[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNLEASHING THE GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICAN ENERGY DOMINANCE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, April 2, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-961 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Joe Neguse, CO
Tom McClintock, CA Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Paul Gosar, AZ Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Val T. Hoyle, OR
Doug LaMalfa, CA Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL Jared Golden, ME
Russ Fulcher, ID Dave Min, CA
Pete Stauber, MN Maxine Dexter, OR
Tom Tiffany, WI Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Lauren Boebert, CO Emily Randall, WA
Cliff Bentz, OR Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Jen Kiggans, VA Sarah Elfreth, MD
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Adam Gray, CA
Mike Collins, GA Luz Rivas, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Mark Amodei, NV Debbie Dingell, MI
Tim Walberg, MI Darren Soto, FL
Mike Ezell, MS Julia Brownley, CA
Celeste Maloy, UT Vacancy
Addison McDowell, NC
Jeff Crank, CO
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Mike Kennedy, UT
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
William David, Chief Counsel
Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
LAUREN BOEBERT, CO, Vice Chair
MAXINE DEXTER, OR, Ranking Member
Lauren Boebert, CO Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Mike Collins, GA Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Mark Amodei, NV Vacancy
Nick Begich, AK Jared Huffman, CA, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing Memo..................................................... v
Hearing held on Wednesday, April 2, 2025......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Collins, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia........................................... 1
Dexter, Hon. Maxine, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 3
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas.......................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Jensen, Matthew, Director, Office for Fiscal and Regulatory
Analysis, America First Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Sweetnam, Glen, Distinguished Fellow, Energy Policy Research
Foundation, Washington, D.C................................ 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Gibson, Megan, Senior Attorney, Southern Environmental Law
Center, Washington, D.C.................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Questions submitted for the record....................... 15
Dayaratna, Kevin, Ph.D., Acting Director, Chief Statistician,
and Senior Research Fellow, Center for Data Analysis, The
Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C....................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar
Twisters and Trends: An Analysis of U.S. Tornado Activity
and Climate Change..................................... 50
Air Quality and Public Health: Is There a Link?.......... 51
Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the
social cost of carbon in FUND.......................... 52
Defying Predictions How Increased CO2 and
Innovation Are Mitigating Effects of Drought on U.S.
Crops and Forest Productivity.......................... 53
Empirically Constrained Climate Sensitivity and the
Social Cost of Carbon.................................. 54
EPRF--Power Vision....................................... 55
Global Warming Observations vs. Climate Models........... 56
Have Rainfall Patterns Changed? A Global Analysis of
Long-Term Rainfall Records and Re-Analysis Data........ 57
Human Health and Welfare Effects from Increased
Greenhouse Gases and Warming........................... 58
EPRF--A Critical Assessment of the IEA's Net Zero
Scenario, ESG, and the Cessation of Investment in New
Oil and Gas Fields..................................... 59
Keeping an Eye on the Storms: An Analysis of Trends in
Hurricanes Over Time................................... 60
Loaded DICE: An EPA Model Not Ready for the Big Game..... 61
Powering Human Advancement: Why the World Needs
Affordable and Reliable Energy......................... 62
The Unsustainable Costs of President Biden's Climate
Agenda................................................. 63
Time for U.S. Energy Dominance: Unlocking America's Oil
and Gas Potential through Innovation and Policy........ 64
Understanding Climate: Gifts from the Nile............... 65
Unfounded FUND: Yet Another EPA Model Not Ready for the
Big Game............................................... 66
Submissions for the Record by Representative Dexter
Written Testimony of Professor Jamie Pleune on NEPA...... 67
Repealing Federal Energy Tax Credits Would Cost American
Jobs and Increase Household Energy Bills............... 68
Measuring the NEPA Litigation Burden: A Review of 1,499
Federal Court Cases.................................... 69
Repealing Federal Energy Tax Credits and Funding Will
Harm Alabama's Economy................................. 70
Stranded fossil-fuel assets translate to major losses for
investors in advanced economies........................ 71
Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber
The Role of Nonfuel Mineral Commodities in the U.S.
Economy--Figure 1...................................... 44
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To: House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members
From: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Staff, Michelle
Lane ([email protected]) and Lucas Drill
(Lucas.Drill@mail. house.gov) x5-0500
Date: March 31, 2025
Subject: Oversight Hearing titled ``Unleashing the Golden Age of
American Energy Dominance''
________________________________________________________________________
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold an
oversight hearing titled ``Unleashing the Golden Age of American Energy
Dominance'' on Wednesday, April 2, 2025, at 10 a.m. in 1324 Longworth
House Office Building.
Member offices are requested to notify Andrew Bambrick (Andrew.
[email protected]) by 4:30 p.m. on April 1 if their Member
intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
The United States possesses abundant natural resources,
many of which are available for energy exploration and
production.
Although the federal government owns 61 percent of
America's onshore and offshore mineral estate, only 25
percent of domestic oil and 11 percent of domestic natural
gas come from federal lands and waters.
Domestic energy exploration and production, particularly
on federal lands and waters, is crucial to America's social
and economic future.
For decades, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has
consistently underestimated the broad economic benefits of
domestic energy exploration and production.
A recent economic model created by the Heritage Foundation
indicates that a 50% increase in domestic oil and gas
production would result in $25 trillion in GDP growth by
2050. Given available and emerging technology, and federal
policy decisions that expand production on federal lands
and waters, this figure is well within America's
reach.1
Under Republican leadership and working with President
Trump, Congress has the opportunity to enact policies that
will truly unleash America's energy dominance.
II. WITNESSES
Mr. Matthew Jensen, Director, Office for Fiscal and
Regulatory Analysis, America First Policy Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Glen Sweetnam, Distinguished Fellow, Energy Policy
Research Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Kevin Dayaratna, Acting Director, Chief Statistician,
and Senior Research Fellow, Center for Data Analysis, The
Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Megan Gibson, Senior Attorney, Southern Environmental
Law Center, Washington, D.C. [Minority witness]
III. BACKGROUND
Unleashing American Energy
Domestic energy exploration and production, particularly on federal
lands and waters, is critical to America's social and economic future.
Effectively capitalizing on America's natural resources not only powers
our nation by increasing access to dependable and affordable energy,
but also encourages the expansion of America's infrastructure and
industries that rely on energy resources.2 Put simply,
unleashing American energy both directly fills the nation's coffers and
energizes nearly all other economic activity.3
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Recognizing this reality, Republicans in Congress have
advocated for policies to reform the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) permitting processes 5 lower energy costs by
increasing American energy production, conduct offshore lease sales in
the Gulf of America's Outer Continental Shelf,6 provide for
oil and gas leases on federal lands in Alaska,7 promote
energy exports, build critical infrastructure, and increase domestic
critical minerals mining processing.8
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Reinforcing the work advanced by Congressional Republicans, on
the first day of his second term, January 20, 2025, President Trump
issued a series of executive orders and presidential actions
emphasizing the need to unleash American energy.10 These
presidential directives, in part, instructed agencies to review all
existing regulatory barriers to identifying, developing, and using
domestic energy resources; declared a national energy emergency
enabling acceleration of project approval timelines; reversed Biden
administration policies that restricted energy production in Alaska;
withdrew the United States from the Paris international climate
agreement; and directed federal agencies to actively work to reduce
high costs of living driven by energy prices. President Trump also
established the National Energy Dominance Council to standardize and
implement these energy policies across the Executive
Branch.11
Measuring the Economic Growth Potential of Increased Domestic Energy
The key to understanding the economic effects of expanding energy
exploration and production in the United States on federal lands and in
federal waters depends on accurate economic modeling and cost
estimates.
CBO Scorekeeping
On Capitol Hill, cost estimates are prepared by the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO). These estimates are commonly known as ``scores.''
12 CBO scores are purely advisory.13 CBO
traditionally employs static scoring techniques, which, unlike dynamic
scoring, ignore a policy's macroeconomic impacts.14 Dynamic
scoring, which includes macroeconomic analysis, often offers a more
accurate representation of how a policy proposal not only influences
federal spending related to a particular project, but also that
project's widespread economic impact.
For example, in the context of constructing a hypothetical oil or
natural gas pipeline, a static score would consider only the costs
incurred by the federal government for the project, leading to the
conclusion that the proposal increases spending. A dynamic score,
however, would include many of the external economic benefits of the
pipeline project, such as decreased energy costs, job creation, and
returned revenues, that not only offset the building costs but also
return a profit to the government. This return decreases overall
spending and increases America's Gross Domestic Product
(GDP).15
Although CBO is empowered to score dynamically, these more accurate
cost estimates are rare because they are ``complicated and often time-
consuming.'' 16 Because dynamic scoring is more difficult,
``most [CBO] cost estimates do not reflect the macroeconomics.''
17 Accordingly, CBO scores often underestimate the true
economic benefits of policy proposals, especially those related to
domestic energy exploration and production. Additionally, because CBO
does not release its specific scoring methodology nor publish its
economic models, verifying and replicating the cost estimates proves
challenging.
Underestimating Positive Impacts of Energy Production is an Unfortunate
Trend
Unfortunately, CBO is not alone in underestimating the benefits of
increasing energy exploration and production. In fact, researchers have
long underestimated both the economic impact of domestic energy and
America's domestic energy supply itself.18 This is
especially true in the context of oil and natural gas.
For example, one of the oldest and most popular natural resource
production prediction methods is known as the Hubbert methodology.
Studies have found that the most reliable feature of this model is, in
fact, is unreliability, given the method's failure to account for the
impacts of innovation and technological advancement.19
Studies looking at this method ultimately concluded that ``there is
often a substantial lag between changes in our knowledge and changes in
our methods and models'' and that ``[m]ethodologists and modelers
become so enamored with the aesthetic properties of their creations
that they focus all their attention and effort on polishing existing
methods and models, instead of developing new and more relevant ones.''
20
This hearing will engage experts using modern and more transparent
modelling techniques to understand better the economic growth potential
of increasing domestic energy exploration and production.
