[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]