
    Government will keep its funding and tax commitments, they will
    invest in alternative jurisdictions that provide a more stable
    and predictable business environment. We should not let that
    happen.
        Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Connor follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. O'Connor.
        And, Mr. McCown, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
    opening statement.

                     STATEMENT OF BRIGHAM A. McCOWN

        Mr. McCown. Thank you, Chairman Latta, Chairman Guthrie,
    Vice Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Pallone, Ranking Member
    Castor, distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you so
    much for the invitation to appear before you today.
        I am Brigham McCown, a senior fellow at the Hudson
    Institute and director of the Initiative on American Energy
    Security. I am also a professor and an executive in residence
    at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.
        While I am here today in my personal capacity, I have been
    blessed to have had a portfolio career over the last four
    decades during which I have worked for Cabinet members of both
    political parties. I have served in the military, have run
    businesses, as well as my current work in the academic and
    nonprofit sectors.
        Energy, as has been testified to today, is the glue that
    binds everything together. It powers our cities, our factories,
    our commercial buildings, our farms, and our homes.
        Energy is the lifeblood of this Nation. It enables us to
    both reach for the stars and travel to see family and friends.
    Life is not sustainable without energy and lots of it.
        At our core, energy is harnessed for the betterment of
    society, and throughout human history global energy demands
    have only risen. This is especially true of advanced countries
    where energy usage is in many ways a reflection of the wealth
    and strength of a Nation.
        Key components of energy--like innovation, technology,
    reliability, affordability--are not static. This is especially
    true in our modern world, where our energy demands continue to
    grow quite quickly.
        We are blessed to be an energy-abundant Nation and to draw
    on many sources of energy. Our energy mix is the envy of the
    world. It is an economic strength. It is a national security
    strength, one that can increase our safety and that of our
    allies.
        Our national interest is best served through understanding
    the benefits of American energy.
        Even with remarkable improvements in technology and
    efficiency, economic growth and future prosperity require more
    energy.
        National security--that is, the United States' ability to
    project power globally to protect Americans and our allied
    interests--requires secure access to a diverse energy source
    and raw materials.
        Market access to the quantities and types of energy--when
    and where they are needed--along with the security and
    resiliency of the energy system, requires thoughtful and
    sustained long-term capital investment.
        At its core, energy security is simply the ability to
    ensure the uninterruptible access of reliable and affordable
    power, period.
        These investments are required across the entire value
    chain--investments in producing the raw materials and in
    production, the infrastructure required for distribution, for
    storage, for research, for development.
        The key to maximizing our energy advantage, as has already
    been stated, is to ensure a predictable and stable policy
    environment.
        The same is true for our allies who depend on stable
    supplies of energy products. Without our LNG exports to Europe
    in the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022,
    Europe would have faced even more difficult circumstances than
    it already has endured--circumstances that were, up front, the
    result of poor policy decisions.
        Similarly, allies like Japan require the importation of
    energy supplies, countries like Japan that simply lack the raw
    materials.
        Energy abundance enhances economic security and our
    national security, while energy poverty weakens us, weakens our
    economic security, weakens our national security.
        By working together, we can continue to unleash one of our
    inherent strengths. Some might refer to this as energy
    dominance. But regardless of the term, we have a unique
    opportunity to restore balance to our energy policies, to our
    energy mix, and to protect ourselves against geopolitical
    instability while supercharging the American economy.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McCown follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        And that concludes our opening statements from our
    witnesses.
        And, again, we appreciate you all for being here today.
        And the Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        And, you know, one of the things I have heard from all of
    our witnesses today is that we have to have more energy, not
    less. And PJM, which you all know is one of our RTOs--and one
    of their latest reports that came out in January just talks
    about what they are looking at and their needs and their
    projections.
        And they are talking about, in the summer peak, that they
    are going to save from--we are going to go from about 70,000
    megawatts to 220,000 megawatts, in just the summers, in less
    than 15 years.
        And the things that they talk about then are how we are
    going to get there and what the problems are, is that our
    demand is growing faster, at a faster pace than ever before.
    And it is what we have all heard--the proliferation of our data
    centers, the electrification of buildings and vehicles and
    manufacturing.
        And another area is the problem is that new replacement
    resources with the needed reliability for the attributes aren't
    being built fast enough to get us there.
        And one of the things, if I can start, Mr. McCown, with
    you, you mentioned--and, again, what we heard from all our
    witnesses--the need for more energy and that requirement for
    more energy, especially when we look at our data centers that
    are growing across our country.
        And you talk about SMRs. How do you see the SMRs, and how
    can that really help with this exponential growth that we are
    having out there and the need for power?
        Mr. McCown. Yes, thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to recognize the ADVANCE Act, which you all
    passed, was an important first step toward renewing our nuclear
    power.
        The SMRs are a modular plug-and-play. They may not be quite
    as small as some people think. But the idea is to duplicate, to
    replicate a particular power plant that has already been
    licensed again, again, and again.
        One of the things that we have suffered throughout with the
    nuclear industry is that no two reactors are designed the same.
    It takes a long time to permit them. The streamlining of
    licensing, the modernization of regulations can really help
    move us forward.
        And with the SMRs, they are capable of being plugged in
    line in tandem to grow or to scale as our energy demands scale.
    I think they are an important component of our energy mix and
    something that for far too long we have been reluctant to
    deploy nuclear energy. It is something that hopefully reform at
    the NRC will help with.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        Ms. Eversole, the testimony today underscores the policies
    that we have to have to incentivize American energy expansion,
    and the best way to incentivize that expansion is to unlock
    private capital spending.
        Will you speak about the role that long-term regulatory
    certainty and predictability have on the investment decisions
    to produce and deliver more energy?
        Ms. Eversole. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    question.
        The way that markets think about investment over long-term
    capital horizons is really important. And I think for our
    industry, which is incredibly capital intensive, and we invest
    over decades--10, 20, 30 years in some cases--and so we need to
    move beyond the 2-, 4-, or 6-year political cycles, and we need
    to tell markets that we are all in together on a bipartisan
    basis in investing in America's long-term energy security.
        And I think what I would add there is that it is
    extraordinarily important, not just to signal for the markets
    but to producers, that we are willing to make it here in
    America because not only does it help us from an economic
    perspective, it also helps us from a geopolitical perspective.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Arnold, we have to change our thinking and confront the
    reality of the new energy demand, especially when we are
    talking, once again, about AI to reshoring our manufacturing.
        From your testimony, American workers support unleashing
    our energy, and we are going to need more fuels, more grid
    capacity, more pipeline capacity.
        What is your view on unlocking more investment capital
    through regulatory certainty and predictability, in my last 50
    seconds?
        Mr. Arnold. Thank you for the question.
        It is really critically important to building that
    workforce and maintaining that workforce. Those projects are
    planned.
        What our contractors are going to do is try to make sure
    that they have the capacity to go and execute properly, we have
    the right amount of workers out there to accomplish
    successfully building those projects.
        When there are delays, when there is uncertainty, or those
    projects don't be realized, it is really compounded even more
    because now that contractor has a massive open part of their
    schedule that they anticipated performing on work, having work
    to do. And that can lead to layoffs and different things that
    negatively affect our workers and our members.
        And so that certainty is really critical to their success
    and the success of the apprenticeship program training those
    new workers as well.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the
    subcommittee for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thanks again to our witnesses for being here today.
        And, Mr. O'Connor, thank you for all of your work on the
    Energy and Commerce Committee. You were instrumental in helping
    us craft a lot of the portions on modernizing the grid and
    transmission. We have a lot of work to do there.
        But one of the overriding aims of the infrastructure law
    and our historic clean energy and climate law, the Inflation
    Reduction Act, was to put money into the pockets of hard-
    working families and small business owners and do that in a
    host of different ways, by providing funds to help weatherize
    their homes--gosh, that is very important in my neck of the
    woods where our summers are longer and hotter, and if we can
    weatherize homes, they can save on their electric bills--or tax
    credits for appliances, or rebates.
        Right now thousands of homeowners are rebuilding from the
    hurricanes, and they are going to be able to save money,
    thankfully, when they have to go out and buy that new heat pump
    or some other appliance.
        In fact, independent researchers at Resources for the
    Future conducted modeling on just the IRA, and that says that
    over the next decade hard-working families will save
    significant dollars.
        I mean, these numbers are thrown around, and they shouldn't
    go over our heads, 209 to 278 billion dollars over the next
    decades. So that is hundreds of dollars into the pocketbooks of
    families who could really use it right now.
        So, Mr. O'Connor, there is a discussion underway of
    repealing the IRA, whether it is through reconciliation or kind
    of the illegal wrench that the administration has thrown into
    projects going on from Department of Energy loans and grants.
        What will happen to energy prices if the IRA is repealed or
    this illegal stop work order is successful?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes, thank you for the question.
        Ms. Castor. Microphone.
        Mr. Latta. Oh, is your mike on?
        Mr. O'Connor. And you just mentioned I had worked here
    before.
        Thank you for the question.
        According to recent research from Aurora Energy Research,
    repealing the IRA and continuing to withhold funding would
    increase electricity prices by an average of 10 percent across
    the country, with some States, notably Texas, seeing much
    steeper increases in electricity prices.
        And that is a function of a few things.
        One, as you noted, the IRA induces a significant amount of
    new investment into generation.
        Bringing new projects onto the grid is going to lower
    electricity prices and make sure we can address the growing
    load that Chairman Latta referenced, particularly from data
    centers and AI.
        If we don't bring those new projects onto the grid, then we
    are going to have to do more with less, and we are simply
    incapable of doing so.
        And so people are going to end up paying more for
    electricity, contract prices will go up as data centers try and
    outbid each other for new generation, and ultimately consumers
    are going to bear the cost.
        Ms. Castor. So 4 years ago, prior to this manufacturing
    boom, America was highly dependent upon Asia to manufacture key
    building blocks of the clean energy economy, and there were
    tariffs by Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents, but
    they really failed to ignite domestic industries like solar.
        But today, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, the U.S.
    is producing record amounts of solar panels and batteries, and
    we are quickly on our way to meeting domestic demand.
        So, Mr. O'Connor, does the clean energy economy make us--
    does this transition, this manufacturing boom, does it make--
    what does it do to our dependence on China? And what would it
    do if Republicans are successful in rolling back these
    investments in our domestic manufacturers?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes. Thank you for the question.
        It makes us less dependent on China. And if we were to
    repeal the IRA, it would make us more dependent.
        And I can share this from personal experience representing
    companies who have availed themselves of the section 45X
    advanced manufacturing production tax credit to open new
    domestic manufacturing in many of the States represented by
    Members here.
        And also the section 30D credit, which includes incentives
    both to make sure that batteries and EVs are manufactured in
    North America and that the critical minerals included in those
    batteries are manufactured in North America or countries with
    which we have a free trade agreement.
        And I will tell you that there are a number of companies in
    the runup to the election who were thinking about making
    domestic critical mineral investments in either production
    capacity or processing capacity in the United States in
    response to the IRA's incentives but did not know whether they
    should make those investments, because, if the IRA is repealed,
    there is no economic incentive for them to do so. They will
    just keep it in China or--not just China--other countries that
    they are currently located in.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much for your important
    testimony.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the chair of the full committee,
    the gentleman from Kentucky, for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you for the recognition. I
    appreciate it.
        This morning I was talking to a group, and somebody
    introduced me, said about the Energy and Commerce Committee,
    and quoted Mr. Dingell, Chairman Dingell, someone that I had
    the joy to serve a couple years with. And he says ``If it
    moves, it is energy. If it is still, it is commerce.'' That is
    our jurisdiction.
        And I can't improve on Chairman Dingell except I would like
    to say that it takes energy to move commerce. And that is going
    to be the theme of our committee over this next couple of
    years, is that how do we do it in a responsible way.
        I went to school on the Hudson River. Other than the
    Commonwealth of Kentucky, show me a more beautiful spot than
    around West Point, Bear Mountain, that area. And you couldn't
    get in the water because of industrial pollution.
        So progress has to be responsible. And so how are we
    responsible?
        And so, Mr. McCown, you said that throughout human history
    the world has never used less energy, and throughout human
    history energy has gotten cheaper.
        There was a study a few years ago that measured the
    standard of living by the cost of light, how much it cost light
    in the 1800s versus what it is now. Essentially it is not free,
    but people feel like it is essentially free.
        My great grandmother used to spend an hour before everybody
    else got up just to get the stove hot.
        So the standard of living of energy is important. And so if
    we look at Europe--and we had Eric Schmidt from Google, not
    Senator Eric Schmitt, talked about a book he wrote with Henry
    Kissinger called ``Genesis'' and had a lecture or a meeting at
    the Library of Congress. And he said that Europe has chosen not
    to grow, is what he said.
        So if you look at just the example of Europe--so for me to
    say energy transition, if you replace fossil fuels--I am for
    all of the above--but if your goal is to replace fossil fuels
    with wind and solar, what are the national security
    implications of that in Europe today?
        Mr. McCown. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question.
        Well, I mean, I think we have seen devastating effects in
    Europe, the deindustrialization of Germany in particular. And,
    frankly, the retirement of nuclear plants and the removal of
    cheap Russian fossil fuels has been devastating.
        I would like to point out too that their carbon emissions,
    if you are keeping score, have gone up, not down, despite all
    these investments. It is not the way to do things.
        It is critical that we do all of the above, and that
    includes renewable power. Just like a carpenter has more than
    one tool in their tool belt--you can't use a hammer on
    everything, I have tried, it doesn't work--but you have to have
    other tools in your tool belt.
        So this energy mix is going to change over time, but we
    have to lead with what is reliable, efficient, and affordable,
    because otherwise we could bankrupt ourselves and be in a
    position like Europe where they have none of the above.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thanks.
        I want to make sure. So, Ms. Eversole, would you comment on
    the lessons learned we can have for how quickly Europe has
    tried to transition to renewables and the negative impact----
        Ms. Eversole. Absolutely.
        Mr. Guthrie [continuing]. In terms of economic growth?
        Ms. Eversole. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
    question.
        Look, 85 percent of the gas that came from Russia was
    replaced by gas from the United States of America. That is good
    for American workers, and it is good for America's national
    security.
        It is also good for Europe. I think what Europe learned was
    that they were overlevered. A diversified portfolio is really
    important.
        API supports an all-of-the-above strategy. But I think we
    get caught up in the arguments that are more about picking
    winners and losers in various forms of energy, and it simply
    doesn't have to be that way.
        This is about energy addition. Our demand, not just here in
    the United States but around the world, is growing. That energy
    has to come from somewhere, and I would rather it come from the
    United States of America, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thanks.
        But also during that time we were replacing a lot of the
    LNG gas, we also had the export ban that came. I know there are
    European leaders that said that could be devastating to them if
    we did that, if we continue that.
        Ms. Eversole. Yes, we very much appreciate the Executive
    order on the first day of this administration repealing the so-
    called LNG ban because that doesn't make any sense. I think
    that there are questions around can the United States continue
    to meet the demand in the world, and the answer is, yes, we can
    do it, because we can be more efficient. We can do it when we
    have--
        Mr. Guthrie. I want to get one more question in.
        So, Mr. Arnold, we talk about AI and growth and the economy
    and cheaper energy and everything, but there are people
    creating the infrastructure for the energy.
        Would you just talk about the benefits in energy
    communities, or your community, for energy jobs? It is not just
    people working in an AI data center, it is people building the
    infrastructure to get the energy to the data center. You want
    to talk about that a little bit?
        Mr. Arnold. Thank you for the question.
        Absolutely. So we need energy to power the rest of the
    manufacturing facilities. I have worked in biopharmaceutical
    manufacturing, breweries, which I think obviously is pretty
    important to some Americans too. But it all starts with that
    energy.
        And then it continues to provide work opportunities for
    those professionals. Our job is to build stuff, build it well,
    and then we look for the next project to build for folks.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. My time has expired, and I will
    yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired, and he yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey,
    the ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. O'Connor, it is great to have you back here at the
    committee after your time on the staff during the 117th
    Congress. I want to pick up on something you said in your
    written testimony, which is that the Trump administration's
    actions are counter to its stated goals.
        And, Mr. O'Connor, you already established for Ranking
    Member Castor that illegally withholding or repealing funds
    from the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law would increase American utility bills.
        But let me ask you: Would illegally withholding or
    repealing them make us more energy dominant or help in the case
    of an energy emergency, such as the President articulated?
        Mr. O'Connor. No, it would not. And I think Ms. Eversole
    said it best when she noted that energy projects are capital
    intensive and that we need to move beyond political cycles
    because it undermines investment certainty.