Measuring the True Economic Growth Potential of Unleashing American
Energy
It is indisputable that the United States possesses abundant
natural resources, including energy resources.21 According
to the Institute for Energy Research, the United States has 1.66
trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil, 4.03 quadrillion cubic
feet of technically recoverable natural gas, and 470 billion short tons
of technically recoverable coal.22 At current consumption
levels, this supply can power the United States for
centuries.23 Astonishingly, as technology improves, new
resources are located, and novel extraction techniques are developed to
increase technically recoverable resources, centuries may become
millennia.24
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Even more bewildering is that, despite the federal government
owning 61 percent of America's onshore and offshore mineral estate,
only 25 percent of domestic oil and 11 percent of domestic natural gas
come from these federal lands and waters.26 Spurred on by
burdensome federal regulations, this disproportionate ratio leaves
significant leasing, revenue, and energy production opportunities
neglected.27
Nevertheless, oil, natural gas, and coal together provide
approximately 80% of American energy.28 In 2020 alone, the
oil and gas industry provided 12.3 million American jobs and generated
$1.6 trillion in federal and state tax revenues.29 On the
flip side, limiting oil and gas production, particularly on federal
lands and in federal waters, could shrink the U.S. GDP by $700 billion,
and force U.S. consumers to spend $19 billion more on energy, by
2030.30
According to the White House Council on Economic Advisors, from
2007 to 2019, increased domestic energy productivity led to a ``45
percent decrease in the wholesale price of electricity.'' 31
This price decrease saved U.S. families $203 billion
annually.32
However, the economic impact of increased domestic energy
production extends beyond direct energy cost savings. As the Institute
for Energy Research concluded, ``[i]n addition to the STEM jobs modern
energy exploration, development, production, and transportation
produce, lower energy prices act as `fertilizer' driving roots deep
into the economic soil of the country.'' 33 Essentially,
``[t]he need for skilled jobs on-site and all the equipment required
means more Ford Super Duty trucks, Carhartt clothing, Caterpillar and
John Deere equipment, as well as 18-wheeler trucks, trailers, and train
cars, and more.'' 34 Further, ``[a]ll those new employees
require housing, groceries, and services of all kinds including
medical, dental, and personal care, creating even more jobs for
Americans.'' 35 This dynamic economy is built on the back of
unleashing American energy.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
According to a model built by The Heritage Foundation based on
the U.S. Energy Information Administration's National Energy Modeling
System, just a 50 percent increase in domestic oil and gas production
by 2050, achievable through regulatory and permitting reform, would
result in:
an average annual increase of more than 5.27 million jobs;
a peak employment increase of more than 6 million jobs;
an average annual increase in income of $12,418 for a
family of 4; and
an aggregate GDP increase of more than $25
trillion.37
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Another economic model, which analyzes the immediate resumption
of quarterly onshore federal oil and gas leases, new offshore lease
sales through 2035, and new leases in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge and National Petroleum Reserve, by the Energy Policy Research
Foundation (EPRINC), yields similarly robust estimates. EPRINC
estimates that these activities, even without considering dynamic
analysis, would yield additional federal budgetary receipts of
$124,566,229,711 over the next 10 years.39 These leasing
activities would also generate approximately 200,000 short-term
construction jobs and 7,500 long-term operation jobs.40
Moreover, EPRINC's analysis makes clear that not only would
increasing domestic energy production directly grow America's GDP, but
it would also limit the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries' (OPEC) market power, further fueling American growth and
energy dominance.41 In fact, just a 0.1 rate increase in
U.S. oil supply elasticity 42 yields a U.S. GDP increase of
$823 billion in 10 years.43
Yet another model, built by the America First Policy Institute
(AFPI), shows that increasing offshore leasing alone can lead to an
additional $271 billion in federal revenue over a 10-year
period.44
Coal and Mineral Extraction
Like oil and natural gas production, the extraction of coal and
critical minerals is essential to American energy dominance and
substantial economic growth. The United States has the world's largest
coal reserves.45 However, effective coal extraction is
heavily dependent on the regulatory environment, even more so than for
the oil and gas sector.46 Whereas oil and gas reserves are
found on federal, state, and private lands, coal is almost exclusively
located on lands owned by the federal government.47
Accordingly, ``federal policies can more easily impact coal production
and consumption,'' both to America's detriment and advantage, depending
on the federal government's policies toward coal.48
According to a November 2022 report published by the National
Mining Association, mining in the United States generated over 1.2
million jobs and contributed $194.4 billion to the U.S. economy's GDP
in 2021.49 Coal mining accounted for $45.8 billion of that
annual GDP growth.50 Further, the U.S. Geological Survey
estimates that in 2021, ``mineral commodities were transformed into
$3.3 trillion worth of goods and services,'' which equals ``nearly 15
percent of the total U.S. GDP.'' 51 By streamlining the
federal permitting process and increasing opportunities for mining coal
and other minerals, the United States can further secure energy and
economic security and dominance.
State-Based Data
Unleashing American energy also has a direct impact on the
prosperity of individual states. According to AFPI economic modelling
focused on state-specific data, even a 10% decline in energy prices
would result in hundreds of dollars in savings per household this year
alone.52
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
If energy prices fall by 50%, annual household savings across
every state would average in the thousands.54 For example,
the average cost of energy consumption per capita in 2023 in the state
of Arkansas was $1,794.55 Were energy prices to fall by 50%,
the average household in the state of Arkansas would save $2,883 in
2025.56
Moreover, Texas's 2024 Annual Energy & Economic Impact Report
revealed that the state's oil and natural gas industry paid a record-
setting $27.3 billion in state and local taxes and state
royalties.57 $2.92 billion went directly to Texas
Independent School Districts, and counties in the state received $1.03
billion in property taxes from oil and natural gas production,
pipelines, and utilities.58 The state of New Mexico was the
second-highest producer of oil and gas in the United States in 2024,
with state officials reporting revenue of more than $2.5 billion last
fiscal year.59 In 2024, revenue from oil and gas sales in
the State of New Mexico paid out over $1 billion for monies for the
states' schools, universities, and other beneficiaries.60
This data can, and should, be extrapolated to highlight the gains the
federal government can expect to receive by expanding leases on federal
lands and in federal waters.
Conclusion
Economic analysis highlights the importance of unleashing American
energy. By expanding energy resource exploration and production, the
United States stands to not only cement its position as the world's
leading energy superpower but also grow its GDP by trillions of
dollars. The Trump administration has made clear that energy production
is a top priority, and now it is up to Congress to enact policies that
usher in the golden age of American energy dominance.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON UNLEASHING THE
GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICAN ENERGY DOMINANCE
----------
Wednesday, April 2, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Mike Collins
[Member of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Collins, Begich, Westerman;
Dexter, and Hernandez.
Also present: Representatives Moore of WV and Stauber.
Mr. Collins. The Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
unleashing the golden age of American energy dominance.
Under the Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements
at hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
statements be made part of the hearing record if they are
submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent the following Members be allowed to
sit and participate in today's hearing: the gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Stauber; and the gentleman from West Virginia,
Mr. Moore.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE COLLINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Collins. Good morning, everyone. I want to thank our
witnesses for being here today. I am excited about the
opportunity to have a conversation about unleashing the golden
age of American energy dominance.
Now, while we may have some disagreements across the aisle
about the best path forward for making energy in America great
again, I do think we can agree that making energy prices more
affordable for all Americans is something we can all get
behind.
With that being said, the Biden administration's
unprecedented 4-year war on American energy made it nearly
impossible to produce domestic energy on public lands, and was
nothing short of catastrophic. This catastrophe was made even
worse by frivolous and vexatious litigation intended to not
only slow energy exploration and production to a halt, but also
drive the cost of energy projects up by millions of dollars.
Right now we have a great opportunity to unlock the vast
potential of all American energy sources, from onshore and
offshore oil and gas leases to permitting new mines right here
in America to investing in natural gas projects, including in
my home State of Georgia. These are important steps that work
not only to drive down the cost of energy for households, but
also to provide a reliable source of income for both State and
Federal Governments.
For example, the projected cost of energy consumption in
Georgia per capita in 2025 is $1,614. By enacting policies that
produce more energy here in the United States, energy prices
will begin to go down. According to some estimates, households
in Georgia could save $484 per year, with a 10 percent decline
in energy cost. With a 50 percent price decline in energy cost
that number goes up to $2,420 per household. Now, these are
real numbers in the pockets of Georgia citizens, and these
numbers are achievable.
Another interesting example: Georgians will spend $17.8
billion in total energy consumption this year. Enacting more
proactive domestic energy policies would drive down the cost of
energy for families at home in Georgia, cutting costs by as
much as $8.9 billion.
Now, if we look at both onshore and offshore lease sales
and the impact of these leases on the Federal revenue, the
numbers are incredible. For example, a scenario in which we
lease just two times the number of baseline sales, which is not
much, that increases the receipts of the Federal Government by
$44 billion. Now, as we continue to expand the number of those
onshore and offshore leases, that number could go up as much as
$271 billion. Again, this is a very achievable scenario.
Increasing revenue to the Federal Government isn't limited
to the production of oil and gas. Minerals play a critical role
here, as well. Georgia's natural resources include dozens of
industrial mines, each of which have thousands of uses. And
though minerals are mined in 133 of Georgia's 159 counties,
demand for minerals will continue to rapidly outstrip supply
and production, absent major change. This is fueled by regular
market growth, as well as investments in new technologies and
data centers. With the amount of State and Federal land
available throughout the United States, including in my home
State of Georgia, we have a great opportunity to invest in
sustainable, environmentally-friendly mining practices here at
home in a way that will also fortify our Federal estate.
Now is the time to prioritize permitting these critical
mining, oil, and gas investments here at home, which will allow
not only a great return on Federal revenue, but also provide
for a more dependable and robust energy supply chain upon which
we depend on every day. I hope today that we can have a robust
and insightful discussion from those whose lives are impacted
daily by decisions that have been made here in Washington, and
look forward to working with the new Administration on policies
that improve the lives and pocketbooks of all Americans in the
future.
With that I yield to the Ranking Member for her opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAXINE DEXTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all our
witnesses for being here today.
Today's hearing on so-called energy dominance presents us
with a clear choice: We double down on fossil fuels that
pollute our communities and drive up costs for working
Americans, or invest in a clean energy future that creates
jobs, strengthens national security, and lowers household
energy bills.
For decades the fossil fuel industry has devastated
frontline communities, leaving them with exorbitant health
costs and environmental cleanup bills. Pollution
disproportionately harms low-income and minority communities,
leading to higher rates of asthma, cancer, and other life-
threatening illnesses. And as a pulmonary critical care
physician who has taken care of these folks, I can attest that
this is not made-up fantasy; this is real and experienced every
day across this country.
In Louisiana's cancer alley, a predominantly Black
community, cancer risks are nearly 50 times the national
average, due to the concentration of oil refineries and
chemical plants. Indigenous lands are eroding from pipeline
infrastructure, and historic Black neighborhoods have been
abandoned due to toxic contamination. And these are exactly the
kinds of costs that are ignored by most economic models that
are supposed to estimate the financial impact of oil and gas
extraction.
The majority's witnesses are plugging unrealistic numbers
backed by rosy assumptions into economic models to tell a story
about how digging up all the oil and gas under public lands
will be great for this country. Their economic models do not
consider the costs of causing or exacerbating extreme weather
events like Hurricane Helene. They ignore the rising health
care costs from pollution-related illnesses. They fail to
account for the fact that industries, consumers, and global
markets are shifting toward clean energy not out of ideology,
but because it is increasingly the more affordable, stable, and
secure option. They sidestep the fact that the volume of
increases in extraction of oil and gas that they plug into the
model are not even feasible for a host of reasons that have
nothing to do with the policies they are asking for.