        And that is exactly what we are seeing with this Federal
    funding pause right now. In the past 2 weeks, we have
    received--in my capacity as a lawyer, I have received numerous
    calls from energy companies, name-brand global manufacturers,
    who don't know how to respond to this Federal funding pause,
    both people who want to develop projects but also the suppliers
    of those projects, because they don't know if the projects that
    they were supposed to be supplying are going to be receiving
    funding and moving forward.
        We already know that some of the--I think there was a
    sustainable aviation fuel facility in Montana who was supposed
    to receive funding from the loan program's office. SAF is a
    place where airline companies are looking to make significant
    investments in the future. And they noted publicly that their
    funding was paused, I think $769 million.
        So I don't think it makes us more secure or independent,
    and it certainly doesn't make us more dominant. It makes us
    look silly.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
        Would tariffs on the--I mean, you know, let's talk about
    the tariffs that were almost implemented earlier this week and
    then paused. But would tariffs on Canadian and Mexican energy
    increase or decrease cost to American families? And would they
    make us more energy secure?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes. They would increase cost in several
    respects, and because of the broad nature of the tariffs, you
    can identify costs that would rise across a number of
    industries. I want to point to just a few. One, of course, is
    Canadian oil, which the Midwest is predominantly relying on. I
    think I have seen studies that would increase gas prices by 3
    to 4 percent.
        And another place I mentioned in my oral statement, the
    shortage of critical electric grid components, we need those
    components to interconnect projects to the grid.
        In my day job, I primarily represent developers who are
    trying to get projects interconnected, and the shortage of
    components is a serious problem. It just so happens that a
    large number of those components are imported from Canada and
    Mexico.
        So, if we were to stack tariffs on top of an already
    existing shortage, that would exacerbate, I think, the concerns
    that people have about the inability to bring new generation
    online.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
        Let me turn to the definition of energy and the President's
    order declaring an energy emergency.
        Define energy as crude oil and then list a number of other
    hydrocarbons, followed by uranium, biofuels, geothermal heat,
    the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals.
    Something is missing here. What is missing?
        Mr. O'Connor. I think several things are missing: solar,
    wind, storage, transmission distribution lines, maybe the
    entire electricity industry might actually be missing.
        Mr. Pallone. I mean, it is unfortunate because, you know, I
    have not only heard my colleagues on the Republican side of
    this committee but also the President say that he believed in
    an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but, obviously, he has
    abandoned that.
        And let me just say--I have one last question. My
    understanding is that roughly 95 percent of all power plants
    waiting in the interconnection queue are some combination of
    wind, solar, and battery storage. Can you talk about the impact
    on electricity prices and reliability if support for these
    resources, such as the tax credits from the Inflation Reduction
    Act, were to disappear?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes, that is a great question, and I think it
    harkens back to Chairman Latta's question about load growth and
    PJM and the role of SMRs, right. SMRs are a fantastic,
    forthcoming technology--we hope--and I would love to see them
    deployed. But, in the short term, to meet load growth, we need
    to meet it with renewables.
        Renewables come onto the grid. I mean, also other
    resources. But, as you noted, 95 percent of the interconnection
    queue are solar, wind, and battery storage, and that is because
    those resources only take about 2 years to bring online, as
    opposed to natural gas-fired power plants, which can take 4 to
    5 years, and then nuclear projects, which can take 10 or more.
        And so I think we are not going to be able to meet load
    growth, and we are going to see rising prices if we cut the
    legs out from under the industry that is currently poised to
    bring projects, most of the projects online in the coming 2
    years.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Well, thank you so much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
    the balance of his time.
        The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the
    subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas' 14th District, for 5
    minutes of questions.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The title of this hearing is actually perfect for what is
    going on in Texas right now. Just yesterday, Texas A&M
    University announced an energy proving ground to build four
    small modular reactors on their RELLIS campus. I would
    especially like to congratulate Natural Resources for being one
    of the chosen SMR companies.
        They are also building a research reactor on the Abilene
    Christian University campus and will be deploying their small
    modular liquid-fueled salt reactors for commercial use shortly
    thereafter.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to brag on my home
    State for a minute, as we are and will be powering America's
    future. And so I appreciate that.
        Ms. Eversole, I am going to come to you. My district along
    the Texas Gulf Coast, District 14, is no stranger to LNG. We
    benefit from the thousands of direct jobs and billions of
    dollars poured back into the community. The world benefits from
    our clean, reliable, and affordable LNG shipped right to their
    doorstep.
        The Biden admin LNG export ban had severe consequences in
    my district that impacted real people, not just companies--real
    people, real families, and their lives. President Trump has
    taken decisive action on day one to reverse this ban, and
    southeast Texas applauds him for that.
        So, as we work to unleash American energy, this impact will
    be felt worldwide. What world do you see going forward for
    LNG--and it has got to include Texas now, you know that--do you
    see going forward domestically with jobs and revenue for our
    communities, as well as for our allies abroad who depend on it
    for their own energy security?
        I yield to you.
        Ms. Eversole. Thank you very much for your question, Mr.
    Vice Chairman.
        The role that U.S. LNG plays not only in our country that
    helps drives down emissions to a once-in-a-generation low, but
    also this is geopolitical strength, not to mention the fact
    that, just last year alone, $14.4 billion came back to the
    United States because of exports.
        And the fact of the matter is it helps us produce the
    affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy that we need--not for
    just the people in Texas, good-paying jobs like Mr. Arnold
    here, but it also ensures that we are safe and secure. We can
    do it all, and we look forward to continuing to work together,
    but we need to have ongoing investment to do just that.
        Mr. Weber. If I could paraphrase, it is not just energy
    security, it is national and, indeed, international security.
    Would you agree?
        Ms. Eversole. I agree completely.
        Mr. Weber. Absolutely.
        Ms. Eversole, I am going to come back to you in a minute.
        Mr. McCown, I've got one for you. As you both well know--I
    will come back to you in just a minute.
        Coal and natural gas make up the backbone of our energy
    generational mix. You both also know that the Biden
    administration aggressively went after both of these resources,
    weaponizing his agencies to literally take them off the grid.
        We will start with you, Mr. McCown. Can you speak to the
    importance of these resources and what role they will play as
    we look to add significantly more generation capacity to our
    grid?
        Mr. McCown. Absolutely. Thank you for the question,
    Chairman Weber.
        First of all, natural gas is an important bridge fuel. It
    is an important fuel to pair whether you want instantaneous
    power for baseload energy. It is very efficient. We have
    reduced our greenhouse gas emissions more than any other
    country in the world just----
        Mr. Weber. Let me break in real quick. And I am sure once
    we kill our energy system, I am sure the other companies will
    kill theirs too. Keep going.
        Mr. McCown. Yes, sir. And it is extremely important, and it
    pairs well with renewables, which are still intermittent.
        It is also cheaper. And I do take some exception to
    renewables are keeping energy prices low. That is simply not
    the case. Energy prices have gone up substantially with
    deployment of renewable sources because, without all these tax
    treatments, they are actually quite expensive, and wholesale
    prices have actually gone up, not down.
        Last quick point is we have retired a lot of baseload
    because of the policies of the previous administration, thus
    creating a shortage of available baseload power, thus
    necessitating quick dispatchable power like renewables, which
    is actually more expensive.
        Mr. Weber. I am going to stop you just a second, and I am
    going to agree with you that, if we are going to have all of
    these exciting computer places, AI, and all this energy, we had
    better have dispatchable power.
        Back to you, ma'am.
        Ms. Eversole. Look, the energy has to come from somewhere,
    and I would rather it come from the United States of America.
        Mr. Weber. I couldn't have said it better myself.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back all 13 seconds.
        Mr. Latta. The chairman yields back his 13 seconds.
        And the chairman now recognizes the gentleman from
    California's 50th District for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Last year the United States produced more oil and gas than
    any other country in history and exported record amounts of
    liquefied natural gas to our allies around the world under the
    Biden administration. So it is pretty unleashed.
        Simultaneously, 2023 was a record year for clean energy
    with combined utility-scaled solar, wind, and energy store
    installations across the country. These clean energy projects
    can be found in keeping the lights on in nearly all
    congressional districts in all 50 States.
        I hope this hearing signals that this committee is going to
    finally get serious about the energy, grid, and reliability
    issues facing this country because America is energy dominant,
    but we are going to need to do more. These hearings, I think,
    will be most productive if we can focus on genuine fact-finding
    to address the critical challenge of meeting our growing energy
    demand.
        We should be looking forward, identifying the
    infrastructure, policies, and investments that we need to
    ensure resilient, reliable, and affordable energy supply. And
    the question before us isn't whether demand is rising. It
    certainly is. The real challenge is how we prepare for it in a
    way that strengthens our economy, enhances our competitiveness,
    and keeps the lights on for all Americans.
        So it is a little frustrating when my colleagues talk about
    increasing American energy dominance without committing to
    invest in the infrastructure that carries that energy
    transmission. I have been outspoken about permanent reform that
    would help us make everything we build go faster, including
    generation and new transmission, make it faster and more
    efficient. I am open to that. I think it is important. You have
    my commitment to work with you on that for all energy sources.
        We are facing extraordinary energy growth in demand from AI
    data centers, the reshoring of domestic manufacturing, much of
    it incentivized by the Inflation Reduction Act. And as was
    mentioned before, the North American Reliability Corporation,
    NERC, which is the energy reliability--the entity responsible
    for energy grid reliability has warned that, without action,
    low growth, extreme weather, and other threats could
    destabilize the grid.
        NERC said a reliable grid will require significant planning
    and development of the interconnected transmission system. And,
    as also mentioned before, NERC released a study showing that an
    additional 35 gigawatts of transmission transport capability
    between regions would undoubtedly strengthen our ability to
    meet demand, maintain reliability, and improve our resilience
    to extreme weather. Thirty-five gigawatts.
        Since 2014, roughly the last decade, North America has
    built just 7 gigawatts of interregional transmission power
    compared to 44 in European and 260 in China. We are not going
    to be able to compete at that level of growth and development.
        New natural gas generation will connect to the grid. Data
    centers will connect to the grid. New manufacturing will
    connect to the grid. Oil and gas producers also continue to
    electrify their operations in the Permian Basin but are
    concerned that the grid can't handle more activity.
        If we are serious about keeping track with global
    competitors, securing our grid, and achieving true energy
    dominance, we have to have an honest conversation about what
    all-of-the-above really means.
        Ms. Eversole, do agree that, to unleash American energy, we
    need to invest and expand the transmission grid while adding
    new generation and reforming the permitting process?
        Ms. Eversole. Congressman, thank you for your question, and
    thank you for your leadership on these important issues. We
    very much appreciate the thoughtful way in which you approach
    them.
        And I would just say, as part of API's five-point policy
    roadmap, permitting reform is one of those five key tenets.
        Mr. Peters. How about transmission?
        Ms. Eversole. We do agree that transmission should be part
    of that solution going forward.
        Mr. Peters. Well, that API is on board, that is great.
        Mr. O'Connor, can you talk about what laws Congress needs
    to change to make it easier to build and coordinate the
    construction of large interregional power lines? And, if we
    don't build out those lines, will our grid be more or less
    resilient and why?
        Mr. O'Connor. A few thoughts come to mind. One would be
    making it easier to permit interregional projects in particular
    by clarifying Federal citing authority.
        Two, I think Congress should continue to fund the
    Department of Energy's transmission facilitation program, which
    is a critical tool for a number or interregional projects. It
    basically helps them get off the ground.
        Three, as you noted, I noted, and now I am going to note
    again, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
    recently identified the need for 35 gigawatts of interregional
    transmission capability because of a report, I believe, this
    committee directed them to undertake.
        And so I think the natural next step in response to that
    report would be for Congress to ideally pass a law or direct
    NERC to establish minimum transfer capabilities.
        Mr. Peters. I think it is all a great idea. I would say we
    are not going to be able to meet our low growth without
    transmission. We have to get serious about talking about that
    in this committee, and I am on board with helping to make it
    happen.
        And, if we don't do it and we have brownouts and higher
    prices because we don't do it, all of us are going to have to
    answer for that. So I am intending to work on it and look
    forward to a good term.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama's
    Sixth District for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
    witnesses for being here.
        When it comes to energy policy, I do believe in an all-of-
    the-above approach, but when you compare nuclear energy to
    renewable, the difference in energy density is very clear. A
    nuclear facility offers 24/7 baseload energy, consistent
    baseload energy that will operate for 60 years, at least, maybe
    longer.
        Mr. McCown, I was pleased to see that you mentioned small
    modular nuclear in your written testimony. Based on your
    expertise, what reforms do you think we need to pursue through
    Congress to unleash nuclear energy and remove the barriers to
    construct more nuclear power in the United States, particularly
    the small modular reactors?
        Because we are falling behind. China has already got one
    operating, and even Romania is doing some really good work in
    that area.
        Mr. McCown. Yes, sir. Thank you so much for your question.
        Yes, we--part of this is a public policy issue. Part of
    this is outreach and education. For the first time in a
    generation, we have a large percentage of people across all age
    groups seeing nuclear energy as a positive. We have to move
    beyond our thoughts of what nuclear power are because the
    designs are not what they were in the '70s. And we have got an
    NRC that has spent most of its time as an agency not permitting
    anything.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, an interesting thing, too, is the advance
    in technology with these advance reactors. You can recycle
    spent fuel rods. We had a hearing and had the National Director
    of the Nuclear Laboratories here, and a lot of people don't
    realize this, but a spent fuel rod literally retains 90 percent
    of its energy capacity. We can recover 98 percent. And I asked
    the Director of the National Nuclear Laboratory how long we
    could operate our fleet, and he said over 100 years just using
    spent fuel.
        The other thing that I want to talk about here just for a
    moment is we talk a lot about energy independence, but I think
    we are at a major place in terms of critical minerals and rare
    earth independence. Right now there is not a single major
    refinery for rare elements in the Western Hemisphere. There are
    only nine in the world. Eight of them are in China, and I am
    talking about major refineries.
        China controls 70 percent of the cobalt mining and 80
    percent of the processing. They control over 90 percent of the
    rare earth refinery.
        I am a big proponent of near-shoring our supply chain, but,
    also, I think we need to do a whole lot more here in terms of
    our domestic production, the mining, the production side of it,
    the refining side of it.
        What are some of the barriers that we are facing here, Mr.
    McCown--and the others of you can respond to this as well if
    you would like--in terms of permitting, a timeline? Because I
    don't think we have got 7 to 8 years to get a permit in regards
    to where China is heading, particularly if we want to be
    competitive in artificial intelligence.
        Mr. McCown. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
        Very quickly, you know, and Mr. Peters is exactly correct.
    We have a difficult time building anything these days. The
    infrastructure. We need NEPA, true, NEPA permitting reform. We
    have to be more nimble. We have to be more quick than we have
    done. We have difficulty mining uranium. Seventy-plus percent
    to 80 percent of the entire supply chain for renewables is from
    China. That is worse than Middle Eastern oil, in my personal
    opinion.
        Mr. Palmer. It is truly, and I want to emphasize this, and
    I want to emphasize this to my colleagues across the aisle.
    This is a national security issue. We will not compete with
    China. We are at an arms race in artificial intelligence with
    China, and we don't have the mineral production, the mining,
    the processing, the refining to be competitive. We will fall
    behind. They have already cut us off from gallium, germanium,
    antimony. We are really in a bad place.
        So I think, Mr. Chairman, we need to really make it a
    priority of this committee to work on these issues because,
    like I said, we don't have 7, 8, or 9, 10 years to do this.
        And, going back to AI, with China's release of their
    DeepSeek AI model, it is a bit of a shockwave. But, for us to
    compete, we not only have to address these issues of critical
    minerals and rare earths, but we have got to address the issue
    of being able to provide the energy that we need. And we were
    not going to do it with renewables, with all due respect.
        So I think we have really got to have a focus on how do we
    utilize hydrocarbon energy as we advance our energy production
    through nuclear.
        And, with that, any of you, Ms. Eversole, Mr. Arnold, you
    may respond.
        Mr. Latta. If I may, the gentleman's time has expired, but
    if you could write a written response to that, we would
    appreciate that. Thank you.
        Mr. Palmer. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado's
    First District for 5 minutes of questions.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Well, Mr. Palmer, good news. In the last Congress, we
    passed the ADVANCE Act, which then-Chairman Duncan and I did
    together, which restructured the way we regulate nuclear energy
    in the hopes of getting some of these energy resources.
        And I am assuming, Mr. O'Connor, that you would think that
    would be a positive step towards getting more nuclear.
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes.
        Ms. DeGette. OK. Thank you.