Don't take my word for it. This is the CEO of ExxonMobil,
Darren Woods, in November 2024: ``Their economic models do not
consider the costs of causing or exacerbating extreme events.''
Yes, sorry. His quote, sorry. ``I don't think the level of
production in the U.S. is being constrained by external
restrictions. I am not sure how drill, baby, drill translates
into policy. Certainly we wouldn't see a change based on a
political change, but more on an economic environment. I don't
think there is anybody out there that is developing a business
strategy to respond to a political agenda.'' That is the end of
his quote.
Why the emphasis on these models ahead of a massive
reconciliation bill? This Subcommittee is trying to inflate the
economic impact of unrestrained drilling on our most cherished
lands. They want the Congressional Budget Office, who estimates
how much our legislation will cost, to think their estimates
are real. If the CBO can be convinced that drilling would make
a lot of money for the Federal Government, Republicans would be
allowed to give even more of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars
to big oil.
Even the promise of fossil-fuel-driven job growth rings
hollow. Over the past decade U.S. oil and gas employment has
declined by approximately 40 percent. At the same time,
taxpayers are footing the bill for big oil. The fossil fuel
industry receives $15 billion in subsidies each year. And what
do we get in return? Price manipulation, collusion with foreign
cartels, and rising energy costs for American families.
The Trump administration's energy policies have cost
America dearly. Since Trump's election over 50,000 clean energy
jobs have been lost, delayed, or threatened, along with $56.3
billion in new investments.
And House Republicans are working to gut the Inflation
Reduction Act's clean energy tax credits, the very incentives
that have spurred a clean energy manufacturing boom creating
over 400,000 jobs and saving Americans $8.4 billion in energy
costs in just 1 year. And we are already seeing the
consequences. Utility companies in 16 States have hiked rates,
some by as much as $32 per month, due to the uncertainties
surrounding clean energy investments. If Republicans succeed in
rolling back these tax credits, energy bills will increase by
$32 billion over the next decade, costing families over $100
per year, on average.
There is a better way. Investing in clean energy
strengthens national security, drives economic growth, and
delivers real savings for consumers. In 2023 global clean
energy investments surpassed $1.7 trillion, outpacing fossil
fuel investments for the first time. The American people
deserve real solutions, not more handouts to the oil and gas
industry.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. I now recognize the Full Committee Chair, Mr.
Westerman, for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the witnesses for being here today.
You know, the importance of our natural resources and the
role they play in America's energy supply is no surprise to my
colleagues here who are in this room and, I would say, to
really anybody that is in this room, and we all know that the
demand for power is only growing. We are seeing 5-year growth
load projections increasing by a staggering 550 percent since
2022. And I think if you looked at this data objectively, you
could see that we are facing an energy crisis if we don't do
something different from what we have been doing.
We need an all-hands-on approach to producing as much new
energy as we can. This explosion is being driven by data
processing, by AI, and by manufacturing here in the United
States. We cannot risk falling behind other countries such as
China as we compete in these growing sectors. It is amazing,
the amount of energy that some of this data processing takes.
And quite frankly, I am for renewable energy, I am for any kind
of energy we can put on the grid, but it has to be in
sufficient amounts that we can meet our needs and not drive the
cost so high that the American consumers can't afford energy
anymore. It is foundational to our economic growth and to our
national security.
We do have a solution, and part of that solution is the
fact that we have abundant natural resources here that we can
use to grow the energy sector. And the benefits of releasing
American energy exploration and production definitely extends
to our economy. There are some current economic models that
indicate that domestic energy production using emerging
technologies and sound Federal policy decisions could result in
$25 trillion U.S. GDP growth by 2050 and the annual creation of
more than 5 million jobs.
And I will remind everybody that since the 1960s the
Federal revenue coming from taxes is about 17.5 percent of the
GDP. So if you see a $25 trillion increase in economic
activity, that means there is going to be more money flowing
into the Federal Government to help balance the budget.
There is a debate: what is going to happen with prices as
energy production increases? And it all comes back to that
simple supply and demand curve. How much energy can we produce
for the demand that is out there? And if we don't keep up with
the demand, obviously the price is going to go higher. So there
is a lot of economic data that has been presented in the
testimonies today. I look forward to hearing that, and to
debating it, and using that to help drive the policies that we
will be looking at in the Natural Resources Committee as we
look at different ways to bolster new energy production and
ways to meet the demand that keeps America competitive, that
keeps energy prices reasonable for consumers, and that really
looks out for the best interest of our country and for the
future of the global economy and our national security.
So again, thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
I look forward to the discussions.
And I yield back.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. I will now introduce our witnesses.
We have Mr. Matthew Jensen, who is Director of Office for
Fiscal and Regulatory Analysis for the America First Policy
Institute in Washington, D.C.; Mr. Glen Sweetnam, Distinguished
Fellow, Energy Policy Research Foundation in Washington, D.C.;
Ms. Megan Gibson, Senior Attorney, Southern Environmental Law
Center here in Washington; and Dr. Kevin Dayaratna, Acting
Director, Chief Statistician, and Senior Research Fellow with
the Heritage Foundation here in Washington, D.C.
Let me remind the witnesses that, under Committee Rules,
you must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button
with the microphone.
We use timing lights. When you begin the light will turn
green, and at the end of 5 minutes it will turn red and I will
ask you to please complete your statement.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jensen for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW JENSEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR FISCAL AND
REGULATORY ANALYSIS, AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Jensen. Chairman Collins, Chairman Westerman, Ranking
Member Dexter, members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me.
Let's begin today by confronting what is a hard economic
reality of our current circumstances, which is that after 4
years of the prior Administration's policies, many Americans
are still finding that everything they buy is far too
expensive.
Yes, the 12-month core inflation rate fell below 3 percent
in February 2025 data. And yes, core inflation reached the
lowest level since May 2021. But the level of prices, not the
rate of increase, is still more than 20 percent above where it
was in January 2021 when President Biden took office.
Affordability for the American public demands and is
receiving serious attention from the second Trump
administration and this 119th Congress. Where we can bring down
the prices of energy and other essential inputs to daily life,
those opportunities should be pursued with vigor. President
Trump has targeted a major reduction in energy prices for
consumers, and energy prices are baked into just about every
good, product, and service that Americans consume. A reduction
in energy prices would lead to strong downward pressures across
all the prices in the economy. It takes energy to get seed into
the ground, to get grains and machines to the factory, and to
get your Cheerios to the grocery store.
A study from Dr. Aparna Mathur indicates an indirect energy
cost multiplier of nearly two. So for every dollar of direct
energy costs that families face, they bear another dollar in
indirect costs. A BCG study puts that multiplier at three. What
does this all mean for the American family? Let's look at the
numbers if energy prices come down by 10 or 50 percent,
compared to the baseline, starting with just the direct costs.
In Arizona, reducing energy costs by 10 percent would mean
statewide household savings of $1.7 billion. In Colorado the
number is $1.4 billion. In Oregon it is $1 billion. The average
household would save $700 in Arizona, $720 in Colorado, and
$650 in Oregon. That is every year. And what if we reduced
energy costs by 50 percent? The average household would save
$3,500 in Arizona, $3,600 in Colorado and, $3,300 in Oregon.
Indirect savings from energy price reductions could double to
triple these estimates.
Now let's turn to the fiscal effects of onshore and
offshore oil and gas leasing. And here I rely on a modeling
framework developed by Dr. James Broughel, an economist, energy
expert, and author of the excellent book, ``Regulation and
Economic Growth.'' It has been applied by my colleague, Dr.
Weifeng Zhong, an economist with the Office for Fiscal and
Regulatory Analysis. The model is freely available on GitHub.
You can access it, you can interrogate it, you can use it for
your own estimates.
Starting from an appropriate baseline of the previous
Administration's activities, the model shows that increasing
onshore leasing to the past decade high and offshore leasing to
three sales per year could raise up to $58 billion over 10
years. A more aggressive reform to increase onshore leasing to
2 times the past decade high and offshore leasing to 10 sales
per year could raise up to $173 billion over 10 years. Any
realistic but more aggressive still reform to increase onshore
leasing to 4 times the past decade high and offshore leasing to
20 sales per year could raise up to $350 billion over 10 years.
Those are just the effects for the Federal Government, and
don't include the very significant benefits to State and local
governments. These estimates are in line with CBO's estimating
principles, and don't rely on dynamic effects, although dynamic
modeling would show likely more significant benefits.
Additionally, the Trump administration has undertaken
significant actions that should increase the value of Federal
leases, but are not fully captured in these modeling results.
This could mean even greater benefits. Some of the
Administration's early actions relate to energy specifically.
Others are broader. But all should increase the value of
onshore and offshore Federal oil and gas leases, resulting
bonus payments, and direct fiscal effects.
Beyond writing key provisions into statute, Congress has an
opportunity to lock in savings through proposals such as the
REINS Act, which would provide congressional review of
regulatory actions with significant negative effects,
preventing future administrations from rolling back the
fiscally positive actions of this one. The REINS Act could
easily provide hundreds of billions to over $1 trillion of
direct fiscal savings, based on my estimates. The Foundation
for Government Accountability found REINS could have saved
taxpayers at least $844 billion if in place during the last
Administration.
And as a final note, I encourage this Committee to review
mining and resource use regulations more broadly. The more
critical a resource, for instance, potash for agriculture or
rare earth minerals for electronics, the more important it is
to identify regulatory and statutory barriers to domestic
production to eliminate those barriers through legislation.
Thank you. I welcome your questions and discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jensen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew Jensen, Director, Office for Fiscal and
Regulatory Analysis, America First Policy Institute
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-Wstate-JensenM-20250402.pdf
------
Mr. Collins. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Sweetnam for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GLEN SWEETNAM, DISTINGUISHED FELLOW, ENERGY POLICY
RESEARCH FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Sweetnam. Thank you. Chairman Westerman, Chairman
Collins, Ranking Member Dexter, and distinguished members of
the Committee, I am honored to be able to participate in this
hearing today. I have prepared some slides, and I am hoping
each of you have a copy in front of you.
The U.S. oil and gas industry is the most dynamic, price-
responsive, efficient, and technically capable in the world.
Although this has been true for many decades, probably since
the start of the modern oil industry in the 18th century, the
superiority was clearly demonstrated in the last 15 years.
If you look at slide two, we show the level of oil
production from the U.S. and from the rest of the world
relative to its level in 2010. During this period global oil
production, including condensates and natural gas liquids,
increased 13 million barrels a day. U.S. oil production
increased, as shown in blue. The rest of the world increases
are shown in orange. We display the data this way so it is very
clear to see the U.S. contribution to the increase in world oil
production, and the U.S. industry accounted for 90 percent of
that 13 million barrels since 2010.
We can also see that in 2020 and 2023 the rest of the
world's oil production actually went negative relative to 2010,
and I will return a little later to this issue of curtailing
production.
Slide three shows the story for natural gas, and it is
basically the same. The U.S. accounted for just over 50 percent
of the world's increase in natural gas productions from 2010 to
2023, and this meant an increase. By 2023 America was producing
a quarter of the world's natural gas.
The U.S. industry is able to outperform the rest of the
world for a variety of reasons, but an important aspect is the
competitiveness. It is intense competition that forces U.S.
companies to continually become more productive. Slide four
shows this phenomenon of increased development and efficiency
in the gas industry over the last 16 years.
In 2008 U.S. gas producers was less than 60 billion cubic
feet a day, and we had almost 1,600 rigs running. Since then,
rig rates have continued to decline and employment, as the
Ranking Member mentioned, has declined. And yet U.S. gas
production has increased from under 60 to almost 100 billion
cubic feet a day, and we are running rigs at only 100 rigs per
day and sustaining that growth in production.
In order to estimate the benefits of increased oil and gas
leasing in prospective Federal lands, two of my colleagues at
EPRINC, Max Pyziur and Matthew Sawoski, undertook a
comprehensive analysis of prospective Federal lands in four
regions. Slide five shows the results of that analysis in terms
of incremental oil and gas production. The analysis is based on
representative oil and gas projects in each of four regions:
the OCS in the Gulf of America; the Naval Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska; the lower 48s; and Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
Slide six shows the results of the analysis in terms of
incremental revenues from bonus bids, royalties, corporate
taxes, and individual taxes. And even though oil and gas
production doesn't peak until 2039 from these projects, the
slide summarizes Federal revenues only during the first 10
years. And using that approach, we estimate incremental Federal
revenues of $122 billion dollars.
Now, that is a single point estimate, and it is really
important to recognize the range of uncertainty in estimating
future oil and gas production. Slide seven summarizes a
landmark study by Richard Nehring.
Now, the increased production is important, but actually
what is most important is the flexibility and the
responsiveness of the U.S. industry. And in the following
slides I show how, as we increase the responsiveness, what
economists call the price elasticity of supply, we actually
reduce the profitability of OPEC to make more money by cutting
production. They are currently cutting production 6 million
barrels a day, which has an effect of raising oil prices about
$10 a barrel. If we make the U.S. industry more elastic, more
responsive to price changes, we can cut that incentive to
restrict production, and OPEC will have less this power.
I am happy to answer questions, look forward to the
discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sweetnam follows:]
Prepared Statement of Glen Sweetnam, Distinguished Fellow, Energy
Policy Research Foundation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-Wstate-SweetnamG-20250402.pdf
------
Mr. Collins. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Gibson
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MEGAN GIBSON, SENIOR ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Gibson. Chairman Collins, Chairman Westerman, Ranking
Member Dexter, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee
and Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here
today. My name is Megan Gibson. I serve as a Senior Attorney at
the Southern Environmental Law Center. We are a non-profit
rooted in the South, committed to ensuring clean air, clean
water, and a livable climate for all.
If we are serious about ushering in a new era of American
energy dominance, one that benefits every American household
and business, we must not look backward to fossil fuels, but
forward to technologies of the future. And the future is
renewable.
Renewables are no longer a distant ideal; they are the
engine of American energy growth. In 2024 over 90 percent of
new utility-scale capacity came from renewables: solar, wind,
battery storage. These technologies are now the cheapest,
fastest-to-deploy sources of power. They are creating jobs,
they are lowering bills, and delivering resilience in the face
of extreme weather.
In Texas, long seen as a fossil fuel stronghold, renewables
are transforming the grid, making it more reliable, more
resilient. During last summer's record-breaking heat wave,
solar and storage supplied over 25,000 megawatts in Texas,
keeping the lights on for millions. In North Carolina, after
Hurricane Helene knocked out the grid, solar microgrids powered
entire communities when nothing else could. These are not
hypotheticals. These are real, lifesaving results right here,
right now.
Clean energy isn't just reliable and resilient, it is also
an economic powerhouse. In 2023 alone, 149,000 new clean energy
jobs were added nationwide. These are good-paying, accessible
jobs. Most don't require a 4-year degree, and they are lifting
up communities across the country, especially in rural areas.
In North Carolina, solar has increased property tax revenue
without burdening local infrastructure. In Texas, renewables
and storage are expected to deliver nearly $50 billion that is
with a B, billion dollars in lifetime payments to local
governments and landowners.
At the same time, fossil fuels are faltering under their
own weight. Today 99 percent of coal plants cost more to run
than it would cost to build a new wind or solar facility
nearby. In the Southeast, uneconomic coal generation alone
costs customers $5.3 billion.
And natural gas, at best, it is a gamble. Price spikes like
those we saw in 2022 hit families and businesses hard. One
utility in the Carolinas saw its fuel costs jump by nearly $1
billion, and those costs get passed on to people.
True energy dominance is about reliability, affordability,
and security for Americans, not what more fossil fuel reliance
will bring us: fuel price shocks, stranded assets, blackout
risks. It is about modernizing the grid so clean power flows
freely, efficiently across regions and within them. But right
now, our outdated, fragmented transmission system is holding us
back. We need to triple or quadruple our transmission capacity
to meet rising demand, unlock clean energy's full potential.
Fortunately, smart programs like the Department of Energy's
CITAP program, an initiative that streamlines Federal
transmission permitting, could help us do just that. But we
need more strong Federal coordination, support, and the use of
existing tools like the National Interest Electric Transmission
Corridor designations, or full use of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's ``backstop siting authority'' to help
get us there.
Let me be clear. Leading the world in energy isn't about
drilling more wells or building more pipelines. It is about
developing and owning the technologies that will define the
21st century. China is racing ahead in clean energy production.
If we slow down now, we risk ceding American leadership in the
very industries that will power the global economy.
We are at a crossroads. We can cling to the fossil-fueled
past and call it dominance, or we can invest in the clean,
modern, resilient energy system our future demands. This is our
moment to lead, not more of the same polluting, uneconomic
systems, but in wind, solar, batteries, high-voltage
transmission lines that will serve as the backbone of a
resilient modern grid and American innovation.
Let's build an America where no family is left in the dark
during a storm, where no family has to live next to a facility
that spews pollution or send their children to school where
they go outside and struggle to breathe. Instead, let's
continue to build an America where electricity is cheap, clean,
home-grown, where we are not only energy independent, but clean
energy dominant.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gibson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Megan Gibson, Senior Attorney, Southern
Environmental Law Center
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-Wstate-GibsonM-20250402.pdf
------
Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Megan Gibson, Senior
Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center
Questions Submitted by Representative Dexter
Question 1. During the hearing, Dr. Dayaratna claimed that even a
full transition to renewables would result in only a 0.2 +C decrease in
global temperatures--suggesting this isn't worth the cost. But isn't
0.2 +C in fact significant in climate terms? Can you expand on the
climate stakes of even seemingly small global temperature changes, and
how the IPCC frames those figures?
Answer. Our country's economy and public health have much to gain
from climate action within our own borders, even if the impact on the
global temperature change seems deceptively slight. Research from Duke
University, NASA, and Columbia University has shown that even if the
U.S. acts alone in reducing emissions, this would still avoid tens of
thousands of premature deaths caused by air pollution and heat exposure
each year--adding up to millions of avoided premature deaths over the
next 50 years. (Schindell et al., 2021, Temporal and spatial
distribution of health, labor, and crop benefits of climate change
mitigation in the United States, PNAS, https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.2104061118) With global action to keep warming under 2 +C, things
get even better. In this scenario the United States would see 4.5
million fewer premature deaths, 1.4 million fewer hospitalizations and
emergency room visits, 300 million fewer lost workdays, 1.7 million
fewer incidences of dementia, and 440 million tons fewer of crop losses
over the next 50 years. But even if you just consider the benefits from
the U.S. decarbonizing the energy sector, the country still realizes
two-thirds of the benefits it would see under a global decarbonization.
Looking at a shorter timeline, serious emissions reductions in the US
could reduce air pollution deaths by 40% within just a decade.
(Schindell et al., 2021).
Moreover, even adopting Dr. Dayaratna's generous assumptions, a few
tenths of a degree of global warming can carry profound consequences.
The preeminent body of climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, makes clear that every increment of warming intensifies
multiple hazards and risks (IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis
Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team,
H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, doi:10.59327/IPCC/AR6-
9789291691647). What might sound like a ``small'' 0.2 +C difference is
actually quite significant: it can mean substantially more frequent and
severe heatwaves, heavier downpours, and other extreme events. For
example, limiting warming to 1.5 +C instead of 1.7 +C or 1.8 +C could
avoid exposing millions more people to life-threatening heat. The IPCC
emphasizes that risks are higher at 1.5 +C than they are today, and
increase further at 2 +C (IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report, 2023)--so an
additional few tenths of a degree translates into markedly more
significant damage to lives, infrastructure, and ecosystems. In climate
science terms, 0.2 +C can be the difference between manageable impacts
and truly dangerous ones.
Question 2. You testified that ``American energy dominance'' should
be measured by abundance, affordability, and energy security for all.
Can you elaborate on what that vision looks like in practice--
particularly the role of high-voltage transmission and renewables in
securing long-term U.S. energy leadership?
Answer. True American energy dominance isn't about drilling or
burning more fossil fuels--it's about ensuring abundant, affordable,
and secure energy for every American through clean, modern resources.
In practice, this means aggressively expanding renewable energy sources
like solar and wind (along with battery storage) and building the high-
voltage transmission infrastructure needed to deliver that clean power
where it is needed. Renewables are already demonstrating their value:
in 2024, over 90% of new utility-scale electric capacity added in the
U.S. came from solar, wind, and batteries and are projected to do the
same in 2025. (https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/nx-s1-5319056/trump-
clean-energy-electricity-climate-change, 2024 percentages calculated
from figures in the article). This rapid growth in clean energy is
driving down costs for consumers and improving grid reliability. We're
seeing local economies benefit from new clean energy jobs, which grew
at a rate of 4.9% or more than twice the rate of the overall U.S. labor
market (2%) (https://www.energy.gov/policy/us-energy-employment-jobs-
report-useer; see also https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/
2024/06/25/americas-clean-energy-jobs-boom-313000-new-jobs-and-
counting/) and households benefit from lower electricity bills due to
the fuel-free, stable cost of renewables. (See Direct Testimony and
Exhibits of Ronald J. Binz on behalf of Southern Alliance for Clean
Energy, Docket No. E-2, Sub 1292, at 6:14 (Aug. 24, 2022) (discussing
inherent volatility of gas markets)).