        Now, continuing with you, Mr. O'Connor, I wanted to ask you
    about President Trump's claim that the United States is in a,
    quote, ``energy emergency.'' In fact, the United States is the
    top producer of crude oil and natural gas in the world. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. O'Connor. That is correct.
        Ms. DeGette. And, in fact, investments in clean energy,
    like in the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law, mean that the United States would--do those
    investments mean that we would no longer produce oil?
        Mr. O'Connor. No, they don't.
        Ms. DeGette. And, in fact, after we began making those
    investments, we still had a huge increase in the production of
    oil, didn't we?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes, that is right.
        Ms. DeGette. OK.
        Now, Mr. Arnold, I really want to again thank you for
    coming. It is good to see my homie here. I wanted to ask you,
    in your testimony, you talked about the benefits of the IRA.
    Can you talk for a minute about the IIJA and IRA's investment
    in technology, like advanced nuclear geothermal, hydrogen, and
    carbon capture, for the workers?
        Mr. Arnold. Thank you for the question.
        And, you know, certainly are in favor of an all-of-the-
    above approach. I think those are important options to keep on
    the table when we are looking about how do we keep existing
    workers and good-paying jobs and middle-class jobs, and how do
    we continue to provide those clear opportunities for younger
    generations.
        I think, in Colorado, specifically, you know, one of the
    things I have mentioned in my written testimony is some of the
    challenges facing the Pueblo community as they look to retire
    Comanche Unit 3, which is the State's largest coal-fired power
    plant, in 2031.
        And so, when the committee that analyzed the variable
    options down there--looking at what is going to provide those
    critical jobs and economic engine that that area depends on--
    what they found was the only thing that kind of came close was
    nuclear.
        And so, in the short term, you know, a gas-fired power
    generation unit would help stabilize baseload, help provide
    needed tax revenue and jobs, and working towards longer-term
    nuclear generation as a replacement to fully kind of make that
    community whole.
        Ms. DeGette. That is right. Thank you. I am sorry. I have
    got a couple more questions. That was very helpful, though.
        Mr. O'Connor, I want to go now back to you again. Do
    investments in clean energy like in the Inflation Reduction Act
    and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law save money on energy?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes, they do. And you don't have to take my
    word for it. Last year, the then-interim CEO of American
    Electric Power, one of the country's largest utilities, has
    testified to the Senate that, if the IRA is repealed, it would
    increase the cost of power and make it harder to serve
    increasing demand.
        So I think there is general consensus that it does reduce
    cost.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Now, one last thing. Over the shock and awe of the last 10
    days, the administration has frozen billions of dollars from
    the IRA and the IIJA for energy development that has already
    been allocated to domestic producers.
        And I just received an email yesterday for Colorado. The
    Colorado Energy Office has been awarded over $500 million in
    funds from these programs that have been frozen for the last
    week and a half. These include 25 million for grid resilience,
    reliability, and stability; money for home energy rebates, $70
    million; flexible funding for State energy offices; home energy
    rebates; commercial energy rebates; weatherization; energy
    efficiency financing; small community energy support; Mr.
    Arnold--workforce development; low-income solar programs;
    multiple programs; et cetera.
        Do you think, Mr. O'Connor, that freezing all of these
    programs is going to help us build towards American energy
    independence in this country?
        Mr. O'Connor. No, I don't. And I know you asked a question
    about nuclear at the beginning. I would note that the Palisades
    Nuclear Power Plant on the shores of Lake Michigan received a
    loan guarantee from the Loan Programs Office. So, if that
    funding is paused, it would also impede nuclear deployment as
    well.
        Ms. DeGette. Is it paused to date?
        Mr. O'Connor. My understanding is that all LPO loans are
    paused to date. I don't know that company's particular
    circumstance.
        Ms. DeGette. Great. OK.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to put a summary of
    these projects from Colorado that are frozen to the tune of
    $500 million.
        Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Georgia's 12th District for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chair Latta, for holding this hearing
    on unleashing American energy production. And I want to thank
    the witnesses for your testimony today.
        America is an incredibly energy-rich Nation, and during
    President Trump's first term in office we unleashed the power
    of American energy, and we do lead the world in energy
    production. But guess what? It is not enough.
        Demand is growing rapidly, and we have got to meet that
    demand or we are going to fall behind in our ability to deal
    with our adversaries around the world. The United States not
    only became energy independent. We became energy dominant. We
    set the price of a barrel of oil. We created an oil war between
    Saudi Arabia and Russia during COVID, brought the cost of a
    barrel of oil to $7 a barrel. That is power. That is economic
    power.
        Unfortunately, the previous administration took every
    imaginable step to undo this progress and deincentivize
    domestic production, which has caused weakness around the world
    and wars around the world. I am hopeful that we can now return
    to our energy dominance and lower the cost for the American
    people.
        In my district, we have Plant Vogtle where units 3 and 4
    have been completed, a commercial operation, making Plant
    Vogtle the largest nuclear power station in the country.
        Nuclear energy is key to ensuring our energy dominance, and
    we must continue the momentum on unlocking our nuclear energy
    capabilities. The nuclear energy industry has a vital impact on
    the workforce and on local economies.
        As a former businessman, helping to provide jobs for my
    local community was my greatest gift from God and a privilege.
        Mr. Arnold, the U.S. has been a key partner in fostering
    innovation, and nuclear technologies will be critical in
    promoting advanced nuclear reactors. Your testimony discusses
    the workforce opportunities for pipefitters at a potential
    nuclear site in the Comanche 3 plant in Pueblo, Colorado.
        Can you talk about what types of jobs and benefits that can
    be created for pipefitters at nuclear facilities and how
    critical these jobs can be for the local community where these
    plants are based.
        Mr. Arnold. Thank you for the question.
        Those projects, especially large nuclear facilities like
    Camp Vogtle, provide thousands of opportunities to pipefitters.
    There was well over 2,000 pipefitters on those projects during
    their construction. And the nice part about those facilities is
    it is not only just the original construction of the facility
    but the ongoing operations and maintenance required to continue
    to operate them safely.
        And so having high-skilled pipefitters provides jobs that
    are truly family sustaining. It's health benefits for them and
    their spouses, for their children. It's retirement benefits
    that will provide them to retire with dignity after they have
    made their contributions to our communities. And so they are
    absolutely critical to the long-term success of folks in the
    middle class that want to go work with their hands.
        Mr. Allen. It is a win-win----
        Mr. Arnold. All the way around.
        Mr. Allen [continuing]. For our economy and for those who
    have that incredible skill.
        The ADVANCE Act signed into law last summer included my
    Nuclear Leasing Efficiency Act to streamline nuclear energy
    permitting and licensing by focusing on metrics and milestones.
    As a result, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been tasked
    with supporting more efficient, timely, and predictable
    reviews.
        As I mentioned, nuclear energy is vital to our Nation's
    economic, national, and environmental security. To unleash
    American energy, we need an all-of-the-above approach, and we
    need energy projects completed with greater speed than before.
        Mr. McCown, my Nuclear Licensing Efficiency Act focused on
    timely and predictable licensing. Given the demand for energy
    domestically, how critical is it for nuclear companies to have
    regulatory certainty at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? And
    how could that foster more investment and innovation to ensure
    U.S. global leadership in nuclear technologies?
        Mr. McCown. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Allen. It is absolutely
    critical. It is crucial. To deploy capital, you must have
    regulatory certainty, and it is--we have to make this simpler.
    We have to make this better faster for companies in order to
    invest.
        Mr. Allen. Good. Ms. Eversole, I am just about out of time,
    but I will get you to submit this for the record.
        Last Congress, you came before the Environmental
    Subcommittee and testified on the progress that the U.S. has
    made in unlocking our domestic energy capacity. I want you to
    share in writing the impact of exporting our oil and natural
    gas has on our economy.
        Thank you. And I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California's
    Seventh District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you to all the witnesses for being here today.
        Unfortunately, it is a little difficult to take this
    hearing seriously while President Trump and Elon Musk are
    dismantling Federal agencies and ignoring the laws that
    Congress has passed. As Members of Congress, we are elected by
    our constituents to come here and do the serious work of
    thoughtfully considering how to change the law, not to
    surrender power to the executive branch and unelected
    billionaires.
        Businesses thrive in America because they can count on our
    legal system to be fair and consistent. It is what protects our
    citizens from discrimination and arbitrary punishment. It is
    what protects our democracy from becoming one of the corrupt,
    despotic regimes that we have fought throughout our history.
        The President is taking this country down a dark path,
    shutting down Federal programs people depend on, freezing
    payments for lifesaving treatments, giving Elon Musk, the
    richest man in the world, privileged access to sensitive data.
    He is ignoring the laws passed by Congress, ignoring a court
    order, and usurping the separation of powers enshrined in our
    Constitution. I urge my colleagues to ask yourselves, How far
    is too far?
        I find it ironic we are here today to talk about unleashing
    American energy while the President is freezing funding for
    energy projects, threatening tariffs on critical energy and
    manufacturing inputs, blocking the development of solar on
    Federal lands, and banning wind energy.
        And Republicans on this committee are planning to claw back
    billions of dollars in funding for American energy projects,
    taking money out of Americans' pockets. That is not unleashing
    American energy.
        Mr. O'Connor, what is the fastest-growing source of
    electricity in this country?
        Mr. O'Connor. According to the EIA, I think it is solar.
        Ms. Matsui. OK.
        After solar, what is the second-biggest source of new
    capacity on the electric grid?
        Mr. O'Connor. Storage.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. And, after storage--you mean batteries, is
    that right?
        Mr. O'Connor. Batteries, yes. And then the third--oh, go
    ahead.
        Ms. Matsui. OK.
        And then what after that?
        Mr. O'Connor. Wind.
        Ms. Matsui. OK.
        The top three sources of new energy in America are solar,
    batteries, and wind, and it is not even close. The Energy
    Information Administration ported over 59 gigawatts of new
    solar batteries and wind in 2024 alone. Compare that with 2.6
    gigawatts of new and natural gas. That is almost 23 times more
    solar, batteries, and wind than natural gas.
        Mr. O'Connor, very briefly, why are power companies
    building so much solar, batteries, and wind?
        Mr. O'Connor. I think for several reasons. One, they are
    lower cost. Two, they can be brought online more quickly.
    Three, there is a shortage of gas turbines. And then, four, I
    think there are some broken capacity market constructs,
    particularly in PJM, that don't induce new investment in
    thermal generation.
        Ms. Matsui. OK.
        Yet the President and the Republicans plan to stop new wind
    projects, claw back funding for rooftop solar, and raise the
    price to clean energy. That doesn't sound like unleashing
    American energy. To me it sounds like a giveaway to the oil
    industry at the expense of hard-working, everyday Americans.
        The IRA is all-of-the-above energy. For the last 2 years,
    we have been hearing from Republicans about an all-of-the-above
    approach to energy, but I struggle to identify what President
    Trump is doing for any energy aside from oil and gas. It is a
    shame, really, because the Inflation Reduction Act, the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the CHIPS and Science Act
    actually are an all-of-the-above approach to energy.
        Mr. O'Connor, yes or no, does the Inflation Reduction Act
    ban natural gas or oil?
        Mr. O'Connor. No, it does not.
        Ms. Matsui. OK.
        In fact, the Inflation Reduction Act was deliberately
    designed to support an all-of-the-above approach to
    decarbonizing our energy system, fighting climate change while
    reducing energy cost and improving reliability.
        As Mr. Arnold pointed out in his testimony, the Inflation
    Reduction Act included funding for carbon capture and methane
    leak detection, enabling natural gas power plants to continue
    providing baseload power where necessary while still reducing
    greenhouse gas emissions.
        Mr. O'Connor, the Inflation Reduction Act also included a
    technology-neutral clean energy tax credit. Can you explain
    that quickly?
        Mr. O'Connor. Sure. The section 48(e) and section 45(y),
    those are the clean electricity investment tax credit, which is
    a tech-neutral tax credit for investments in clean electricity
    generation, and then the clean electricity production tax
    credit provides a tax credit for the production of clean
    electricity.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. So the Inflation Reduction Act supports any
    energy source as long as it doesn't emit pollution.
        I see I am running out of time, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's 12th
    District for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
    being here today.
        My first question is going to be directed to Ms. Eversole.
    Thank you for being back to the committee again.
        Last Congress, you and I discussed some of the
    environmental and economic benefits we have seen as a result of
    the shale revolution. It has certainly been a game changer for
    my district and the Appalachia region, where revenue from Utica
    Shale leases have bolstered the region's economic by nearly $1
    billion.
        I was going to nudge Rick Allen and let him know that we
    had that conversation last Congress.
        But we also know the switch to natural gas is a major
    reason why the United States is a global leader in emissions
    reductions over the last 15 years. It is vital the Federal
    Government work as a partner, not as an adversary, to our
    energy industry and support their efforts of innovation and
    reduce emissions through new technology.
        Ms. Eversole, can you discuss the efforts that API's member
    companies are taking to be responsible stewards of the
    environment while also providing reliable baseload power to our
    constituents?
        Ms. Eversole. Congressman, thank you very much for your
    question.
        API released a climate action framework, which talks very
    specifically in great detail about ways that we can work
    together to decrease emissions from the atmosphere. First of
    all, we focus on ways we can do that in our very own
    operations. In fact, in 2017, API launched an environmental
    partnership, which is a group that comes together and focuses
    on how to decrease methane emissions. It is very important.
        Also, I would say that this industry is the largest
    investor in cleaner technologies, and so we have talked about
    geothermal. We have talked about CCS. We have talked about a
    lot of these technologies, and these not only are good for
    decreasing emissions, they also help create jobs.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much.
        My next question is for Ms. Eversole and Mr. McCown. Thank
    you. I have a couple Miami grads in our office, so thank you.
    We will start with you, Mr. McCown, since Ms. Eversole just
    went.
        A 2023 study by NERC economic consulting found that the
    lack of new pipeline infrastructure is a material obstacle to
    the natural gas industry bringing the lowest possible cost of
    gas resources to the market. Can both of you speak to the need
    for increasing pipeline capacity to help bring lower and more
    stable costs to industry and repairs?
        Mr. McCown, if you could go first, please.
        Mr. McCown. Yes. Thank you very much.
        I mean, you know, we have 3.4 million miles of pipelines,
    more than any other country, but at the same time, they don't
    necessarily go between new sources of production into where
    they are currently needed.
        You know, there are continuing legal battles that are
    fought by people, frankly, that are opposing fossil fuel under
    the guise of being concerned about pipelines in their back
    neighborhood when it is the safest form of energy
    transportation, 99.999. Nothing ever beats it.
        So I think we have to get serious about that and have a
    discussion about the fact that impeding pipelines is actually
    counterintuitive to reducing our global emissions and is
    counterintuitive to delivering cheaper cost to the American
    consumer.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
        Ms. Eversole?
        Ms. Eversole. Yes. I would note that, unfortunately, what
    we are seeing is the weaponization of well-intended statutes
    like the Clean Water Act, like NEPA. And we really need--as we
    think about comprehensive permitting reform, we really need to
    think about how we make changes, because right now anyone,
    anywhere, anytime can use the courts to try to stop energy
    projects.
        And it is not just oil and gas projects, I would emphasize,
    and we need to have some judicial reform here so, once we get
    through the high level of scrutiny for these projects, that we
    can put shovels in the ground and get jobs going for hard-
    working Americans.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
        When it comes to the Appalachia Basin and the Utica and
    Marcellus Shale, we are a bit constrained by the inability to
    transport that oil and gas to the northeast. Can you talk about
    how this limited pipeline capacity has also hurt producers in
    States like Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and how this
    has hurt consumers across the northeast?
        Sir, Mr. McCown, yes.
        Mr. McCown. Yes, sir.
        You know, it has, and if we look to New England, they are
    constrained, right. We have a large proportion of some States
    in New England continuing to use biomass wood to heat because
    they can't get natural gas to them. You know, this is a
    national problem that has to be addressed, and permitting
    reform needs to look at it, but some of this is in the fact
    that the States have permitting authority for citing, not the
    Federal Government, with regard to certain types of pipelines.
        And this affects all pipelines, too. CCS, right, which is
    carbon capture, is also affected negatively by opposition to
    pipelines.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
        Do you want to add anything?
        Ms. Eversole. I think we are out of time. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Balderson. We are. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York's 20th
    District for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. O'Connor, welcome back to the subcommittee. I strongly
    support expanding our grid infrastructure to help meet our
    growing electricity needs, but if we only work to increase
    supply, we are severely limiting our tools to maintain a
    reliable and an affordable energy system.
        Reducing demand through cost-effective energy efficiency
    measures is a proven strategy across all segments of the
    system--generation, transmission, distribution, and use.