However, unlocking the full potential of these resources requires a
robust transmission network. High-voltage transmission lines are the
backbone of any American Energy Dominant future--they enable us to
connect the richest solar and wind areas, often located in remote
regions, to cities and communities that need reliable, affordable
power. (See generally Ted Boling et al., Niskanen Ctr., Evidence-Based
Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers to Federal Transmission
Permitting (Apr. 2024), https://www.niskanencenter.org/evidence-based-
recommendations-for-overcoming-barriers-to-federal-transmission-
permitting/; see also Eric Larson et al., Net-Zero America: Potential
Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts 27-29 (Dec. 2020), https://
netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_
Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf (estimating increase in transmission capacity two to
five times that of 2020 levels would be needed to reach zero
emissions)). By investing in modernizing and expanding the grid, we can
transport inexpensive clean electricity across regions, enhancing
reliability and preventing bottlenecks. Studies show that we may need
to triple or quadruple our transmission capacity to meet rising demand
and fully tap into renewable energy. Id.
Achieving this means streamlining the planning and permitting of
high-voltage, interstate lines, while maintaining community and
environmental safeguards. It also means the continued use, development,
and support of federal tools like the Department of Energy's new
coordinated permitting program to expedite critical transmission
projects of national significance. (Coordination of Federal
Authorizations for Electric Transmission Facilities Final Rule, 89 Fed.
Reg. 35,312, 35,313 (May 1, 2024)). In practice, renewed support on and
federal resources dedicated to interstate transmission capacity
development would help tie together America's vast clean and affordable
resources into one resilient, reliable network. The result would be an
energy system wherein no matter the season or region, Americans would
have stable, resilient, low-cost power--and the United States leading
the world in deploying the most modern grid of the 21st century. This
is the true and achievable vision of American energy dominance: a
country powered by homegrown renewables, linked by strong transmission
highways, delivering affordable and reliable electricity for all.
Question 3. Some witnesses suggested renewables cannot support
reliable baseload power. But your testimony highlighted how renewables
combined with battery storage kept the lights on in Texas during a
record heat wave. Can you expand on how solar, wind, and storage--
particularly when paired with demand response and regional
transmission--can provide dispatchable, firm power?
Answer. Real-world evidence shows that solar and wind, when
complemented by tools like battery storage, demand response, and
regional transfers of power, can absolutely provide reliable
electricity. Texas offers a compelling example. In 2024, during a
blistering record heat wave, Texas's grid hit its highest demand ever
(over 86,000 MWs). Far from faltering, renewable energy helped meet
that peak demand and keep the lights on. Solar farms provided roughly a
quarter of the record demand with 21,000 MWs and utility-scale
batteries contributed nearly 4,000 MWs. (https://gridlab.org/solar-
storage-saved-the-hot-day/). These clean resources performed exactly
when needed, effectively acting as dispatchable power sources.
The reliability of renewables is further enhanced by geographic
diversity and strong transmission links within and between regions.
Wind and solar output vary, but they don't vary uniformly across wide
regions--so regional transmission allows excess renewable power in one
area to be sent to support other areas, smoothing out local
fluctuations. See Dept. of Energy, National Transmission Needs Study,
54-55 (Oct. 2023): https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/
National%20Transmission%20Needs%20Study%20-%20Final_2023.12.1.pdf
(``[V]arious study findings demonstrate transmission can serve to
accommodate increased [Variable Energy Resource] integration and
increase system reliability in response to future changes in the
generation mix.''). Coupling renewable generation with demand response
(programs that incentivize customers to reduce or shift usage at peak
times) and storage can effectively manage peaks and valleys in demand.
It's also worth noting that traditional fossil plants can and do
fail in extreme conditions. For example, natural gas and coal plants
were offline in large numbers during recent winter storms due to
planned outages, fuel shortages, and frozen equipment. See, e.g., Fed.
Energy Reg. Comm'n & N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., Inquiry into Bulk-
Power System Operations During December 2022 Winter Storm Elliott:
FERC, NERC and Regional Entity Staff Report, 17 (Oct. 2023), https://
www.ferc.gov/media/winter-storm-elliott-report-inquiry-bulk-power-
system-operations-during-december-2022 (showing that gas units
accounted for 63% and coal accounted for 23% of the total unavailable
MW during Winter Storm Elliott). By contrast, wind turbines and solar
panels are not fuel-limited and can provide essential power during
extreme weather events. Last year, during the aftermath of Hurricane
Helene, Duke Energy used a microgrid powered by solar and storage to
keep the lights on in the town of Hot Springs, North Carolina. (https:/
/www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article294532699.html).
Like Duke Energy was able to do after Helene, grid operators across the
country are learning to treat portfolios of renewables plus storage as
reliable, dispatchable resources. Battery storage ensures that
electricity generated by renewables can be stored or dispatched when it
is needed most. In short, when integrated thoughtfully, renewables,
storage, and demand-side measures can supply firm power during the very
grid emergencies that matter most.
Question 4. Several witnesses emphasized how quickly gas
infrastructure can be deployed to meet surging demand. But you
mentioned that wind, solar, and battery storage are now the fastest-to-
deploy forms of energy. Can you explain how quickly utility-scale
renewables and storage can be brought online, and how that compares to
fossil fuel infrastructure timelines?
Answer. Renewable energy projects can be built and scaled up often
faster than large fossil fuel projects. Utility-scale solar farms, for
instance, commonly go from planning to operation in three to five
years, depending on permitting and interconnection times (https://
seia.org/initiatives/land-use-solar-development/). In contrast, large
new natural gas power plants now take over five years to develop (Slide
7, https://www.investor.nexteraenergy.com//media/Files/N/NEE-IR/news-
and-events/events-and-presentations/2025/
2025%20March%20Investor%20Deck.pdf). In 2024, over 90% of all new
utility-scale electric capacity built in the U.S. was solar, wind, or
battery storage. (See https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/nx-s1-5319056/
trump-clean-energy-electricity-climate-change). We are adding clean
energy capacity at a record pace in large part because these projects
are quicker to deploy. None of this is to say there aren't challenges
for quickly deploying clean energy resources. Transmission upgrades,
for example, are needed to support the continued deployment of
renewable energy, especially in areas where the electricity grid is
currently constrained, but on balance, clean energy infrastructure is
outpacing fossil fuel infrastructure in deployment speed. That agility
is a key advantage as we strive to meet surging electricity demand and
replace retiring older plants.
Question 5. In response to one of my questions, you questioned the
accuracy of economic projections used to justify expanded oil and gas
leasing. Can you elaborate on how such projections--like those assuming
massive Arctic lease revenues--have failed in the past, and what a more
realistic modeling approach would consider?
Answer. Yes--too often we've heard rosy projections for fossil fuel
leasing that simply don't pan out in reality. A glaring example is the
plan to lease the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil
drilling. As recently as January 2025, a congressionally mandated lease
sale in ANWR drew no bids. (US Department of Interior, January 8, 2025,
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/arctic-refuge-lease-sale-yields-no-
interest)
This result is part of a longstanding pattern of overly optimistic
leasing projections. Back in 2017, proponents advertised that Arctic
drilling would generate over $1 billion in federal revenue (a figure
used to justify budget savings). But when the first lease sale was
finally held, the result was abysmal: it brought in a mere $15
million--barely a penny on the dollar of the promise--and most of the
bids came from a state agency, with virtually no interest from major
oil companies. Subsequent lease sales saw zero bids offered at all. In
other words, the market signaled that this remote, sensitive area
simply isn't the bonanza that political calculations had assumed. The
nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense later analyzed the situation and
estimated that future Arctic Refuge lease rounds might only generate $3
to $30 million--a small return, especially when weighed against the
environmental and cultural costs.
This pattern--of overly optimistic projections failing to
materialize--underscores the need for realistic modeling in our energy
decisions. Past economic justifications often ignored key factors such
as shifting market trends, the high cost of developing frontier oil
fields, and legal or community opposition.
In short, good policymaking requires ``looking before we leap''
with credible, sober economic forecasts. We've seen what happens when
we rely on wishful numbers: public lands are put at risk for promises
that never materialize. Going forward, we need rigorous analyses vetted
by independent experts (including looking at low-demand scenarios and a
credible metric or methodology to measure climate and carbon emissions
impacts), so that we don't bank on fool's gold. Our public lands and
waters should be managed based on sound economics and stewardship, not
on industry-fueled mirages.
Question 6. The Trump administration and our Republican colleagues
have suggested that the weakening of critical protections enshrined in
NEPA is a prerequisite for responding to the so-called ``energy
emergency''. Can you speak to the direct impacts that frontline
communities will experience if NEPA's fundamental provisions are gutted
in the interest of fast-tracking fossil fuel projects?
Answer. The idea that NEPA--the National Environmental Policy Act--
is standing in the way of energy projects is a common misconception not
supported by empirical evidence. Studies of permitting delays have
consistently found that delays attributed to NEPA are usually caused by
external factors such as funding interruptions, understaffing,
insufficient information from applicants, and compliance with other
laws. (See, e.g., Cong. Rsch. Serv., The National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA): Background and Implementation 25-26 (2011); John Ruple,
Jamie Pleune, & Erik Heiny, Evidence-Based Recommendations for
Improving National Environmental Policy Act Implementation, 47(S)
Columbia J. Env't. L. 273, 350 (2022), https://
journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/cjel/article/view/9479/4840;
David E. Adelman, Permitting Reform's False Choice, 51 Ecology L. Q.,
(2024)). As stated by Professor Jamie Pleune, ``These findings
demonstrate that the choice between speed and environmental standards
is a false dilemma. Each of the true sources of delay can be addressed
without compromising environmental standards that protect safe,
healthy, and clean communities.'' (Jamie Pleune, Roosevelt Inst.,
Choosing Between Environmental Standards and a Rapid Transition to
Renewable Energy Is a False Dilemma 11-14 (2023) (discussing studies
finding that permitting delays ``can be summarized as: (1) agency
capacity, (2) delays attributable to the operator, and (3) permitting
coordination'')). Moreover, simplistic calls to abandon environmental
review not only risk ecological and community harm; they can also
backfire by generating litigation and distrust, thereby prolonging
project timelines.
Gutting NEPA would not necessarily expedite energy projects, but it
would directly harm frontline communities by stripping away their
primary tool for awareness, input, and mitigation of harms. NEPA is one
of the most important--and often only--tools available that gives
communities (especially those historically marginalized) a voice in
proposed federal projects that if approved would significantly and
adversely impact communities' lives, health, livelihoods, economy, and
environment. (Congressional Research Service, The National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and Implementation (Jan.
10, 2011) at 1). If its provisions continue to be actively weakened,
projects like pipelines, refineries, or export terminals will rush
forward without robust environmental review or public engagement. For a
community at the fenceline of a proposed fossil fuel project, that will
likely mean no meaningful consideration or even warning of how
construction and operation of a project will worsen their children and
parent's asthma, impact their multi-generational fishing business, or
how a pipeline route might raise the risk of spills in or poisoning of
their drinking water source. (See Alexandra B. Klass & Matthew Appel,
The Law of Energy Abundance, N.C. L. REV. 2, 28 (``NEPA's procedural
protections continue to serve as an important check on fossil fuel
projects that, if built, will contribute to climate change and harm
human health and the environment.'').