        So Mr. O'Connor, what should be the role for efficiency as
    we work to meet our growing and changing energy needs?
        Mr. McCown. Mr. Tonko, thank you very much for the
    question. Efficiency is something we always need to continue to
    work on. There is a balance between efficiency and cost that we
    have to weigh out. But, clearly, what we produce, everything
    from our water heaters to our dishwashers, are far more
    efficient than they used to be.
        My only caveat is that we can't conserve our way to
    prosperity because simply we continue to use more and more
    energy. So it is a tool but not the only tool.
        Mr. Tonko. Mr. O'Connor, same question for you.
        Mr. O'Connor. I thought that was well put. It is an
    important tool. Our ability to serve load is based on how much
    we generate, what our losses are in the transmission of
    electricity, and then what our load is, how much do we actually
    need to use. Energy efficiency reduces our demand for
    electricity. It frees up electricity to be used for other
    purposes.
        And I am full of energy industry sayings. Another one is
    that the least expensive kilowatt hour is the kilowatt hour not
    used.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        And efficiency can also be an important tool to empower
    American consumers. The reality is that everyday Americans
    cannot control whether the oil and gas industry would choose to
    slow down production when it is beneficial to their bottom
    lines.
        But many people can make investments in their homes
    resulting in significant savings on their electricity and
    heating bills. For example, according to ACEEE, the 25(c) tax
    credit helped 2.3 million American households upgrade their
    homes in 2023, saving an average of $130 a year in energy cost.
    By 2032, the credit will cut peak electricity demand by some
    3,400 megawatts.
        Similarly, the IRA's rebate programs for efficiency and
    electrification are expected to save consumers up to $1 billion
    annually in energy cost.
        So, Mr. O'Connor, how important is continuation of these
    efficiency incentives to help consumers take steps to reduce
    their energy bills?
        Mr. O'Connor. It is critically important, particularly in a
    rising cost environment, which may continue if we impose
    tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico. And I know you
    mentioned, I think, 2.3 million American households. I have
    seen data that said 3.4 million American households had availed
    themselves to IRA-related energy efficiency credits and
    rebates.
        Mr. Tonko. Terrific.
        So developing grid-scale energy projects requires
    tremendous long-term planning and capital investment regardless
    of the technologies being utilized. And when I talk to
    developers, they always tell me that the most important thing
    they need is certainty to have the confidence to make those
    investments.
        Mr. O'Connor, when we see rash and unclear Executive orders
    and other actions from the White House and Federal agencies,
    can that have a chilling effect on the private sector?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes, absolutely. At best, it delays needed
    investments while everybody awaits certainty, and, at its
    worst, it completely undermines them. We are trying to compete
    in a global economy, and if the rules here are unclear and
    create uncertainty for companies, they will find other
    jurisdictions to do business in.
        Mr. Tonko. And if there is a perceived possibility that the
    rug will be pulled out from under these developers by changing
    the rules on Federal tax credits, on grants, loans and
    permitting opportunities, what kinds of risk does that present
    to the domestic manufacturers, the construction companies, and
    American workers that make these energy projects happen?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes. I think there are at least two distinct
    risks. One are risks to folks who have already made investments
    in domestic manufacturing and electric generation based on
    their reliance of the existence of these tax credits. We have
    seen those manufacturing facilities opening up all around the
    country. And so, if they get the rug pulled out from under
    them, a number of those projects simply won't pencil.
        I think the second risk is for new projects. Assuming none
    of us here are happy with the amount of domestic manufacturing
    we have because we always want more, if we don't have these
    critical tax incentives, then projects, like I said, are going
    to choose other jurisdictions that are more business friendly.
        Mr. Tonko. So, if we want to compete to be the global
    leader in emerging strategic industries, meet our energy
    demands and certainly lower energy cost all at the same time,
    we need to help foster a stable business environment for
    investment, is what I am hearing from your answers.
        And President Trump's approach of causing chaos is simply
    and clearly the wrong approach.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 11th
    District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think the good news today is we know Americans can now do
    math because energy was on the ballot, and we did math, and we
    now have a new approach to a lot of bad policies that we saw
    over the past 4 years, which put us in a very precarious and
    detrimental situation going forward.
        And the foundation of our economy is energy. I am proud to
    have this week on the floor H.R. 26, which will protect a
    critical innovation and technology, hydraulic fracturing,
    which, without that, the last 4 years would have been much
    worse and, with the help of the State of Texas, the Permian
    Basin in general.
        Ms. Eversole, welcome back to the panel. Thank you for
    being here.
        I want to talk about one of the bad policies, the waste
    emissions charge that came out of the last administration. With
    regards to cost, production, and the future of the industry,
    just kind of give us a roadmap for what that will do.
        Ms. Eversole. Congressman, thank you very much for your
    question.
        You know, we think about the waste emissions charge or the
    so-called methane tax is completely the wrong way to go about
    this. It is in the industry's interest and it is in society's
    benefit that we keep methane from escaping into the atmosphere.
        I have referenced the environmental partnership, which API
    leads, with a variety of companies across the value chain to
    help reduce methane emissions. We are committed to doing that.
        And I think, from your district, you know, in the Permian
    Basin, that is really, you know, ground zero for energy
    production in many ways. You know it is smack dab in the middle
    of your district. We are seeing decreases in methane, and we
    look forward to continuing to do that.
        Mr. Pfluger. Well, thank you for that, and the leadership
    that API has shown with the roadmap. Also, AXPC recently
    submitted a letter. Mr. Chairman, I would like to seek
    unanimous consent for recommendations by AXPC to this
    committee.
        Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you very much.
        Mr. McCown, let's talk about the energy emergency that
    President Trump just declared. Why did we have to declare that?
    What does it mean? And what should this committee and Congress
    and the legislative branch be doing to back that up and get us
    back on track?
        Mr. McCown. Absolutely. Thank you for the question, Mr.
    Pfluger.
        You know, the simple math is, yes, we are producing more
    oil and natural gas than we ever have, 13.4 million barrels per
    day. The problem is we are using 20.3 million barrels of oil a
    day. That is a deficit.
        We do produce more natural gas than we consume, and thank
    goodness we have been able to export it to friends and allies,
    but we are not yet quite energy independent, and the forced
    early retirement of baseload energy on the electric side, there
    is a looming crisis that is going to hit, and it is not going
    to be fixed by throwing up small-scale renewables.
        We need baseload power that is not intermittent, and we
    need to get on it in a hurry.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you very much.
        And, Mr. O'Connor, I appreciate your acknowledgement of the
    amount of energy we are producing, but the math problem that we
    still have is that we have a lot more demand when it comes to
    what we are going to do in this country, specifically data
    centers.
        Mr. Arnold, thank you for mentioning the fringe groups. I
    see that is the biggest threat to normalcy, reasonableness, and
    reality. And so, between Mr. Arnold and Ms. Eversole, I want to
    talk about the study that was in the 11th hour submitted by DOE
    that said that it is--you know, we thought that LNG exports
    were in the public interest, and the study was released.
        Talk to me about that temporary pause, which they said was
    a pause, but it actually affected a lot of investment into the
    LNG sector in getting that overseas.
        Ms. Eversole. Congressman, you know, I would simply say
    that, unfortunately, that was an example of where politics got
    in the way of durable, long-term investments, and it impacted
    not only investment here in the United States, but it impacted
    our allies.
        And, as somebody who puts on the uniform and continues to
    put on the uniform every day, it doesn't have to be that way,
    and we want to make sure that we can continue to produces LNG
    in this country and export it to our allies around the world.
        Mr. Pfluger. It has been mentioned, permitting reform. Part
    of that is the judicial reform, litigation reform.
        Mr. Arnold, those fringe groups that are very small in
    percentage but have an outsized voice, tell us your experience
    with that and how they have been detrimental to the industry.
        Mr. Arnold. Thank you for the question.
        Really, you know, pipefitters, my fellow workers, they just
    want to see things that make sense, and LNG facilities, for
    example, provide tremendous work opportunities. If you look at
    Cove Point, we had thousands and thousands of pipefitters on
    that project and continue to have pipefitters on that project
    for ongoing operations.
        In addition to that, you have all the pipeline projects
    that, you know, have to be built, and that provides additional
    work opportunities for our pipeliner members. And so let's just
    do what makes sense and reward Americans that are out there
    working hard trying to do the right thing.
        Mr. Pfluger. I think I heard that in the inaugural address,
    that we are going to govern with common sense. Thank you for
    backing that up.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington's
    Eighth District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
    witnesses.
        First, I would just like to second what a lot of my
    colleagues have been saying here. Congress funded the
    infrastructure law and invested in climate and clean energy,
    and, as a result, billions of dollars came to my State,
    Washington State, in the form of a hydrogen hub, battery
    manufacturing, cutting-edge research, grid hardening for
    utilities, and support for aging hydropower infrastructure.
        The Trump administration's decision--without any Republican
    objection--to abruptly and illegally cut off funding already
    approved by Congress is beyond reckless, and, frankly, it
    kneecaps our efforts to unleash American energy production and
    independence. I am also outraged by the reckless Republican
    attempt to gut the Federal workforce across the board.
        Specifically for this discussion, employees of the
    Bonneville Power Administration--a public agency self-funded by
    Northwest rate payers, mind you--received the same blanket
    incentive to resign in order to hack away at the Federal
    workforce.
        For those of you who don't know, Bonneville was established
    to market power from federally owned power-generating dams to
    ratepayers at cost. They are also a negotiating partner in an
    international treaty. They provide three-quarters of all
    Northwest transmission, and they serve as the--the--grid-
    balancing authority for the region.
        Their highly skilled workforce is already strained but
    manages all of this, and that is why this is so extremely
    dangerous. Encouraging resignations of the highly experienced
    people who are the few who actually understand how to manage
    these operations in the Northwest risks decimating affordable
    access to nonemitting hydropower in the entire Northwest.
        Bonneville has system operators and support personnel who
    manage the complex flow of electricity 24/7, 365 days a year.
    It has linemen who go out in the worst conditions to repair
    damaged power lines and restore services quickly as possible.
    They also bring new energy generation online, processing
    requests to connect to the grid, getting that into
    interconnection queue.
        These and many jobs at Bonneville require substantial
    training and--I want to emphasize--cannot be easily replaced
    when you hack away at Federal jobs.
        Mr. O'Connor, thank you for being here. As a lawyer working
    on these clean energy projects, you have dealt with the RTOs'
    interconnection queue that line up to get new power projects
    connected to the grid. I was wondering if you could comment,
    have you experienced difficulty with the balancing authority in
    getting projects hooked up to the grid?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes. I don't have experience with BPA in
    particular, but I do spend a lot of my time working with the
    RTOs and TOs and transmission owners and operators to
    interconnect projects across the country. And, yes, there are
    delays.
        Ms. Schrier. Absolutely there are delays. It is part of the
    transformer shortage, but part of it is, whether it is wind or
    solar, connecting to the queue is a very big deal, and, again,
    cutting employees at Bonneville risks this, risks our energy
    portfolio, and just slows our transition to nonemitting
    hydropower.
        So I guess what I would just like to conclude with is just
    that we all want the government to be more efficient. We all
    want to move that interconnection queue more quickly. But these
    brute-force blanket actions taken so far are not the answer. We
    need a scalpel, not a machete, to increase productivity and
    efficiency in the Federal workforce.
        And, if the President truly wants to unleash American
    energy and do the right thing and focus on nonemitting energy,
    he and his governing party should not take away the experts who
    we need to make that happen. It is an insult, frankly, to the
    experienced workers that we have.
        With that, I am going to thank you and yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back the
    balance of her time.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee's
    First District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    the witnesses for being here today.
        Mrs. Eversole, can you speak to the need for meaningful
    permitting reform and why it is essential for more pipelines to
    be built to ensure America can get back on the path to energy
    dominance? Because you said in your testimony it takes longer
    to permit an energy infrastructure project than to obtain a
    college degree.
        Ms. Eversole. Yes. Thank you very much for your question,
    Congresswoman.
        Yes. It simply doesn't have to be this way. We are ready to
    build the projects that we need in this country to address the
    growing demand, and we can do it such that the energy produces
    affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy, and the best way to
    get started, API recommends a five-point policy roadmap.
    Permitting reform is a key part of that.
        But we need to build not only pipelines for oil and gas,
    but we also, as has been referenced on this panel, we need to
    build it for CO2 because this is going to take an
    all-of-the-above approach to meet the energy addition that the
    demand that we have requires going forward.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. Thank you, ma'am.
        My colleagues on the other side seem to be insinuating that
    we don't need any new oil expansion to maintain our energy
    security. And, of course, you said again, which I say all the
    time, energy security is national security. So would you like a
    moment to correct the record as to why we need new oil
    expansion, ma'am?
        Ms. Eversole. Absolutely. And I am a military spouse, and I
    know the sacrifices that the men and women and the families of
    our servicemembers make each and every day around this country,
    and I think that the oil and gas industry plays an important
    part.
        Yesterday, the President announced the return to his
    maximum pressure campaign against the country of Iran. Iran is
    a net energy producer, oil and gas in particular. And so we are
    looking at taking, you know, more than a million barrels a day
    in production off the grid.
        And so what did markets do yesterday? They kind of
    shrugged, and the reason is market, global markets understand
    that the United States is now the swing producer. We don't have
    to be reliant on Iran or Russia. We don't have to be reliant on
    cartels because the men and women of this industry can step up
    each and every day. And imagine if we were not in a position
    that geopolitically we had the strength to say to Iran,
    ``Enough is enough.''
        And so American oil and gas plays a really important role
    here, and we are proud for what we do each and every day.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes, and I agree with that.
        Recent reports indicate that Elon Musk's Department of
    Government Efficiency may we setting their sights on the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. My
    understanding is that NOAA used a page out of the old playbook
    of using the Endangered Species Act to attack oil and gas by
    way of the Rice's whale.
        You know, the more I read about the Rice's whale, I don't
    know if it is a new species they just discovered or it is an
    old species that used to be called the Bryde's whale. All I do
    know is it lives in the Gulf of America, OK.
        So what would you recommend to DOGE with regards to the
    Rice's whale, if and when they take a look at NOAA?
        Ms. Eversole. Thanks for your question.
        Look, we need to get a biological opinion completed so we
    ensure that we don't have any interruptions in productions in
    the Gulf of America. It is very clear that that energy produced
    in that area is among the cleanest barrels of oil produced on
    the planet. It benefits not only consumers here in the United
    States, but, as we just discussed, it benefits our allies
    around the world.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. Thank you for your answer.
        And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas'
    Seventh District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you so much, Chairman Latta. I
    am so glad to work with you and everyone here on this
    subcommittee again this Congress.
        I want to thank our witnesses for your testimony today. It
    has been incredibly useful and important.
        I represent the energy capital of the world in Houston, and
    we know firsthand what unleashing American energy looks like.
    In 2023, Texas generated more electricity and produced more oil
    and gas than any other State. Texas also led all States in the
    United States in the production and generation of wind power,
    and it was second in solar generation and battery storage
    capacity.
        So, like my colleagues, I am disappointed that, in the
    first few days of President Trump's term, he has politicized
    energy issues by declaring a national energy emergency, even
    though, as we have heard today, the United States is producing
    energy at record levels, by rescinding many of the Biden
    administration's actions related to clean energy that we worked
    on in this committee and in the Congress, by withholding
    funding by halting new offshore wind projects, threatening
    baseless tariffs on resources that our domestic energy industry
    depends on, potentially spiking prices for U.S. consumers as
    well, and reducing the Federal workforce of regulators that we
    need in our energy sector, among others. We heard a little bit
    of that from Congresswoman Schrier.
        Members of this committee know that my constituents and I
    agree substantively on some of the policy ends that have been
    announced in recent days, especially efforts to address
    permitting delays and renewing the review of LNG export
    permits. And I appreciated your testimony on that issue, Mr.
    McCown.
        But the means employed to do this are deeply troubling.
    And, frankly, I am disappointed that this committee didn't get
    the permitting work done in the last Congress because that is
    what we are here to do, and that is what we need to do. I hope
    we will be able to do it in this Congress.
        That said, the sweeping orders that President Trump has
    signed really fail to give our energy industry the regulatory
    certainty it needs to succeed. It is just not what unleashing
    American energy looks like.
        With the United States producing more energy than ever
    before from all sources, now is not the time to halt
    innovation, much of which is happening in my district and my
    hometown near Mr. Weber and not too far from Mr. Pfluger.
        Houston is home to 11 percent of U.S. energy jobs and more
    than 4,700 energy-related firms, and the number 1 issue I hear
    about from people in the business who work in my district and
    beyond, many of them API members, is the need to know the rules
    and requirements to trust that long-term projects can move
    forward once they are approved. They need permitting certainty.
    They need investment certainty. They need to plan.
        And before making these multibillion-dollar investments
    that Americans rely on, the people who are undertaking them
    need to be able to rely on the process. And what we are seeing
    right now is a destruction of the process--the legislative
    process, the agency process--a destruction that is going to
    have impacts and chaos for years to come.
        Among other things, having a reliable process means having
    qualified, experienced personnel in the agencies responsible
    for the permitting process.
        We have all seen the news of what is happening in the
    agencies and the directives from unelected billionaire Elon
    Musk, who now has access to all kinds of databases and has
    interns sending legally questionable memos to career civil
    servants telling them to quit their jobs.
        I can't imagine that anyone waiting on a permit wants that
    kind of chaos and delay.
        It also means supporting investments of all kinds in
    energy, to get more energy to the grid for Americans, and to
    continue to develop technologies that get more power onto the
    grid and technologies that we can export.
        The war on wind and solar is nonsensical. And don't just
    take it from me. It was the Republicans in Texas, President
    Trump's first Secretary of Energy, then-Governor Rick Perry,
    that had the vision to build out our wind infrastructure more
    than two decades ago.
        The diversity--yes, diversity--of energy sources on our
    grid in Texas has spurred innovation of all kinds.
        We have some of our own challenges to address with grid
    resiliency and demand, but taking sources off the grid is not
    the way to solve it.
        And it is critical, as you said, Ms. Eversole, that
    lawmakers and industry experts work together to implement smart
    energy policy that will be durable, that will allow members of
    our communities to innovate, create, and plan for the future
    that we all want.
        That said, I have only got about 20 seconds left for
    questions, so I am going to submit the many questions that I
    have for the panel for the record. But I really want to thank
    you all for your time.
        Each of you has questions coming from me, and I am sorry
    that with so much to say and so much going on, I didn't get the
    chance to have you answer them, but I look forward to seeing
    your written responses on these hugely important issues.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her
    time.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Iowa's First
    District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking
    Member Castor, for holding this hearing today. And I also want
    to thank our witnesses for testifying before the subcommittee.
        If you go to the House chambers and you look above the seat
    of the Speaker, you will find a saying that says, ``Let us
    develop the resources of our land.'' And that is exactly what
    Iowa has done.
        Iowa stands as a powerhouse in America's renewable-energy
    landscape and has transformed its agricultural abundance into
    vital biofuels, producing over a quarter of the country's fuel
    ethanol and biodiesel and trying to get into sustainable
    aviation fuel as well.
        Its wind turbines, second only to Texas, harness the strong
    prairie winds to generate an impressive 59 percent of the
    State's electricity, and we are a net exporter of electricity.
        This blend of agricultural might and renewable energy
    innovation has positioned Iowa as a crucial player in America's
    energy sector, offering its residents some of the most
    affordable electricity rates in the country, while maintaining
    high per-capita energy consumption and also bringing businesses
    into our State that rely upon this mix.
        We know that for the United States to be competitive
    economically, that we have to have abundant, affordable,
    reliable, secure energy, and that is what this hearing is
    about.
        Mr. McCown, I don't have a question for you. I just want to
    thank you for your many years of service as a fellow veteran.
        Ms. Eversole, thank you for also mentioning the TCJA. It
    needs to be reauthorized at the earliest possible date for
    stability and continuity.
        Mr. Arnold, thank you for mentioning 45Qs.
        And also, Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Arnold, thank you for
    mentioning Canadian oil. As I recall, it was President Biden in
    an Executive order who canceled the Keystone pipeline, which
    led to the loss, if I remember correctly, of about 11,000
    American jobs, most of those union jobs.
        Mr. McCown, I would like to ask you about the importance of
    any-of-the-above energy mix, and we have most of them in the
    State of Iowa, and that includes a diverse mix of generation
    sources.
        We know that wind and solar have become significant parts
    of the electricity mix, but they don't have a dispatchable,
    continual baseload, and storage will help with that.
        Can you explain why it is important to our economic and
    national security? And I say that not as just a quip. It is
    tremendously important to national security to have a diverse
    energy supply from all generation sources and that is both
    abundant and affordable.
        Mr. McCown. Absolutely. Thank you so much for that
    question.
        Like we said, don't put all of our eggs in one basket. Have
    different. And as I listen to both sides, believe it or not, I
    think there is more consensus here than maybe we might think
    about some days.
        We do need an approach that includes everything in our
    energy mix, and that particular mix, the percentages of that
    mix, will change over time as technology and innovation move
    forward.
        The trouble is, if you push a transition--and leading
    experts say transitions take years, decades, or even centuries,
    you cannot will it through congressional mandate overnight.
    Molecules do not respond that way. We have to be careful about
    how we change this mix, and we have to understand that the
    reality of today is that fossil fuels are powering the future.
    And if we want to reduce our carbon footprint, we should start
    by talking to the Chinese and the Indians.
        And so with that, the SAF, the ethanol, the CCS projects
    that you have going on in your State are fundamentally crucial
    for this country, and I think your State is a model of how to
    do things.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Well, as chair of the Conservative
    Climate Caucus, I believe that we can leave a cleaner,
    healthier planet to our children and grandchildren and compete
    economically around the globe.
        We should focus on reducing emissions and solutions rather
    than trying to support and subsidize certain industries.
        And you brought up a crucial point about carbon-based
    fuels. I, too, have a lot of questions which I will submit for
    the record.
        But, Ms. Eversole, expanding American energy production is
    crucial for keeping energy prices affordable.
        One of the things that has not been mentioned in this
    industry is the fracking revolution led to saving, according to
    NBER, 11,000 American lives since 2005, lowering emissions in
    the United States, greater than any other country, while
    increasing energy generation by 48 percent. That is quite a
    stellar record.
        So we know that it helps national security, our energy
    security, it helps energy poverty, and it drives economic
    growth.
        The administration has taken important steps, like
    restarting the LNG export approval process. In your view, what
    additional actions are needed to reduce barriers and accelerate
    development of America's vast energy resources, because demand
    is only going up, and we need every energy supply generation
    that we can possibly muster using our natural resources?
        Ms. Eversole. Thank you, Congresswoman. I would point to
    API's five-point policy roadmap that contains solutions that we
    all need to benefit from.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you. I will submit questions for
    the record.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back
    her time.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York's
    14th District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
        At the beginning of this term, President Trump has
    allegedly promised to cut energy prices to Americans in half
    within 18 months, a tall order. And for the record, the price
    of gas on the day that President Trump was sworn in was about
    $3.01 a gallon.
        Yet this past weekend, Donald Trump announced one of his
    first major energy price policies, which is gas tariffs,
    including broader tariffs on Canada and Mexico.
        Mr. O'Connor, the broad tariffs on Canada and Mexico, the
    25 percent tariffs, also include tariffs on energy, correct?
        Mr. O'Connor. Correct.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. And what percent of U.S. crude oil
    imports come from Canada and Mexico?
        Mr. O'Connor. I think between 50 and 60 percent from Canada
    and around 10 percent from Mexico.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Uh-huh. That is what we see here. About
    60 percent of the crude oil that the U.S. imports comes from
    Canada, and about 10 percent comes from Mexico.
        So we are talking about two-thirds of all U.S. crude oil
    imports come from Canada and Mexico. And if they come from
    those two countries--and Donald Trump is announcing overnight
    tariffs on these two nations--let's dig into what that means.
        If we were to place tariffs on two-thirds of the United
    States' crude oil imports, what impact would that have on
    prices?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes. They would increase. I think I saw
    something from Yale that said gas prices would increase about 4
    percent, but significantly more in the Midwest.
        And then we would also see higher prices from natural gas.
    I think, Ms. Schrier, in the Pacific Northwest, you import
    quite a bit of natural gas from Canada, so those prices would
    go up.
        And, of course, New York imports hydro from Hydro-Quebec,
    and, frankly, it is unclear to me how the tariffs would apply
    to electricity, but I think NYISO has expressed concern that it
    would raise electricity prices in New York.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And these tariffs will increase prices
    in other commodities as well.
        So what I am hearing is that, despite all of this talk that
    Donald Trump and the Republican Party have about driving down
    energy costs, their first decisions are actually to drive up
    energy costs, including prices at the pump, across the United
    States.
        And that has knock-on effects across the entire economy,
    right? These prices are not just contained. They are not just
    hiking prices on oil and gas. Oil and gas prices will then hike
    up prices on groceries and pretty much any good that gets
    transported, as well as housing and construction, correct?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes. That is right.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. And so we are looking at almost an
    all-economy increase in prices. And that has also been backed
    up in previous price changes as well.
        In fact, oil production and what we have seen is that in
    2023, in some of these gas price increases, we saw knock-on
    effects across the entire economy before, right, with gas?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. So I think what we need to really
    hone in on here is that what we are seeing is that the Trump
    administration is saying one thing but doing another. And if
    the Trump administration is promising to lower energy prices,
    it is important for us to ask, Why are they making decisions to
    do the opposite? But let's----
        Mr. O'Connor. I hope you are not--oh, I am sorry.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Oh, go ahead.
        Mr. O'Connor. I hope you are not asking me that question. I
    don't know.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I think we will dig into it.
        So let's pause for a second, and I want to put a pin in
    that, and let's talk about solutions, because while preventing
    these short-term spikes is important, we do need to invest in
    the long-term infrastructure to actually drive down energy
    prices.
        And what the Trump administration is doing is not just
    doing tariffs, but they are also attacking expansion in energy
    production on renewable energy as well. And more energy means
    more energy across the board.
        So what would be also the knock-on effects of reducing
    renewable energy production while increasing tariffs on oil and
    gas?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes. I think we are going to see higher
    electricity prices, higher oil and gas prices.
        I think Ms. Eversole mentioned the need for permitting
    reform. It is notable that one of President Trump's first
    actions was to pause permitting for projects--wind and solar
    projects, particularly, but not exclusively--on Federal lands.
    And so I think we will see the knock-on effects, and consumers
    will, unfortunately, pay the price.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So we are talking an explosion in
    prices, but when we talk about also as well as permitting
    reform, I also just want to acknowledge Mr. Arnold and some of
    your statements you have made on geothermal energy.
        I think that one of the areas that we can find bipartisan
    agreement is the fact that we do want to make plenty of jobs in
    this country, especially for pipefitters.
        I know you are from Colorado, but we work with our
    pipefitters in New York. And in order for us to really invest
    in projects that will create jobs for not just your union but
    Americans in--and not just your local but Americans and locals
    like yours across the country--is tremendously important,
    especially in areas where we can invest in those projects while
    also cleaning up our energy supply.
        So thank you.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan's
    Tenth District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Apparently Democrat gaslighting produces zero emissions.
    But what does their radical agenda mean for constituents in my
    district and your districts who pay more at the pump, who pay
    more for groceries?
        Folks in southeast Michigan have experienced their jobs
    being extinct, being shipped to other States, being shipped to
    other countries, because Green New Deal woke policies do not
    work in the real world.
        Let's look at this from a 30,000-foot view. Over the past 4
    years, every American has footed a higher gas bill, higher
    energy costs, and rising prices to keep their cars running and
    their homes heated.
        Under the Biden-Harris administration, they totally bent
    over to the radical left. We stopped producing cleaner,
    affordable energy in America to fit a narrative that only
    serves coastal elites and the rich in New York and California.
        What did this lead to? Our Strategic Petroleum Reserves hit
    lows we haven't seen since I was a baby. That meant the U.S.
    relying on energy that was unclean, energy that I would note is
    from dictators and despots in Moscow and Beijing and Tehran.
        Here is the inconvenient truth for my friends on the left:
    Energy produced and developed here in America is cleaner, it is
    safer, and it doesn't threaten our national security. In fact,
    it bolsters it.
        And what is worse, relying on our adversaries for energy
    means American jobs go down and not up. My constituents in the
    Detroit area are all too familiar with this, seeing the
    reckless policy effects of the EV mandates.
        Another failed policy billable to the Biden administration
    is importing sour crude, which has funded our adversaries. And
    we talk about infrastructure investments on the left side?
    Well, how about shutting down the Keystone pipeline, which got
    rid of 11,000 union jobs?
        Now, the Democrats' Green New Deal agenda is the Grim
    Reaper for American jobs and actually clean energy.
        Being able to actually move forward into a future where we
    can all have cheaper, safer, cleaner energy is our goal. ``All
    of the above'' is the approach.
        The Line 5 pipeline is something that is a critical artery
    of energy for transporting crude natural gas in western Canada,
    which goes through Michigan, through the Great Lakes. And Line
    5 is not just an economic driver for Michigan, but it also
    provides energy to the east side of Canada.
        Unfortunately, radical environmentalists and ambitious
    politicians in both Lansing and Ottawa have become obstacles to
    common sense. They are banding together to shut down Line 5 in
    violation of a treaty that we have with our Canadian neighbors.
        Ms. Eversole, in your expert opinion, do you believe that
    restrictions like those restrictions on Line 5 and having an
    all-of-the-above energy approach, continuing to trade with our
    Canadian allies makes us weaker or stronger?
        Ms. Eversole. Indeed, these restrictions make us weaker.
        Mr. James. Thank you.
        Two weeks ago, Michigan State regulators approved a $217
    million rate hike on the DTE Energy, a power provider in
    southeast Michigan.
        According to MPSC, the State regulator, DTE must charge
    consumers more to upgrade old power lines and continue
    maintenance to improve reliability.
        Now, we know that Michigan is now ranked 38 out of 50 for
    having the highest energy costs.
        Mr. McCown, in your expert opinion, is this a recipe for
    success, increasing costs and price without also having
    permitting reform and allowing an all-of-the-above approach, to
    include natural gas, to smooth our way away from coal and
    smooth our way toward nuclear, or do increased regulations
    increase costs on consumers?
        Mr. McCown. Mr. James, you are spot on. Increased
    regulations increase costs, and far too often utilities are
    more than happy just to pass that along to the consumer instead
    of investing some of their profits back as well.
        Mr. James. Thank you.
        Last year I spoke on the House floor about how Biden's war
    on LNG was going to harm Michigan specifically. We have 1.1
    trillion cubic feet in underground storage, which is one-
    eighth--one-eighth--of the entire Nation's natural gas storage
    capacity.
        Given DTE and consumers' baseload requirements that are
    increasing over the years versus the regulations in Michigan--
    we have been dealing with heavy-handed restrictions on building
    additional natural gas facilities and the supporting
    infrastructure requirements that we need to convey that safely
    with less power outages across the State--with a Republican
    House, Republican Senate, and White House, what can this
    Congress do to scale up natural gas as a reliable source again,
    Mr. McCown?
        Mr. McCown. Well, there are several things we can do.
    Number 1 is, we can stop the war on fossil fuels. We can have
    revised permitting. We can invoke public-private partnerships,
    loan guaranty.
        Some of the very same things that have been done for the
    renewable industry could be done to expand our natural gas or
    other fossil fuel industry too. It should be a level playing
    field for everybody.
        Mr. James. We all want clean air. We all want clean water.
    We all want to reduce pollution. But we also don't want to send
    our countrymen to the poorhouse trying to pay for sunshine and
    rainbows before our infrastructure is ready for it.
        The former President's LNG war is a top--well, let me--I am
    running out of time here, so I will just say, we need to have
    something that is environmentally, economically friendly, and I
    plan to work on an all-of-the-above energy approach with my
    colleagues on the left and right.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts'
    Fourth District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Chairman.
        We have heard during this hearing about an all-of-the-above
    energy strategy, and the chairman himself talked about not
    picking winners or losers in our energy policy.
        And yet the President came into office and immediately
    picked a loser in the energy approach, which was to say issuing
    a moratorium on offshore wind production.
        This not only is going to raise costs for consumers,
    particularly in Massachusetts, where up to a million homes
    could have been powered by offshore winds in a reliable and
    affordable manner; it also, in my own district, cost hundreds
    of good jobs.
        The company Prysmian, a cable manufacturing company, was
    supposed to build a $300 million manufacturing plant in
    Somerset at Brayton Point. They had negotiated all the permits,
    they had signed all the deals, and they walked away after
    Donald Trump took office because they could not deal with the
    uncertainty that he had engendered.
        Now, Ms. Eversole, I know that API has actually worked on
    offshore issues with the offshore wind industry, and I must ask
    you, while this moratorium itself is not problematic for you
    and your constituency, do you think it is a good precedent that
    a new chief executive can walk in and, based off an EO drafted
    by one Member of Congress who hates offshore wind, do you think
    it is a good precedent that one new chief executive can come in
    and target a specific industry with a moratorium, given what
    you have said about the need for rule of law and certainly in
    investment?