Contrary to what advocates of ``permitting reform'' suggest, NEPA
is not a permitting statute. Its ``fundamental provisions'' include
requirements to study a project's environmental impacts, consider
alternatives, and solicit public comments. In practical terms,
weakening NEPA could result in agencies ignoring cumulative impacts and
climate effects. For example, if a new gas plant is proposed in an area
already suffering from high pollution, NEPA is what forces the
government to consider that cumulative pollution load. Rolling these
provisions back would mean more pollution and hazards being imposed on
communities without their knowledge or consideration of the ``big
picture'' harm to public health, water, air, and climate.
Destroying NEPA would turn back the clock to a time when highways
were plowed through dense city neighborhoods and factories sited next
to homes, schools, or rivers with no public say. Public input and
environmental review are not red tape; they are lifelines. Affected
communities are in the best position to identify impacts and suggest
alternative approaches. When NEPA review is executed and supported
properly, it can improve and help streamline the development of
projects, and lead to the identification and development of
alternatives that are safer or less damaging. (See Letter from SELC to
White House Council on Environmental Quality (Sept. 29, 2023),
available at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CEQ-2023-0003-30199).
If NEPA is gutted to fast-track fossil fuels, we risk sacrificing the
health and safety of American communities throughout the nation. We
also risk sowing chaos, confusion, and creating a void of guidance on
how to responsibly and reasonably conduct necessary environmental
reviews of proposed projects. In other words, we will fail to ``look
before we leap.''
Question 7. The ``permitting reform'' being advanced by our
colleagues across the aisle seeks to cut opportunities for public input
in the NEPA review process. To what extent would these changes to NEPA
affect the federal government's ability to meaningfully engage with the
communities and landowners affected by energy development projects?
Answer. Drastically curtailing public input under NEPA would
gravely undermine the federal government's ability to engage with,
learn from, and earn trust in communities potentially affected by
energy projects. NEPA is the cornerstone of public engagement for
federal actions--it requires agencies to inform the public of potential
environmental impacts and to invite public comment and participation
before decisions are made. (Congressional Research Service, The
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and Implementation
(Jan. 10, 2011) at 1).
Many ``permitting reform'' bills would reduce those opportunities
by establishing timelines that would make meaningful public engagement
impossible, further reducing the number of projects that would trigger
NEPA's transparency requirements, and prohibiting affected communities
from enforcing their rights. The result is that communities and
landowners would be largely left in the dark, with no ability to
participate in government decisions that affect them. This loss of
engagement is not just anti-democratic; it's counterproductive. When
agencies bypass meaningful dialogue with the public, they miss local
knowledge that can improve project design, mitigate harms, and they
foster resentment. Affected residents who are and/or feel ignored are
more likely to resort to courtroom battles or outright opposition. In
contrast, when communities are heard and their input incorporated,
projects often proceed more smoothly.
In fact, there is evidence that public engagement is an effective
method to expedite projects by reducing project delays caused by local
resistance. (See Wyatt G. Sassman, Community Empowerment in
Decarbonization: NEPA's Role, 96 WASH. L. REV. 1511, 1562 (2021)) This
is supported by a recent study from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology that analyzed renewable energy and transmission projects
that have been delayed or stopped in recent years. Researchers
concluded that incorporating diverse perspectives early in the planning
process would save time and money, as projects could face months of
delay when the affected community feels ``left out or disregarded.''
(David E. Adelman, Permitting Reform's False Choice, 51 ECOLOGY L. Q.
129, 162 (2024))
By cutting public input, these NEPA changes would essentially tell
communities that their concerns don't matter. Landowners might not get
a chance to voice how a transmission line or pipeline could affect
their farm or drinking water, or to suggest a less-damaging alternative
route. This not only erodes trust in government, it also increases the
risk of agencies making uninformed and harmful decisions. Engagement
through NEPA often brings to light creative solutions or compromise,
and siting adjustments that reduce harm. Losing that means losing the
chance to identify and mitigate issues upfront. SELC staff have seen
firsthand that when developers and agencies take the time to sit at the
table with locals--listening to how a project could provide community
benefits or be adjusted to avoid a church or a school--the outcomes are
better for everyone. NEPA is the framework that makes many of those
conversations happen. If reforms shut people and communities out,
federal agencies could revert to a one-way decision--making process,
which is likely to breed bad outcomes, the buildout of harmful and ill-
informed projects, and conflict. In summary, slashing public input from
NEPA would severely impair the government's ability to work with the
very communities proposed energy projects impact, leading to greater
frustration, less equitable outcomes, and potentially even delays and
litigation that smart and targeted permitting reform should seek to
avoid. (See, e.g., John Ruple & Heather Tanana, Debunking the Myths
Behind the NEPA Review Process, Natural Resources & Environment Vol. 35
No. 1 (2020) (noting that measures like page and time limits make it
harder for agencies to satisfy NEPA's requirements, leading to
increased litigation-related delays)) Meaningful engagement isn't a box
to be checked; it's how we build projects that endure and benefit all
stakeholders.
Question 8. The impacts of fossil fuels on public health also
demand that we pursue a just transition to clean, renewable energy. Can
you speak to how continuing to prop up the oil and gas industry in the
name of American energy dominance will increase risks to public health
and affect the well-being of communities across the country?
Answer. Propping up oil, gas, and coal in the long term will
increase risks to public health and affect the well-being of
communities nationwide. Burning fossil fuels releases a number of
harmful pollutants that we know cause disease and premature death. For
example, emissions from coal--fired power plants include sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxides (which contribute to smog and respiratory
illnesses), particulate matter (which leads to asthma, lung disease,
and heart attacks), and mercury and other heavy metals (which cause
neurological and developmental damage). (https://www.eia.gov/
energyexplained/coal/coal-and-the-
environment.php#::text=Emissions%20from%20burning%20coal,
when%20power%20plants% 20burn%20coal). These pollutants have real and
devastating health impacts. Indeed, research indicates that pollution
from aging coal plants alone is responsible for countless premature
deaths and hospitalizations each year. (How Uneconomic Coal Plants Hurt
our Health--and Drive Up Healthcare Costs--RMI). Those are mothers,
fathers, and children whose lives are cut short or altered by
preventable pollution. Continuing to rely on and subsidize these dirty
energy sources means prolonging this public health burden.
The health toll falls disproportionately on certain communities--
often low-income neighborhoods or communities of color located near
power plants, refineries, highways, or oil and gas drilling sites.
(https://cdn.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/19170229/community-
health-impacts-air-pollution.pdf at 6.). By contrast, a transition to
clean energy means cleaner air and better health outcomes. Every fossil
plant retired and replaced with wind, solar, or energy efficiency
directly translates into fewer asthma attacks and heart emergencies.
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsus.2024.100105).
There's also the climate angle: sticking with fossil fuels worsens
climate change, which is itself a public health threat multiplier.
Extreme heat waves, made more frequent by climate change, cause heat
stroke and death; intensified wildfires choke our air with smoke; and
expanded ranges of disease-carrying insects threaten new outbreaks.
(https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/chapter/15/). This means that
doubling down on fossil fuels in the name of ``dominance'' will
boomerang back as higher healthcare costs and graver health crises for
Americans. Pursuing a just transition to renewables isn't just about
economics or climate--it's about an affirmative public health strategy.
We have an opportunity to alleviate asthma in kids, reduce cancer
risks, and ensure cleaner water and air for all. I've met residents
living in the shadow of petrochemical complexes who yearn for relief
for their families from constant emissions. Their and our collective
well-being will only improve when we curb our dependence on these
polluting industries. In sum, clinging to fossil fuels undercuts
American health and prosperity--it imposes very real, very costly
health burdens on our people--whereas shifting to clean energy will
yield cleaner air, longer lives, and healthier communities across the
country.
Question 9. How have the Trump administration's actions affected
the efficiency of permitting?
Answer. Despite claims that the first Trump administration
``streamlined'' permitting, many of its actions did not substantially
improve--and in some cases hindered--the efficiency of federal
permitting processes. The Trump administration rolled back portions of
NEPA and other environmental reviews, aiming to speed up project
approvals by cutting analysis and public input. In practice, this
approach created uncertainty and litigation risk, and it ignored the
real bottleneck: under-resourced and under-staffed agencies. It's
telling that the most significant improvement in permitting timelines
in recent memory came not from gutting rules, but from increasing
agency capacity. For instance, during the late 2010s, additional
funding and staffing for environmental review offices helped shorten
the median time to complete Environmental Impact Statements from 3.6
years to 2.2 years. (COUNCIL ON ENV'T QUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT TIMELINES (2010-2024) 3 (Jan. 13, 2025), https://ceq.doe.gov/
docs/nepa-practice/CEQ_EIS_Timeline_Report_2025-1-13.pdf). That was
achieved under the existing NEPA framework by making the process work
better, not by dismantling it.
The Trump administration's sweeping 2020 NEPA rule changes--which,
among other things, tried to eliminate consideration of cumulative
impacts like climate change--led to confusion and did not markedly
speed up approvals or construction. Instead, they prompted legal
challenges that actually threaten delay. Moreover, sidelining public
input and thorough analysis tends to spur more public opposition down
the line. If anything, previous attempts at `permitting reform' traded
short-term paper cuts for longer-term conflict, confusion, and
uncertainty. A smarter approach is what we were moving toward:
retaining robust reviews but coordinating them more efficiently among
agencies, and dedicating more resources to hire experts and use modern
technology to process review of proposed projects faster. In short,
many of the proposed ``shortcuts'' to environmental review will simply
not solve the core issues. The efficiency of permitting is ultimately
improved by rolling up our sleeves and investing in the permitting
system--updating outdated procedures, hiring more staff, and leveraging
existing tools such as programmatic reviews--rather than by weakening
environmental safeguards. As the CEQ's January 2025 reports shows, when
agencies have what they need to do their jobs, reviews can be done on
time without sacrificing quality or community trust.
The current Trump administration's efforts to revoke and dismantle
NEPA, beginning with an executive order rescinding the Council on
Environmental Quality's (``CEQ's'') centralized authority to promulgate
NEPA regulations that are binding on all federal agencies, will
exacerbate the problems created during his first administration. (See
Exec. Order No. 14,154, Unleashing American Energy, 90 Fed. Reg. 8,353,
8,355 (Jan. 20, 2025)). Until President Trump's second term, every
president had used CEQ regulations to ensure that federal agencies
``use all practicable
means . . . to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions,
programs, and resources . . .' ''' (Edward Boling, et al., CEQ
Regulations Replaced by Guidance for a Year of Living in Uncertainty,
PERKINS COIE (Feb. 20, 2025) (citing 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4331(b)), https://
perkinscoie.com/insights/blog/ceq-regulations-replaced-guidance-year-
living-uncertainty (last visited Mar. 28, 2025). As experts at Perkins
Coie acutely observed, CEQ has undercut the long-established
interagency framework created by the NEPA regulations that applied to
all federal agencies. Ironically, the rescinding of CEQ's authority is
contrary to the Executive Order's prioritization of increasing
``efficiency and certainty'' in the NEPA process.. (Edward Boling, et
al., CEQ Regulations Replaced by Guidance for a Year of Living in
Uncertainty, PERKINS COIE (Feb. 20, 2025) (emphasis added), https://
perkinscoie.com/insights/blog/ceq-regulations-replaced-guidance-year-
living-uncertainty (last visited Mar. 28, 2025).