        Ms. Eversole. Yes, Congressman. Thank you for your
    question.
        I think this is the perfect example where we see that
    policy has real consequences. Our industry, representing oil
    and natural gas, of course, certainly felt this in the last
    administration when there was an all-out ban on LNG exports.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Nothing that happened in the last
    administration even approaches a moratorium on an entire sector
    of energy production.
        You can imagine that, despite what Donald Trump says, he
    ain't serving a third term. A Democratic President can take
    office in 2029, and how would API feel if a Democratic
    President acted towards the petroleum offshore production in
    the same way that Donald Trump has just acted towards offshore
    wind production? Is that something that would engender business
    confidence in your constituency?
        Ms. Eversole. I am actually really reassured because of the
    substance of what we have talked about today. There is a lot of
    agreement, swinging in either direction by the way, every 2, 4,
    or 6 years.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Well, I will reclaim my time.
        What I am not hearing from you is any full-throated support
    of this precedent because I think you recognize that empowering
    one individual to cancel an entire industry is not good
    business for API.
        And I would just caution my colleagues on the other side of
    the aisle that what goes around comes around.
        Moving towards an area where I think there could be more
    bipartisan consensus is geothermal. What is clear is hot rock
    geothermal, in particular, which is the ability to drill 5, 6,
    7 miles beneath the Earth's surface, has a tremendous potential
    to unlock clean, reliable, high baseload power.
        And it can be a bipartisan issue. We can drill. We can
    drill clean energy. We can reindustrialize big segments of the
    United States. And, in terms of energy security, we can be an
    exporter of a technology that can retrofit many of the coal-
    fired power plants that China and India are currently building,
    getting us closer to 1.7 degrees Celsius by 2050. This is a
    triple-win issue.
        Mr. O'Connor, what would be the effect on repealing the
    robust suite of tax credits, the tech-neutral tax credits in
    the IRA, for our ability to do next-generation hot rock
    geothermal?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes. Thank you for the question. And I think
    you have kind of answered it in the question, which is, the
    technology-neutral tax credits incentivize geothermal
    production. And so if you were to repeal the IRA, you would
    necessarily be undermining that industry right at the time that
    it is really poised to take off.
        Mr. Auchincloss. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida's
    15th District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    important hearing, and to our witnesses for being here today.
        Today's hearing makes clear for all of us that energy
    independence is critical for our national security and our
    economic strength.
        On day one of his administration, President Trump made
    clear that he will restore the United States to a position of
    energy dominance, reversing dangerous and failed anti-energy
    policies of the Biden-Harris administration that forced us to
    rely upon our adversaries for energy needs while driving up
    costs for everyday Americans.
        I appreciate the testimony and insight from our witnesses
    today about the actions Congress can take to help unleash our
    energy production, restore national security, and lower costs
    for my constituents in Florida and Americans across the Nation.
        Mr. McCown, I would like to return to your testimony.
        The Biden administration's fixation, in particular, on EV
    mandates ignored the economic realities and geopolitical
    considerations of the manufacturing supply chain.
        We know that China exploits their dominance over critical
    mineral processing facilities in the supply chain for EV
    manufacturing.
        We have also seen firsthand, in my district and other
    places, how disastrous and inadequate these vehicles can be in
    the event of extreme weather.
        Last year, you penned a letter to President Biden, along
    with 16 former military and national security experts,
    highlighting concerns about how the rush to electrify our
    transportation industry will further deepen our Nation's
    reliance on an adversarial nation like China.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to
    include this letter into the record.
        Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. Lee. Mr. McCown, would you expand on the purpose of
    this letter and why a substantial community of national
    security experts maintains concerns about domestic policies
    that effectively mandate electric vehicles?
        Mr. McCown. Sure, Ms. Lee. Thank you for the question.
        Look, I am not anti-EV. I own one. But it works in some
    instances better than it works in other instances. It is a
    great around-the-town car. It is great if you have a wall box
    in your house you can charge overnight.
        But that EV battery came from China. The raw materials came
    from China.
        We are at a huge deficit when it comes to being able to
    produce, outside of the Chinese supply chain, the rare earth
    materials, critical minerals that we need, number 1.
        Number 2, while they are an important component of our
    overall transportation fleet, it is not the only answer, and
    EVs are not the only answer for everything.
        They just don't work in circumstances. I have operated them
    in Alaska. I have driven them across country. Longer
    conversation for a different time. They are just not quite
    ready for mass application.
        And further, to electrify the energy system, the
    electricity grid, as Mr. Peters has pointed out, we have been
    unable to add power to the grid for decades. The grid is not
    ready to handle that load, and the fixation about banning gas
    would even push more--natural gas--would push even more onto
    the electric grid. It is just not smart policy.
        Ms. Lee. I also noted in your written testimony you
    included the statement that ``attempts to demand an energy
    transition cannot be willed by policymakers. Physics beats
    policy every day.''
        Tell us what you mean by that statement.
        Mr. McCown. Sure. There are promising technologies. We
    talked about geothermal from the gentleman from Massachusetts.
    It has strong promise. We haven't yet talked about hydrogen.
    That also offers some strong promise.
        But these technologies take time. I would like to have a
    fusion reactor tomorrow. It is not ready yet.
        And we can't mandate the deployment of fusion where it
    doesn't exist. We can't mandate the deployment of certain
    technologies by picking winners and losers through tax credits,
    incentives, or straight-up taxes to change the real world.
        We need to invest in R&D, and we need to be patient, and we
    can keep moving toward a cleaner future while not losing
    affordability or reliability.
        Ms. Lee. You also mentioned twin goals of supply and
    resilience as being part of energy security overall.
        I would like to ask specifically about the resilience piece
    and what you can share with us on the types of cyber threats
    that pose a risk to the security of our energy infrastructure.
        Mr. McCown. Yes. I mean, it is obvious that the more
    interconnected we become, the more vulnerable we are to outside
    actors and malicious threats. We have seen that with the
    Colonial Pipeline system, we have seen that with other
    infrastructure systems, and another reason why we need not only
    resilience, but backup systems, secondary systems.
        We can't put all of our eggs in one bag, and electrifying
    everything is putting all your eggs in one bag right now.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
    expired.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Virginia's
    Fourth District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Castor, for holding this hearing, and to the witnesses for
    being here.
        I want to start with saying that the dismantling of the
    Federal Government agencies that we are seeing right now is
    alarming. And the Trump administration's unprecedented attacks,
    with the help of Elon Musk, on our Federal workforce and
    critical programs harm all Americans, regardless of who they
    voted for. This damage affects every industry in our Nation,
    including the energy industry.
        As a State senator, I led the passage of the Virginia Clean
    Economy Act in 2020, making the Commonwealth the first southern
    State with a hundred percent clean energy standard.
        And it has spurred economic growth as clean energy jobs in
    Virginia have grown more than 3\1/2\ times faster than overall
    employment, with over 100,000 clean energy jobs in 2022 alone.
        And it has driven major projects, like the Coastal Virginia
    Offshore Wind Project, which supports nearly a thousand jobs
    and $143 million in annual economic output.
        Similarly, Commonwealth Fusion Systems has recently
    announced that they are going to build the world's first
    commercial fusion power plant in my district, and in over 5
    years this facility could generate enough clean energy to power
    150,000 Virginia homes.
        And given the increased energy demand that we have heard so
    much about in this hearing today, I am perplexed by the Trump
    administration's plan, as outlined in Project 2025, to kill
    home-grown wind and solar and clean energy, illegally rob
    thousands of energy projects across America of billions of
    dollars in investment, and declare a nonsensical energy
    emergency that simply doesn't exist, and the administration's
    sole focus on building more fossil fuel infrastructure that
    locks us into decades of harmful emissions that not only hurt
    our environment but our national security interests.
        As a former member of the Armed Services Committee, as we
    have seen how climate change impacts our military readiness,
    operations, and our servicemembers, as the largest naval base
    in the world sees more and more storms and rain that bisects
    the basin in half when it floods, and people can't get from one
    side to the other, as just one example.
        Now, I also want to address the Trump administration's
    posture toward liquefied natural gas.
        In December, the Department of Energy released a study on
    the impacts of LNG exports, and Secretary Granholm made clear
    that allowing unconstrained LNG exports would increase domestic
    wholesale natural gas prices by 30 percent and cost households
    well over $100 a year--this in addition to the climate impact
    and environmental harms to overburdened communities near export
    facilities.
        And so, Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter
    Secretary Granholm's statement into the record.
        Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is also worth noting that last year House Republicans
    tried to pass a bill to eliminate the requirement for the
    Department of Energy to review whether LNG exports served the
    public interest, even though the public interest standard has
    been used for over a century for just about every energy
    project ever done.
        And so I want to ask, Mr. O'Connor, if you could explain
    the importance of the Natural Gas Act's requirement for the
    Department of Energy to ensure that LNG exports are in the
    public interest.
        Mr. O'Connor. Sure. Thank you for the question.
        So as you noted, the Natural Gas Act requires the
    Department of Energy to evaluate whether an LNG export
    application is in the public interest.
        It is my personal view--and I think something that is
    probably consistent with Mr. McCown's view--that LNG exports to
    NATO allies, for instance, are in the national interest because
    we are supporting critical allies.
        But I think at the same time, it is also important to
    evaluate the impacts to Americans and domestic gas prices. And
    I think the public interest test that is performed or public
    interest analysis that is performed, I think, reasonably
    credits the national security benefits and the investment
    benefits that LNG exports might bring to the United States and
    to our allies while also balancing concerns against the impacts
    to consumers, which I think we would all want to know before
    making any decision.
        Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And, again, I would just note, after having spent 25 years
    as a utility regulatory lawyer, the public interest standard
    has been used in every single energy electric project component
    at the State level and the Federal level for over a decade, and
    I think any effort to roll it back is dangerous indeed.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's
    Sixth District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Rulli. Thank you, Chairman.
        This question is for Ms. Eversole.
        Ohi 6 produces 90 percent of the State's natural gas in
    Utica wells and are breaking oil production records. I
    understand intangible drilling costs represent 85 percent of
    the costs of just drilling a brand-new well, and this would, in
    turn, affect wages for workers like Mr. Arnold.
        The Inflation Reduction Act attacks blue-collar workers,
    period, by taking away oil and gas companies' ability to deduct
    IDCs under the block minimum tax.
        Why do other industries get to write off their businesses'
    expenses while the oil and gas industry does not?
        Ms. Eversole. It is a great question. We hope that this is
    something that can be addressed in this Congress. Because what
    we need to do is encourage continued investment here in this
    country, and that provision, which is not unique to oil and
    gas--we are just simply asking that it be fairly applied across
    all industries, including mine.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Rulli. Well, thank you so much.
        I have a second question for Mr. McCown.
        The Biden administration showed that tomorrow's energy
    production, and that the United States' position as a global
    leader, can be hurt by policies put in place today.
        In your opinion, what is the single most important policy
    that we can champion to ensure America's energy dominance and
    national security going forward?
        Mr. McCown. I think we can assure a level playing field
    that understands that we need the best of the above, which
    includes most of our energy resources, while helping research
    and development for emerging sources.
        But at some point these commodities need to stand on their
    own. They need to be commercially viable. We have to look at
    the cheapest, most reliable sources possible to power our
    baseload energy.
        Mr. Rulli. Excellent answer.
        In my opinion--so in Ohio 6, we have enough in Utica and
    Marcellus Shale to supply the Earth for about 500 years. And in
    reality, when you take that into consideration, we could put an
    end to Middle Eastern wars where none of our boys or girls ever
    die again in a Middle Eastern war we have no business being in.
        I thank you for your opinion.
        And with that, Chair, I would yield my time back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields his
    time.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 33rd
    District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I want
    to thank the panelists for being here.
        What I am worried about right now is the hell that is being
    unleashed on the American public, the hell that is being
    unleashed on employees all around the country that have anxiety
    about what is going to happen next, news about the CIA today.
        That stuff is unsettling, and none of that stuff is good
    for energy production in this country. And I am glad that we
    are having this hearing because we do need to figure out ways
    that we can talk about this subject and it not be so divisive.
        I like the comments Ms. Eversole made earlier today, like
    it doesn't have to be this huge us-versus-them-type deal. This
    is not the Cowboys versus the Eagles, because if it is the
    Cowboys versus the Eagles, I am telling you who I am going to
    root for every time, and this conversation doesn't need to be
    that way.
        But I am worried, and one of the things that honestly
    really worries me as a Texan that has been down to the Permian
    Basin and knows how it works is the hell that has been
    unleashed when it comes to the area of immigration.
        Anybody that has been down there knows--it is no secret--
    anyone that has been down there knows that if you were to
    really do a mass deportation in this country and clean this
    country out and send everybody to Guantanamo or wherever else,
    that you ain't pumping a dang thing out of the ground in the
    Permian Basin, because several of those jobs in that area--
    particularly some of the more dangerous, some of the jobs that
    are the more entry-level jobs--are done by people in this
    country that are undocumented.
        But we are not talking about that. We are not talking about
    that at all and how we can work together to pass some sort of
    comprehensive immigration bill so we can have a more stable
    employment base when it comes to upstream energy production. It
    is crazy.
        In the Texas Legislature last session, they had a bill, the
    Republicans had a bill that would have put this really strict
    E-Verify. Because everyone knows what is happening down there.
    They use these third-party companies to bring in these workers.
    And so it gives the larger companies cover to have these people
    working down there that are undocumented here. And they get
    them papers and they give them everything.
        But instead of trying to actually fix this problem and make
    people not have to worry about how they are going to do that
    and cause uncertainty in the markets, then we play this game on
    immigration instead of us actually coming together.
        And the Republicans here that serve on this panel with me
    from Texas, they know that that E-Verify bill was killed
    because of industries like construction and energy that didn't
    want to touch the topic because, like Dr. Perryman said--who is
    one of our State's leading economists, that used to work for
    Rick Perry, who was a Trump appointee to Secretary of Energy--
    that if you deport all of these people the way that they are
    saying and you unleash this mass chaos, that it would actually
    bankrupt Texas and bankrupt this country.
        But, no, we are not really talking about that, and that is
    really unfortunate.
        Look, I want to work with my Republican colleagues on this
    issue. I have agreed to work on this, to be a part of this
    bipartisan caucus that is being created on energy security
    because I think that it is important. But some of these other
    overarching issues around these tariffs and immigration and
    this madness that has been unleashed, we really do need to
    address those.
        And in the brief time that I have left, I just wanted to
    ask, Mr. Arnold, your testimony highlights some great work that
    has been done in Louisiana and Colorado, and I commend you for
    the work that has been done there.
        But I did want to get your impressions on what repealing
    IRA tax credits like 45Q would do for these future projects.
    Shouldn't we--if we are really for all-of-the-above and really
    concerned about energy dominance in this country, shouldn't we
    be working to expand those opportunities?
        Mr. Arnold. Thank you very much for the question.
        Absolutely, as included in my written testimony, fully
    supportive of 45Q tax credits. I think they are critical to the
    support of carbon capture sequestration systems and projects
    moving forward.
        And certainly appreciative to any support for nuclear power
    generation as well as the other alternative energies that we
    have listed--blue hydrogen, biofuels, geothermal.
        I just think we are asking for support of all those good
    jobs. And let's look at the number of jobs and the quality of
    jobs and make sure we have policies that are supporting where
    those good jobs are created, where they exist.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can continue to have some
    discussions on how we can really unleash America's energy
    dominance in this country by addressing some of these
    overarching issues and coming up with some real solutions on
    things like immigration reform in this country and doing away
    with this silly talk about these tariffs, which looks like they
    are paper tiger talks on tariffs.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon's
    Second District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Ms. Eversole, when I looked at this hearing title today, I
    saw it was ``Unleashing America's Energy,'' I thought it should
    have also included the word ``keeping'' America's energy.
        I say that because I am from Oregon, and we have Bonneville
    Power Administration, which was mentioned earlier by the
    Congresswoman from Washington. And it has about 18
    hydroelectric dams, four of which have been targeted by the
    Biden administration to be removed, about a thousand megawatts
    of firm power, but it can go up to 3,000 in a pinch. And the
    dams could actually be increased in size to add considerably
    more generation capacity.
        Yet the Biden administration, through the CEQ, it decided
    that it could cause these dams to be removed for reasons having
    little to do with fish and lots to do with politics.
        This is a huge part of the Bonneville Power
    Administration's firm power arrangement, which acts as a
    balancing thing for all kinds of intermittent power-producing
    things that have been put in, solar and wind and the like.
        My question to you, though, has to do with refineries,
    because refineries are integral to how we keep this country
    going. And yet I understood several years ago that we were
    dramatically short on diesel refineries.
        In fact, when they shifted our fleets, all of our fleets
    over to cleaner fuel, we thought there would be a huge
    shortage. Apparently, we were able to avoid that in some
    fashion.
        But what I am most concerned about when it comes to
    unleashing our energy is making sure we have a way to actually
    make it work for us.
        Before you answer, and I want to ask this because you can
    answer that, and then there is also an attempt in Oregon and
    California under the Clean Air Act--California's Clean Air
    Act--to ban diesel trucks.
        So having lots of diesel doesn't do you much good if you
    don't have a place to use it. So unleashing all this energy is
    no good if you can't get your hands on it and use it.
        So first question, what are you doing to maintain the
    refining capabilities of America? And secondly, what do we do
    about this attempt to destroy our markets by banning diesel
    fuel?
        Ms. Eversole. Congressman, thank you very much for your
    question.
        Unfortunately, there has not been a large-scale refinery
    built in this country since 1977. It just doesn't make any
    sense.
        The technology, the way that our energy markets were set up
    in the late 1970s, does not reflect how the energy realities
    are of today. And, unfortunately, what we are seeing is the
    signals that are being sent to the marketplace is that, gosh,
    we shouldn't do this in the United States.
        I completely disagree. We need to add refining capacity
    here in the United States. We do a lot of work through
    innovation, and that is great, but that only takes us to a
    certain point.
        So we need to critically address permitting reform. It is
    important for our refining sector.
        And then, I am sorry, the second part of the question?
        Mr. Bentz. And so the second question, well, it doesn't do
    you much good if you have refining if you have no place to sell
    your product. So I think the concept was, well, we will ban the
    use of diesel in heavy trucks, and that way it won't matter if
    you have refining capacity.
        So my question to you is, when we talk about unleashing
    energy, shouldn't the conversation be broad enough to address
    how we can use it?
        Ms. Eversole. Absolutely. And, specifically, banning
    certain forms of energy, it just doesn't make any sense. We are
    in a position right now where it is about energy addition.
        Diesel literally powers our economy. It is a reason why we
    are able to move things around this country efficiently, and we
    need to continue to be able to do that.
        What we also need to be able to do is think about emissions
    reductions from the context of the maximum reduction of
    emissions from the atmosphere for the minimum cost to society.
    That unlocks an entirely different set of choices rather than
    we look at things in isolation.
        Mr. Bentz. So you mentioned earlier, many people talk about
    the need to do something about permitting, and I think your
    phrase was these types of activities receive, quote, ``a high
    level of scrutiny,'' which is the understatement of the entire
    morning--or afternoon.
        What would you specifically state that we should be doing
    in the permitting space? And I have a lengthy background in
    this area, but I want to hear from you guys. What is it that we
    should be doing when it comes to making permitting work better.
        Ms. Eversole. Yes. Three things in particular.
        We need to avoid the further weaponization of NEPA, of the
    Clean Water Act, because those provisions are being used to
    stop energy projects.
        Mr. Bentz. You mean the abuse by lawyers taking this----
        Ms. Eversole. Correct.
        Mr. T4Bentz [continuing]. And bringing you into court and
    keeping you there for the rest of your life----
        Ms. Eversole. Correct.
        Mr. Bentz [continuing]. In discovery and all of that?
        Ms. Eversole. Correct.
        Mr. Bentz. That is one. What is the second?
        Ms. Eversole. Correct.
        And then judicial reform. Anyone, anywhere, anytime can
    stop these projects. We have to end the ability of the courts
    to stop rational energy development, both of oil and gas but
    also of projects across the economy.
        Mr. Bentz. So I hate to interrupt you, but I left the
    Judiciary Committee to come to this committee. I am now on this
    committee. So telling me to go back to Judiciary, I am not
    going to do it.
        Ms. Eversole. We need your help everywhere, Congressman.
        Mr. Bentz. OK. Thank you. Yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New
    Jersey's Eighth District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman.
        Thank you, Ranking Member.
        Mr. O'Connor, I want to talk about the funding freeze that
    the President put in place for investments from the Inflation
    Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
        To be clear, the freeze is illegal, and litigation has put
    a stop to it for now. But what should be problematic to all of
    us is the fact that this illegal freeze would prevent
    investments that would improve American families' lives,
    provide relief to our constituents with respect to their
    utility bills, and do exactly that which we are talking about
    here today, investing in America's energy dominance.
        Further, we have heard a lot from our colleagues across the
    aisle and from the President about affordability being a top
    concern. But now the President and Republicans in Congress are
    supporting actions that will make people's monthly bills more
    expensive.
        Additionally, there are reports of companies that were set
    up to take advantage of these investments having to lay off
    employees because of the freeze.
        Mr. O'Connor, could you talk about the negative impacts of
    this freeze in terms of the direct impacts to Americans?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes. Thank you for the question.
        It is directly impacting Americans, and it is directly
    impacting American companies, I think, as folks have noted in
    the course of previous questions, a number of efficiency
    rebates, weatherization programs, and there are a number of
    programs that directly benefit Americans by helping them save
    on their electricity and other costs.
        We are also seeing the impact to American companies now,
    and that is going to have a flow-down effect to American
    consumers. If we don't bring new generation online, if we put
    pauses on hydrogen hubs, which I know--I think Ms. Fletcher has
    one in her district--if we put pauses on other sources of
    Federal funding, then there are going to be fewer jobs at these
    projects, fewer carbon capture projects, fewer SAF projects,
    and people are going to feel it directly in their pocketbooks.
        Mr. Menendez. I appreciate that.
        You mentioned in your testimony that you represent energy
    developers, the ones actually going out and building the
    infrastructure that we rely on. But I am worried about the
    message that has been sent over the last week.
        If energy developers are hearing that they can't trust a
    contract with the Federal Government for a Federal obligation,
    will that make them more or less likely to invest in the United
    States?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes. Less likely.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you.
        And will that drive prices up or down for consumers?
        Mr. O'Connor. It will drive prices up.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you.
        Throughout his first few weeks in office, President Trump
    has issued multiple Executive orders to establish the United
    States as the global leader in energy dominance. These
    Executive orders largely focus on fossil fuels, while gutting
    key programs that invest in renewable energy, such as wind and
    solar.
        Mr. O'Connor, if we truly want to seek energy dominance,
    wouldn't we want an all-of-the-above strategy that would
    require investments in clean and renewable energy?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you.
        And as we move forward, should energy dominance come at the
    expense of ongoing investments in environmental justice?
        Mr. O'Connor. No.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you.
        Because I am concerned that certain communities, like the
    ones that I represent in Elizabeth and the Ironbound of Newark,
    which have suffered the environmental injustice that has
    existed for far too long, are no longer part of the equation as
    we think about how we move forward.
        I want to ensure that their interests are continuously of
    consideration and in mind as we move forward.
        Switching gears slightly: Just this week, the New Jersey
    Board of Public Utilities announced they will not be awarding a
    bid on new offshore wind development, citing uncertainty in
    Federal actions as part of their reasoning. Now the timeline
    for offshore wind projects in New Jersey is uncertain due to
    the President's Executive order that halted the issuance of
    approvals, permits, and loans for onshore and offshore wind
    projects.
        Mr. O'Connor, how can uncertainty during administration
    changes, like the one we are seeing right now, impact our
    ability to plan long term for energy projects?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes. I think one consistent theme you have
    heard from the witnesses here is that large-scale energy
    infrastructure projects are time intensive, they are resource
    intensive, and you need to have some element of regulatory
    certainty. It certainty doesn't help when you have an
    administration come in and pull the rug out from under
    companies.
        And so I think, with respect to the offshore wind industry
    in particular, this is an industry that has invested over $6
    billion at this point in manufacturing facilities in the United
    States to make cables, foundations, and other components.
        They have invested more than $2 billion in shipyards,
    including in Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
    Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin, and created 24 new U.S.
    offshore wind vessels.
        So I think we are seeing the flow--there are both the
    direct impacts, because of pausing these offshore projects, but
    there are also going to be flow-down impacts to a lot of
    communities, because their shipyards and those manufacturing
    facilities are relying on this industry, many of whom, frankly,
    are in the oil and gas industry and making investments in
    offshore.
        Mr. Menendez. And those investments go directly into our
    communities. They employ our constituents. Is that correct?
        Mr. O'Connor. Correct.
        Mr. Menendez. So in the last 2 seconds, what long-term
    impacts could that have on our ability to be a global leader in
    energy?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes. It is going to have a deleterious
    impact.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you all for your testimony.
        Yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado's
    Eighth District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Ranking Member.
        And thank you to the witnesses for coming today.
        Mr. Arnold, as you know, there has been a lot of talk in
    our home State of Colorado around mandatory electrification. In
    fact, just last month, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission
    approved the Black Hills plan, which implements first-in-the-
    Nation electrification mandates.
        Now, you and I both know that 80 percent of Coloradans
    support policies that preserve voluntary access to their choice
    of energy, all-of-the-above energy policies, including natural
    gas.
        So to get a clearer picture of the impact of mandatory
    electrification, just a couple quick questions for you.
        A recent study from Coloradans for Energy Access found that
    these electrification mandates could mean that the average
    electric bill for the average Coloradan goes to $800 a month.
        Would your brothers and sisters in Local 208 be able to
    maintain their current standard of living if utility bills were
    that high?
        Mr. Arnold. Thank you for the question.
        The quick answer is no, they wouldn't be able to afford
    those types of bills.
        Mr. Evans. And then can you talk a little bit about the
    impact that mandatory electrification would have on the ability
    of your brothers and sisters in Local 208 to get good-paying
    jobs or to welcome new members in through your very robust
    apprenticeship program?
        Mr. Arnold. So it is certainly going to have a tremendous
    negative effect. We have a section of our membership that does
    nothing but gas distribution work every day, all day, and to
    lose those opportunities and those paychecks would be severely
    negative effects on those brothers and sisters.
        Mr. Evans. And then finally, in your experience as a
    pipefitter and a union member, do you find that policies like
    mandatory electrification benefit everyone, or do they favor
    high-income earners who get the bulk of the benefit over
    middle-class folks?
        Mr. Arnold. Thank you for the question.
        Certainly we always take a look at it from the jobs piece
    because that is our livelihood and how we support our families.
        But as you noted, we are all consumers as well. And when we
    look at those programs--and the discussions in Colorado, I
    think, have lacked the equity piece--when you provide support
    to folks, typically it is going to be the wealthier Coloradans
    that get to take advantage of those programs.
        And at the same time, that means that we are asking poorer
    Coloradans to support the financial requirements of the
    existing systems that are still badly needed and utilized when
    it comes to things like gas distribution infrastructure.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you.
        Ms. Eversole, moving to you.
        I represent much of the Denver-Julesburg Basin in Colorado,
    which is one of the most prolific energy-producing regions in
    the country.
        Unfortunately, State and Federal regulations have caused
    countless jobs to leave my district in favor of other parts of
    the country that are more welcoming to this critical industry.
        One of the primary reasons I ran for Congress was to
    protect the energy-heavy livelihoods of the men and women who
    call Colorado's Eighth District home.
        Now, we keep hearing that the U.S. is producing record
    amounts of energy. But it is not enough. We just heard
    commentary about what we are importing from Canada.
        Specific to my area, United Power, one of my local electric
    utilities, is projecting that they are going to need triple the
    amount of power in 10 years that they have now, and that is
    after doubling it in the last 10 years. And so that means
    relying on all-of-the-above energy policies, including natural
    gas.
        And so the question to you is, What can we do as Federal
    policymakers to create an environment that is more hospitable
    to domestic energy development, particularly around oil and
    gas, and particularly in difficult States like Colorado?
        Ms. Eversole. Congressman, thank you very much for your
    question.
        One thing that we haven't talked a lot about today is about
    25 percent of exploration and production for oil and gas takes
    place on Federal lands and in Federal waters.
        And the last administration, unfortunately, last year alone
    was the first year since 1966 that there wasn't a lease sale in
    Federal waters. And it really--it just doesn't have to be that
    way.
        We need to have access to our raw materials, but we can do
    it in a way that is responsible, because the American consumer
    is the one who benefits through affordable, reliable, and
    cleaner energy.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you.
        And then something that is specific to Colorado but I think
    replicated around the country. In southern Colorado we have
    this thing called coal bed methane seeps. The vapor pressure
    underground literally seeps raw methane into the atmosphere.
        Is there anything that Congress can do to better
    incentivize methane practices while boosting our domestic
    energy production?
        Ms. Eversole. Absolutely. Our industry is focused on
    ensuring that not only does methane stay in the pipes but that
    we are able to detect it. And so we look forward to working
    together with you and other members of this committee to ensure
    that we are able to remove as much methane as possible from the
    atmosphere.
        Mr. Evans. And when you are able to harness that methane
    from the methane seeps, does that reduce the methane that seeps
    into the atmosphere naturally?
        Ms. Eversole. Indeed it does.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you. Yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
    time.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 12th
    District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
        Thank you, panelists, for being here.
        Ms. Eversole, you talked about permitting. In 4 years of
    being the Texas House chair of energy, I never heard of that
    being a problem in Texas. Thank you, Railroad Commission of
    Texas. What can we do better federally to help with the
    permitting process?
        Ms. Eversole. I would commend the API five-point policy
    roadmap, which articulates in great detail some of the specific
    changes to permitting reform, but, in particular, focusing on
    just stopping the weaponization of the Clean Water Act, or of
    NEPA, for example. And we have to stop using the court as a way
    to stop these energy projects.
        We have got to get shovels in the ground. It helps American
    workers. And this, unfortunately, isn't unique just to oil and
    gas. We have heard it across the entire energy spectrum. At the
    end of the day, we need more energy, not less, and I think we
    ought to build it here in the United States of America.
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you.
        And I will pivot right to Mr. Arnold. Let's talk about
    jobs. I know if an 18-year-old graduates high school and moves
    to Mr. Pfluger's district and gets a job in the oil fields,
    what that salary pays.
        What do they pay in Colorado? If you are an 18-year-old,
    you graduate high school, you move out to where your world is,
    what is the starting salary job? And where can they be in 5 to
    10 years?
        Mr. Arnold. Thank you for the question.
        If you grow up in our part of the country, you are going to
    start as a first-year apprentice making $23 an hour, plus
    health benefits and access to free career training. At the end
    of that 5-year apprenticeship program, right now, currently, a
    journeyman or woman pipefitter is going to maybe 47.50 an hour,
    plus health and retirement benefits on top of that, which means
    spouses, dependents--nothing is coming out of the paycheck to
    provide those things.
        Typically, we are going to be somewhere around in the 90th
    percentile for hourly wage earners. So it is truly a path to
    the middle class.
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thank you. And beyond. I mean, in west
    Texas, 5 to 10 years, you can be making well over six figures.
    It certainly pays to be in the industry, there is no question
    about it, especially in Texas.
        Mr. O'Connor, I am not bashing any of these worlds, but you
    talked a number of times on several things. I just want to ask:
    Solar panels, are those 100 percent dependable?
        Mr. O'Connor. Do you mean, do they have 100 percent
    capacity factor?
        Mr. Goldman. No. Are they 100 percent? Do they work all the
    time?
        Mr. O'Connor. Like almost everything in the world, no, they
    do not work all the time.
        Mr. Goldman. OK.
        Wind turbines, do they work 100 percent of the time?
        Mr. O'Connor. Same answer. They do not work 100 percent of
    the time.
        Mr. Goldman. OK.
        And, when natural gas flows, are we 100 percent dependent
    on that?
        Mr. O'Connor. No. Natural gas power plants have outages as
    well.
        Mr. Goldman. The power plants have outages but not--
        Mr. O'Connor. And there are freeze offs at the well head;
    there are pipeline OFO orders. So the answer is no for probably
    every technology.
        Mr. Goldman. OK. And what about nuclear energy?
        Mr. O'Connor. Nuclear has a very high capacity factor, but
    as we saw in France over the last few years, the answer is also
    no.
        Mr. Goldman. OK.
        But to kind of dispute what some people have said today, if
    we had more pipelines, if we had more gas production, more oil
    production, would prices be lower or higher?
        Mr. O'Connor. Yes, they would be lower.
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back the rest of my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
    of his time.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Dakota
    for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, to our
    esteemed guests today, thank you for your time and for your
    patience in being here for a long time without a break.
        So my name is Julie Fedorchak. I am from the State of North
    Dakota, and I am very honored to be from a State that is home
    to nature's first energy storage system, 700 years of coal. It
    is the third-largest producer of oil, has the lowest gas and
    electric utility rates in the country, and also gets 30 percent
    of our utility usage from renewables.