Question 10. It is abundantly clear that the United States will be
taking a step backward if we acquiesce to the President's declaration
of an energy emergency and double down on fossil fuels. Ms. Gibson,
your work has focused extensively on cutting our nation's reliance on
fossil fuels. Can you give some examples of how the communities you've
interacted with have benefited from regional clean energy initiatives?
Answer. Across the Southeast, we've seen communities reap tangible
benefits from clean energy programs--often implemented at the state or
regional level--that not only cut pollution but also save people money
and create local jobs. One standout example is Virginia's participation
in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a multi-state carbon
trading program. Since joining RGGI, Virginia has been investing the
proceeds from carbon allowance auctions into community programs. Over
the past few years, tens of millions of dollars have flowed into the
state's Community Flood Preparedness Fund and low-income energy
efficiency programs. (Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation, Community Flood Preparedness Fund Grant, September 2024,
https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/dam-safety-and-floodplains/dsfpm-cfpf)
What does that mean on the ground? It means coastal towns are receiving
grants to build flood protections, improve stormwater infrastructure,
or restore wetlands to better protect against recurrent flooding. It
means many economically disadvantaged Virginians are getting their
homes weatherized--adding insulation, replacing leaky windows,
upgrading old HVAC systems--which lowers their electricity bills and
makes their homes healthier and more comfortable. We've spoken with
families who, thanks to these RGGI-funded upgrades, saw their utility
bills drop and no longer have to choose between heating their home and
other necessities in winter. These are direct, everyday improvements in
quality of life coming from a ``regional'' clean energy/climate
initiative.
Other examples come from programs promoting solar energy adoption
in schools and city buildings through innovative financing (sometimes
enabled by state legislation). These programs are saving taxpayer money
previously spent on energy costs that can be reallocated to public
services. In South Carolina, after advocacy by SELC and others, the
state removed caps on solar leasing, which opened the door for more
churches and community centers to go solar with no upfront cost (South
Carolina unanimously passes solar bill to lift 2% net metering cap /
Utility Dive). These initiatives prove that clean energy isn't just an
abstract goal; it's delivering real economic and social benefits at the
local level. Perhaps most importantly, they empower communities.
Whether it's a town using RGGI funds to fix long-standing drainage
issues, or a churches and community groups adopting solar, people are
seeing that solutions like efficiency and renewables can address
everyday problems--high bills, flooding, pollution--in ways that fossil
fuels never did. That is energy progress worth celebrating and
expanding.
Question 11. The fossil fuel industry is the major driver behind
the climate crisis, and climate change in turn is intensifying natural
disasters by increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather
events. Can you speak to the role that renewables can play in
bolstering community energy resilience and supporting critical local
infrastructure after such disasters?
Answer. Renewables are already proving their value as a resilience
tool for communities hit by extreme weather. An energy system built
around distributed solar panels, battery storage, and microgrids can
bounce back faster from disasters and even keep critical services
running during a crisis, compared to a system dependent on centralized
fossil fuel power. (Xu et al., 2024, Resilience of renewable power
systems under climate risks, Nature Reviews electrical engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44287-023-00003-8).
We have seen this firsthand in Western North Carolina: after
Hurricane Helene caused widespread power outages in the mountains,
solar power came to the rescue. Local organizations, partnering with
the nonprofit Footprint Project, deployed 45 portable solar panel and
battery systems to communities that were cut off from the grid.
(Microgrid Knowledge, 2024, After Hurricane Helene Pop-Up Microgrids
Powered Medical Clinics, Water Generators, Communications Equipment,
and Other Critical Resources, https://www.microgridknowledge.com/
microgrids/critical-services/article/55236920/after-hurricane-helene-
pop-up-microgrids-powered-medical-clinics-water-generators-
communications-equipment-and-other-critical-resources). These solar-
battery units provided essential electricity for charging phones,
running medical devices, and powering community centers, all without
needing a drop of fuel. During the same storm, Duke Energy's microgrid
in Hot Springs, NC--which consists of a solar array and battery bank--
kicked on when the main grid went down. It was able to power critical
services downtown both day and night in the hurricane's aftermath. This
is a concrete example of renewables supporting critical local
infrastructure: a small-town pharmacy could stay open and the fire
station had power, thanks to a resilient clean energy system. (https://
www.canarymedia.com/articles/distributed-energy-resources/hurricane-
helene-underscores-need-for-more-solar-battery-microgrids).
Communities are also pairing solar with critical facilities: some
hospitals in Florida have solar+storage microgrids so that even if a
hurricane knocks out the wider grid for days, the ICU and emergency
rooms stay powered. After Superstorm Sandy, some New Jersey towns
invested in solar-powered emergency shelters. All of this adds up to a
new vision of resilience: one where local renewable energy resources
provide a lifeline in disasters, ensuring that shelters have lights,
medical equipment can operate, cell towers stay online, and water
treatment plants keep operating when the larger grid is down. As
climate change brings stronger storms and more punishing heat waves,
this kind of resilience is not a luxury--it's essential. Renewables,
combined with batteries and smart grid management, are giving
communities the tools to weather the storm and recover faster. In sum,
clean energy isn't just about reducing emissions; it's a cornerstone of
disaster resilience strategy, keeping communities safer when the
unthinkable happens.
Question 12. What evidence do we have that renewables lead to lower
energy prices for consumers?
Answer. We have robust evidence from across the country that
scaling up renewables translates into savings on consumers' energy
bills. In fact, 19 of the 24 states where renewables contribute more
than 10% of the electricity generated in the state have lower
electricity bills than the U.S. average. (Slide 10, https://
www.investor.nexteraenergy.com//media/Files/N/NEE-IR/news-and-events/
events-and-presentations/2025/2025%20March%20Investor%20Deck.pdf). One
key reason is that wind and solar have no fuel costs. When renewables
supply more of the electricity on the grid, they displace generation
from more expensive resources, like electricity generated by coal. This
generally drives down the wholesale price of power.
Another way renewables save consumers money is by insulating them
from volatile fuel markets. We've seen how spikes in natural gas prices
(due to geopolitical events or supply constraints) can lead to sudden
hikes in electricity rates or heating bills. By contrast, if your
utility gets a large share of its energy from solar, wind, or
hydropower, your bill is less exposed to those fossil fuel price
swings. For example, in 2022, gas price volatility caused Duke Energy
Carolinas to incur nearly $1 billion more in fuel costs than it had
forecast. (https://apnews.com/article/duke-energy-utility-power-bills-
north-carolina- 2aa0bd1e246c32a36090b5a523038128) Diversifying with
more renewables is like a hedge that protects customers from such
shocks.
Question 13. How would reducing U.S. investments in our clean
energy sector be detrimental to the U.S. economy?
Answer. Pulling back on clean energy investments now would be
economically shortsighted and detrimental on multiple fronts. It would
mean jeopardizing the tremendous job growth and industrial development
that is currently underway. Recent federal investments and incentives
for clean energy technologies have spurred a manufacturing renaissance.
For example, states like North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee are
landing major solar panel and battery plants, creating thousands of
good-paying jobs. If we cut those investments, we'd stall these
projects and likely send those jobs overseas. (https://climatepower.us/
wp-content/uploads/2025/01/January-2025-Clean-Energy-Boom-Report.pdf).
According to a recent report by the think tank Energy Innovation,
repealing the tax credits in the IRA would decrease gross domestic
product by $180 billion by 2030 and $250 billion by 2050, largely
driven by fewer clean energy manufacturing and construction projects.
(Energy Innovation, How Repealing the Inflation Reduction Act Would
Harm the Economy, https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/IRA-
Rollback.pdf)
Second, reducing clean energy investment would undercut our
economic competitiveness. If U.S. companies aren't supported to
innovate and lead in clean energy, companies in Europe or Asia will
capture those export markets. That would be a blow to our future trade
balance and influence as countries around the globe continue to
aggressively invest and develop these technologies (https://
carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/02/how-the-us-can-stop-losing-the-
race-for-clean-energy?lang=en).
Question 14. What will it take for America to achieve real energy
leadership, and is it possible to outpace China, Europe, and India in
clean energy production?
Answer. Achieving genuine U.S. energy leadership in the 21st
century will require an unwavering commitment to building our clean
energy capacity and innovation. The good news is that we have the
resources and know-how to outpace other nations--if we choose to
prioritize and invest accordingly. It will take a concerted effort on
multiple fronts including consistent and politically durable federal
incentives for domestic manufacturing of clean technologies, funding
cutting--edge R&D (for example, advanced batteries, grid modernization,
and next-gen renewables), and implementing smart policies that drive
deployment of clean energy at scale (How the U.S. Can Stop Losing the
Race for Clean Energy/Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). We
also need to cultivate a skilled workforce for these industries, which
means job training programs and strong labor standards so that clean
energy jobs are high-quality jobs.
While it may be possible to outpace other international leaders in
clean energy, the window for success is narrow and the urgency is high.
America still has unmatched strengths--world-class research
institutions, entrepreneurial companies, vast renewable energy
resources, and now a suite of supportive policies (like the Inflation
Reduction Act). We're already seeing the payoff such as onshoring some
solar panel production and ramping up battery factories at an
unprecedented rate (https://climatepower.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/
January-2025-Clean-Energy-Boom-Report.pdf). Sustaining and expanding
this progress will take consistent, bold policy support, and public-
private coordination over the next decade. Otherwise, we may find
ourselves permanently importing technologies invented elsewhere.
Question 15. How can expanding renewable energy in disaster-prone
areas reduce dependence on fragile fuel supply chains that can be
disrupted by storms, wildfires, or other disasters?
Answer. Disasters like hurricanes, wildfires, and winter storms
often wreak havoc on traditional fuel supply chains--they knock out
pipelines, flood coal rail lines, and disrupt the delivery of diesel
for generators. By expanding renewable energy in regions vulnerable to
disasters, we make communities less dependent on brittle fossil fuel
logistics and more self-reliant (See Galvan et al., 2020, Networked
microgrids with rooftop solar PV and battery energy storage to improve
distribution grids resilience to natural disasters, Internat. Journal
of Elect. Power and Energy Systems, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijepes.2020.106239). Renewable energy systems (especially paired with
storage) can operate independently of continuous fuel supply. For
example, a coastal area with solar panels and battery backups can power
critical facilities even if roads are washed out and fuel trucks can't
get in for days or weeks. Unlike a gas or coal plant, solar panels
won't have fuel supply issues in a disaster--the sun comes out after a
storm and they start generating, no supply deliveries needed. Wind
turbines are engineered to survive high winds and, once inspected, can
resume spinning to produce power without waiting on a fuel supply line,
whereas a thermal plant might be offline for days due to flood damage
or because supply lines for fuel are disrupted.