        For the last 12 years, I have been a utility regulator in
    my State, which means I oversaw the rates and service of five
    monopoly utility providers, permitted $15 billion worth of new
    pipelines, wind farms, gas-processing facilities--you name it,
    we installed it, $15 billion worth. So I am very familiar with
    permitting challenges.
        And, also, I worked in the energy markets. The one thing
    that 12 years taught me is that this is all a heck of a lot
    more complicated than anybody sitting up here or down there
    realizes. And the people we ought to be listening to are the
    people running the electric grid. Those people are telling us
    we have a problem, a big problem.
        Two-thirds of our country is at an elevated risk for not
    meeting power demand today. That doesn't mean like in 15 years,
    when we have electrification or when we have AI. That is today.
    We could be sitting here without lights on.
        So we have to get real about this issue, and I have a
    couple of questions.
        Mr. O'Connor, in your written testimony, you called the
    Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and
    Jobs Act the, quote, ``bedrock of our country's energy
    dominance agenda.'' Based on what I just told you, I don't
    share that perspective.
        You cite a study that estimates between 146 and 308
    gigawatts of renewable capacity will be added to the grid by
    2030 as a result of IRA tax credits.
        The MISO transmission region, which I am intimately
    familiar with and serves most of my State, is expected to see a
    net 50 gigawatt increase in installed capacity by 2042 but a
    net 30 gigawatt decrease in accredited capacity.
        In your work, are you focusing on accredited capacity or
    installed capacity? And what should we be focusing on?
        Mr. O'Connor. First of all, thank you for the question.
    And, of course, I was going to get a question like that from
    the former head of NARUC. So it is a pleasure to speak with you
    here today.
        The reference study, which I think was from rhodium, I
    believe was just net capacity, not accredited. I didn't apply
    the LCC values and derive what percent of the capacity would be
    based on the LCC or anything like that.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Do you think people generally understand
    the difference when you talk about gigawatts of capacity coming
    online, whether it is installed or accredited and what the
    difference is?
        Mr. O'Connor. I have never mentioned accredited capacity
    and had anybody, other than an energy industry professional,
    pay attention. So I would say no.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Is that part of the problem, do you think,
    in why we are facing the challenges today, that we are at risk
    in two-thirds of the country of not having enough accredited
    capacity to meet demand?
        Mr. O'Connor. I don't. I think if the question is not
    specifically about distinctions between accredited and just
    capacity, I think people do understand that different
    generation resources have different attributes. I think there
    has been quite a bit of discussion here today about that and in
    general.
        So I would say generally I think it is a concept people
    understand. I don't really think it forms the basis for
    concerns we might have in MISO or other regions.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. The IRA was passed in August of 2022, and
    we have had cumulative additions of 20.7 gigawatts since then
    and cumulative retirements of 42.9 gigawatts. So this is a path
    that is not sustainable. The bar graphs for installed capacity
    versus accredited capacity are going in opposite directions,
    and we simply won't have enough power to meet demand if we
    don't fix that.
        So thank you for your time here. There are 15 seconds if
    you want to answer.
        Mr. O'Connor. Oh, sure. I was just going to note that,
    right, the IRA passed in 2022, and, obviously, it takes several
    years to develop a lot of projects. So I am not sure that we
    can look at the first 2 years after passage of the bill as
    reflective of long-term capital investments that take a few
    years to interconnect.
        Thank you.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you. I yield. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York's
    23rd District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        A lot has been said today about the need to take a whole-
    of-government approach to meet the rising demand of energy
    instead of arbitrarily picking winners and losers.
    Unfortunately, my State, New York, has gone in the opposite
    direction, imposing its version of the Green New Deal, the
    Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, CLCPA, to shut
    down natural gas generation and use.
        For years, my State has prohibited large-scale hydraulic
    fracturing despite sitting atop--my district sits atop the
    Marcellus Shale, which is estimated to contain 214 trillion
    cubic feet of recoverable natural gas.
        New York has further weaponized its regulatory apparatus to
    block much-needed infrastructure projects like the northern
    access pipeline, which would have provided near 500 million
    cubic feet per day of Appalachian gas to the Northeast.
        So, Mrs. Eversole, how can we utilize the President's
    Executive orders to unleash energy in areas of the country,
    like the Northeast, that desperately need it? And how do we
    ensure that bad energy policies in one State like New York do
    not stand in the way of energy reliability for the rest of the
    country?
        Ms. Eversole. Congressman, thank you very much for your
    question.
        I think that the contrast in State energy policy, in
    particular, is really not as stark as it could be between what
    you see in Dr. Joyce's district versus across the border in New
    York. Pennsylvania enjoys the benefits of having a pro-energy
    State and a pro-energy environment. New York is the exact
    opposite.
        What we could do is we could build pipelines into the State
    of New York, bringing that gas to the market. Energy prices,
    electricity in particular, are 42 percent higher than the
    national average in the State of New York. And it really
    doesn't make any sense.
        In fact, it also is impacting the environment because we
    are having to get that energy from other sources that are
    higher emitting. And so we need to get back to our principles
    here, which is a diversified source of energy is better for
    American consumers.
        And I would just continue to point out that America's oil
    and natural gas industry stand ready to be part of these
    solutions.
        Mr. Langworthy. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Eversole.
        And, Mr. Arnold, with several States like New York and
    localities like Denver attempting to ban natural gas use, what
    impact does this have on jobs in this sector? What trickle-down
    effect does this have on housing affordability and other issues
    that are front of mind for Americans right now?
        Mr. Arnold. Thank you for the question.
        The very simple answer is any time you take project
    opportunities off the table, then you lose the jobs that those
    projects provide.
        In our local, 110 of our members do nothing but gas
    distribution work all day, every day. Whether that be
    distribution pipeline work or that be gas meter replacement,
    gas meter bump out, that is their job. And, if you remove the
    ability for utilities to provide that gas, we lose all those
    jobs and all the economic benefit they provide.
        Mr. Langworthy. Thank you.
        And, finally, I would like to note recent reports I have
    been hearing about a data center project in upstate New York
    that appears to have been held up by my State's regulatory
    agencies. I would like to note that the environmental activists
    across the country have already begun scapegoating new energy-
    intensive technology like AI, and artificial intelligence is
    standing in the way of their Green New Deal agenda.
        So, Mr. McCown and Ms. Eversole, do the opponents have it
    wrong? Can we develop energy infrastructure and do so in a way
    that meets sustainability goals but also the needs of energy-
    intensive industries like AI? And can we do it competitively if
    we have the right regulatory framework?
        Mr. McCown. Absolutely, Mr. Langworthy. Thank you for the
    question.
        Yes, they do have it wrong because we can walk and chew gum
    at the same time. We can reduce emissions while expanding our
    economic base and expanding the tax base, quite frankly.
        You know, one of the frustrating parts is this is a direct
    assault on interstate commerce. There is a real question of
    whether or not, frankly, New York can prohibit interstate
    transportation of commodities to other States. It is, you know,
    it is the tail wagging the dog.
        Mr. Langworthy. Thank you.
        Any thoughts, Ms. Eversole?
        Ms. Eversole. Look, I would argue that developing AI and
    other types of technologies in this country is a geopolitical
    and strategic advantage. We have seen the headlines. We have
    seen the market reaction of some of the announcements from the
    Chinese.
        America should own AI. America should lead. It creates
    jobs. And the American energy industry will be there to support
    the load growth required to meet that technology.
        Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much for all of your
    thoughtful testimony.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues here on the
    Energy and Commerce Committee. You achieve these goals.
        And I thank the witnesses for their time today.
        And, with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
    time.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South
    Carolina's Seventh District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you for our witnesses for being here. We are at
    the end of a long day.
        I think Dr. Joyce will wrap it up. So we are kind of the
    cleanup committee, Doc, but that is OK.
        Ms. Eversole, in what ways did the Biden administration
    weaponize? You used the term ``weaponization.'' In what ways
    did they weaponize our government against energy producers?
        Ms. Eversole. You know, unfortunately, we saw in the last
    administration that there was an all-of-government approach to
    really favor certain forms of energy but disfavor others. And I
    think what we have all discussed today on a bipartisan basis is
    that what we really need is all of the above.
        We have such increasing demand not only for--from the
    technological growth, but the fact of the matter is, just in
    the next couple of decades, we are going to add 2 billion
    people to this planet.
        I would also note that there are 750 million people in this
    world that live in energy poverty, and it doesn't have to be
    that way.
        Mr. Fry. In the document you submitted, API's
    recommendations, they reference the Biden-era NEPA rules. What
    were those, and how did they impact the industry?
        Ms. Eversole. I think this is an example of where the
    congressional intent was really not followed through in the
    regulation, and I think we need to go back, and we need, as
    part of fundamental permitting reform, we really need to revise
    the NEPA statute so they can't be weaponized in the courts, but
    they, rather, are a check to ensure that these projects,
    regardless of the type of energy, meet high environmental
    standards.
        But, at some point, when we get through that, they have got
    to be given the green light, and we have got to get shovels in
    the ground. It helps the 11 million men and women who work in
    and around this industry but also helps the American consumer.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you.
        Mr. McCown, the Biden administration paused LNG exports.
    They canceled the Keystone XL pipeline. They canceled thousands
    of acres of oil leases. Did actions like these harm our energy
    production?
        Mr. McCown. They absolutely do. We have heard a lot above
    the uncertainty and temporary pauses and moratoriums that have
    been in effect for just a couple days. You know, when you get
    disruptors, you are going to get disruption. You are going to
    get chaos, and then it is going to level out pretty quickly.
        That is very different from what we were talking about
    during the Biden administration, that the LNG export pause--it
    was really a de facto ban. We all know that, right? The
    Keystone Pipeline was studied to death. It took twice as long
    as it took America to win World War II, yet we couldn't figure
    out if it was in the national interest or not.
        You know, let's be honest. If people are against pipelines,
    then fine, they are against pipelines. But, when you talk about
    using levers of government for politics, I think we have good
    examples.
        Mr. Fry. That is a prime example of that.
        Now, similarly, President Trump in his early days did an
    Executive order that streamlined the Federal procedures for
    permitting and construction of interstate energy
    transportation. Did that help? Will that help and boost energy
    production in this country?
        Mr. McCown. Well, it can help with the caveat being that
    President George W. Bush put in an Executive order to
    facilitate the cross-border construction of infrastructure
    facilities, and that was what was used to hold up the Keystone
    Pipeline, instead of what it was intended to do, which was to
    streamline and accelerate the process.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you.
        Mr. Arnold, I will go to you. You, in your testimony, said
    that the process--and I will paraphrase briefly for time--coal-
    fired plants, the permitting takes months while, in the United
    States, it takes several years. However, it is clear that we
    must move much faster on permitting and reduce the ability of
    fringe groups to leverage seemingly endless choke points to
    punish companies for undertaking projects.
        Have you, sir, seen this in Colorado in your industry?
        Mr. Arnold. Thank you for the question.
        Yes, we have seen projects, unfortunately, you know, run
    into a lot of uncertainty, and typically, when that has
    happened, you know, the chances of being realized and our
    ability to actually have pipefitters go onsite----
        Mr. Fry. You are not actually working, right? I mean, that
    is kind of the challenge, at least in your industry, is that,
    when these challenges occur, you are not actually working. Your
    guys, men and women, are not working.
        Mr. McCown, briefly to you. Who are these people that gum
    up, and who funds these individuals that gum up the permitting
    process?
        Mr. McCown. Well, you know, we have a couple different
    truths in our country. One is, if you don't like a particular
    kind of energy product and you can't keep it in the ground,
    right--keep it in the ground was the modality for many years--
    then you move to the infrastructure, and you try to attack the
    infrastructure during the North Dakota access.
        Speaking of North Dakota, we saw people from all over the
    country showing up there, flying in, using other resources. I
    am not exactly sure who is funding this.
        Mr. Fry. But it is usually not the aggrieved party, at
    least on the paper of the permit challenge, right?
        Mr. McCown. It is not.
        Mr. Fry. Somebody else is funding this, is that correct?
        Mr. McCown. It is not the local opponents. It is much
    larger.
        Mr. Fry. All right.
        And, when we talk about--well, I see my time is out. And I
    will probably submit questions to you on how we go about
    specific actions on reforming the permitting process.
        But thank you, guys.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired and yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the full
    committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Latta.
        The title of this hearing, ``Powering America's Future,
    Unleashing American Energy,'' could not be more appropriate for
    the first hearing of the Energy Subcommittee. We are now living
    in the new Golden Age of America, where American production can
    finally reach the possibilities that we have so often discussed
    in this committee.
        With this growth in production and by unlocking the energy
    sources that are under the feet of my constituents, we can
    provide affordable energy to Americans and cut the unbearable
    inflation that American families continue to endure. We can
    continue to have a large and robust chemical industry so that
    we have products that we need in the 21st century.
        We can expand well-paying, highly skilled jobs in the
    energy sector so that Americans have great economic
    opportunity. We can ensure that our country has the power to
    prevail in the emerging competition in artificial intelligence.
        And, finally, we can become not just energy independent but
    energy dominant on the global stage by providing reliable and
    cleaner energy to our allies and stifle America's enemies under
    President Trump's strong leadership.
        We talk about unleashing American energy. We have to take
    an overview. This includes, yes, drill, baby, drill, and it
    also includes build, baby, build. We have to have the
    infrastructure to transport and to refine the energy that is
    produced right here in America and get that energy to market.
        Ms. Eversole, my constituents are facing an effort to limit
    their choice of vehicles. California has tried to abuse its
    waiver process in the Clean Air Act to institute a ban on
    internal combustion engines so that 40 percent of Americans
    will ultimately be affected by their choice in the automobile
    market.
        Why is it that the California ACC2 waiver issue is a
    problem for all of America?
        Ms. Eversole. This is a huge problem. Not only does what
    California chooses and how it impacts consumers in California,
    but there's also more than a dozen States that follow the lead
    of California. And this is bad for American consumers.
        I am not sure why the State of California gets to be the de
    facto regulatory body for so many States in this country. Those
    citizens didn't get to vote for the elected individuals in the
    State of California, and what we saw in the last election was a
    full and complete rejection of these heavy-handed mandates.
        The American consumer should be able to choose. We support
    free markets in this country, and this should not be an
    exception to that rule.
        Mr. Joyce. So how significant is it, Ms. Eversole, that
    action by the EPA constitutes a rule?
        In the Biden administration's EPA and the GAO, they have
    attempted to declare that the EPA's granting of a waiver to be
    a dictatorial order to prevent the use of the Congressional
    Review Act. In this specific situation, do you agree that the
    Biden administration should have submitted the action to
    Congress and that it is here in Congress and in Congress alone
    that the power to decide whether the EPA action is a rule
    should be subject to resolution or of disapproval?
        Ms. Eversole. Absolutely. This is certainly the
    jurisdiction of the Congress, and the courts are currently
    disputing the efficacy of the rule under the prior
    administration.
        We do appreciate, however, President Trump's Executive
    order on day one to roll back those so-called EV mandates.
        Mr. Joyce. And I agree. I look forward to working with our
    new EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to overturn this waiver.
        Mr. McCown, if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania were a
    country, we would have one of the largest proven natural gas
    reserves in the entire world. Yet we run into issues getting
    this energy to market. The lack of pipeline construction in the
    Northeast and the lack of significant LNG export facilities
    restrict natural gas production.
        How would building the proper infrastructure unleash the
    power of Pennsylvania, unleash the energy sources that are
    under the feet of my constituents?
        Mr. McCown. Yes, absolutely. I mean, you know, energy is
    that critical component to our country, to the economy. Next to
    raw materials and the cost of labor, it is the winner or loser
    when it comes to creating an economy, to creating industry. We
    need Pennsylvania's gas. We need it throughout the country, and
    it needs to be made available for export.
        That requires additional infrastructure. It requires
    pipelines. And, as I mentioned earlier, we have some States
    that want to thwart, prohibit, stop, halt the lawful interstate
    transportation of commodities, in this case natural gas, and
    that needs to be stopped.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you for your comments.
        Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for allowing me to waive on.
    And I yield the balance of my time.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired.
        And the Chair, seeing no other Members wishing to ask
    questions, on behalf of all the members of the subcommittee, we
    want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing today.
        Members may have additional written questions for you all,
    and Members are advised they have 10 business days to submit
    additional questions for the record. And I ask that the
    witnesses submit their responses within 10 business days upon
    receipt of the questions.
        I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the
    documents included on the staff hearing documents list.
        Without objection, that will be the order.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Latta. And, without objection, this subcommittee is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
      [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]