Importantly, microgrids and distributed energy systems can island
from the grid during emergencies, which is especially important during
extreme weather (See Hussain et al., 2019, Microgrids as a resilience
resource and strategies used by microgrids for enhancing resilience,
Applied Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.02.055). It's a
form of energy decentralization: power is generated near where it's
used, so even if highways or pipelines are compromised, that local
generation can continue. And critically, renewables don't experience
``price shocks'' in disasters, because you don't have to bid for scarce
fuel on an open market. In a storm's aftermath, fuel prices can spike
or supplies be rationed, but renewables can still generate reliable
electricity at the same low cost as before the storm.
In summary, building more renewables in disaster-prone regions cuts
out the weakest link in energy supply during crises--the fuel. It gives
communities a more resilient, continuous source of power when
traditional fuel deliveries are halted. This makes our overall energy
supply chain more robust in the face of increasing natural disasters,
ensuring that recovery efforts aren't bottlenecked by a lack of gas or
coal.
Question 16. What makes renewable energy, particularly solar and
wind, a more reliable option for emergency response efforts after
disasters?
Answer. When disaster strikes, solar and wind systems paired with
battery storage offer a nimble and reliable lifeline for emergency
response that diesel generators or grid-tied fossil plants often cannot
sustain (Hamideh et al., 2022, Microgrids and Resilience: A Review,
IEEE Access, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3211511). One reason
is that renewables don't depend on supply lines that may be broken.
After a hurricane or earthquake, transporting fuel can be one of the
toughest challenges--roads may be blocked, and fuel stocks may be
limited. Solar and wind, by contrast, draw energy from the environment
(sunlight and wind) that is available on site. For emergency
responders, that means a well-placed solar microgrid at a shelter,
community center, or field hospital can keep operating indefinitely, as
long as there's sun by day and batteries to carry through the night. We
saw this in Western North Carolina: in the wake of Hurricane Helene,
volunteers brought in mobile solar panel trailers with battery units,
and they were able to provide power to disaster relief sites
immediately--without waiting for fuel deliveries (After Hurricane
Helene, Pop-Up Microgrids Powered Medical Clinics, Water Generators,
Communications Equipment and Other Critical Resources/Microgrid
Knowledge). They recharged by day and powered critical devices by
night. This kind of setup is inherently reliable because it has fewer
points of failure; as long as the equipment isn't physically damaged,
it will produce power. A diesel generator, on the other hand, is just
dead weight once it runs out of fuel or if water contamination ruins
its fuel supply.
Another important factor in emergency response is operational
reliability. Solar panels and batteries are very simple to operate--
they can often kick on automatically when the grid goes down. Modern
inverters can disconnect from a failing grid and form a ``community
island'' almost instantaneously. Wind turbines, if tied into a
microgrid, can operate similarly. Renewable systems can be pre-
positioned in disaster-prone areas, and many communities are now
installing solar+battery systems at schools or community centers
designated as emergency shelters. Having these systems already in place
means that responders aren't scrambling to deploy energy resources when
an emergency strikes. And in areas where renewable microgrids are not
already installed, small solar generators can be airlifted or trucked
into disaster zones by relief agencies, providing power where it's
needed without worrying about ongoing fuel logistics. In Puerto Rico's
recovery, for example, some of the earliest restored electricity in
remote towns came from community-driven solar microgrids, precisely
because they were simpler to get running than coordinating diesel
resupply (See Aros-Vera et al., 2021, Increasing the resilience of
critical infrastructure networks through the strategic location of
microgrids: A case study of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico,
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102055).
For emergency response, renewables offer a consistent and quickly
deployable source of power. They ensure that critical operations--
communications, medical care, clean water pumps--can continue in
disaster aftermaths, even if fuel logistics are cut off. By making
power one less thing responders have to worry about sourcing, solar and
wind let them focus on their primary mission of saving lives. This
reliability and self-sufficiency make renewables an invaluable part of
modern emergency planning.
Question 17. Why are increased LNG exports detrimental to American
energy dominance?
Answer. Expanding liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports might sound
like an exercise in U.S. ``energy dominance,'' but in reality it poses
significant risks to Americans' energy security and affordability. When
we ramp up LNG exports, among other risks, we tether our domestic
natural gas prices to volatile global markets. U.S. gas prices
historically were relatively low and stable, insulated from
international swings. But as more LNG export terminals have come
online, domestic consumers increasingly feel the pinch of global demand
spikes. For example, during the 2021-2022 global gas crunch
(exacerbated by Russia's war in Ukraine), U.S. natural gas prices
soared to their highest in over a decade--driving up home heating and
electricity costs here at home. (Energy commodity prices in 2022 showed
effects of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, U.S. Energy
Information Admin. (Jan. 2, 2023), https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/
detail.php?id=55059.) In essence, LNG exports enrich gas companies but
leave American families and manufacturers paying more for energy as our
gas gets shipped overseas to the highest bidder. That undermines the
affordability prong of true energy dominance.
Moreover, focusing on LNG exports diverts resources and attention
from the long-term solutions that would genuinely secure our energy
future--namely, developing domestic clean energy. Every dollar and year
spent on a new LNG terminal (which can cost tens of billions and take
many years to build) is a dollar and time not spent on deploying
renewables, improving energy efficiency, or modernizing our grid. Those
are the areas where the U.S. can build durable competitive advantage.
By doubling down on exporting fossil gas, we risk locking ourselves
into a boom-bust cycle. Global gas markets are notoriously fickle;
today's high demand can crash tomorrow. (Purva Jain,Conflict Exposes
Natural Gas to Price Volatility, INST. FOR ENERGY ECON. & FIN. ANALYSIS
(Oct. 2024),
https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/IEEFA%20Briefing%20Note_
Conflict%20Exposes%20Natural%20Gas%20to%20Price%20Volatility_Oct2024.pdf
).
If we over-invest in LNG infrastructure, we could be left with stranded
assets if global demand or prices fall (for instance, due to climate
policies abroad or a surge of LNG supply from other countries). That
scenario would hurt U.S. workers and regions that banked on export
growth. Additionally, sending more of our natural gas overseas can
raise domestic supply concerns--during extreme weather events, gas
supply is already strained in parts of the U.S., and export commitments
could exacerbate shortages. In short, true energy dominance means
stable, resilient energy for Americans, not becoming a resource colony
for global markets. By prioritizing clean energy at home, we shield our
citizens from global turbulence and create a more robust economy. LNG
exports, in contrast, largely benefit a narrow sector while putting
households and industries at the mercy of international price swings
and geopolitical events. The smarter path to dominance is to lead in
the industries of the future, not to chase short-term profits from
exporting a fuel whose era is gradually sunsetting.
______
Mr. Collins. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Dr.
Dayaratna for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN DAYARATNA, PH.D., ACTING DIRECTOR, CHIEF
STATISTICIAN, AND SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, CENTER FOR DATA
ANALYSIS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. Dayaratna. Chair Collins, Ranking Member Dexter,
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify about energy policy. My name is Kevin Dayaratna. I am
the Acting Director, Chief Statistician, and the Senior
Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation Center for Data
Analysis. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and
should not be construed as representing any official position
of the Heritage Foundation.
Access to affordable and reliable energy is not just a
convenience; it is the foundation of a thriving society. From
brewing a morning cup of coffee to powering lifesaving hospital
equipment to conducting this very hearing, energy is woven into
every aspect of modern life. And throughout history every major
leap in human progress, from the steam engine to the
smartphone, has been powered by greater access to energy.
At the Heritage Foundation my colleagues and I have
explored energy access in great detail. Our research has
overwhelmingly shown that countries with high energy access
consistently out-perform others on virtually every metric of
human well-being. Between 1900 and 2018 global energy
consumption rose dramatically, and so did global life
expectancy, which more than doubled, from 32 years to over 72.
At the same time, real per capita income rose by well over 500
percent, both domestically and worldwide. In fact, no country
achieves high income without also consuming large amounts of
energy. It is a near universal pattern: more energy, more
prosperity.
And access to energy doesn't just improve economic output,
it saves lives. Countries that consume more than 30,000
kilowatt hours per capita have lower child and maternal
mortality and higher life expectancy. In contrast, countries
such as Malawi or Sierra Leone, with severely limited energy
access, face crushing public health challenges. Clean water,
modern sanitation, and lifesaving medical technologies, all
powered by energy, have slashed mortality rates. Denying this
access is not just a policy failure, it is a moral one as well.
Energy-driven innovation has also transformed agriculture.
For example, from 1961 to 2018 agricultural output has soared
by over 70 percent both domestically and worldwide, as
brilliantly designed machines took on much of the heavy labor.
To put it succinctly, affordable, reliable energy is the engine
of human progress.
So now let's take a closer look at energy policy. Two facts
become clear.
The first fact is that ill-conceived energy policy retards
progress. Under the Biden administration, a range of mistaken
regulations had been aimed at phasing out carbon-based energy.
These included halting new oil and gas leases on Federal lands
and pushing zero-emission vehicles mandates, among others. At
the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis we evaluated
these measures using the Heritage Energy Model, a clone of the
Energy Information Agency's National Energy Modeling System.
The findings of these ill-conceived measures over an 18-year
time horizon were stark: an average employment shortfall of
over 1.2 million jobs; income losses for a typical family of
four exceeding $5,000 per year; and a total GDP loss exceeding
$7 trillion.
And yet, what did these costly measures achieve in terms of
climate benefit? We ran climate projections using the model for
the assessment of greenhouse gas-induced climate change, an
IPCC model. Even assuming the U.S. completely eliminated fossil
fuels, a highly unrealistic scenario, the temperature
mitigation by 2100 would be less than 0.23 degrees Celsius.
There is no way around it. Enormous economic sacrifice,
negligible environmental return.
Now let's turn to our second fact: clear-headed energy
promotes progress. America is rich in energy resources. The
Institute for Energy Research has noted that the United States
has over 1.6 trillion barrels of oil and over 4 quadrillion
cubic feet of natural gas below our very feet. At current
consumption rates, that is over 200 years of oil and 130 years
of natural gas.
At the Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis we
simulated a high oil and gas scenario using assumptions
identical to the EIAs. The results were quite striking. Namely,
over a 25-year time horizon the results show an average
employment gain of 5.3 million jobs annually, a $12,000 annual
income increase for a family of 4, and a $25 trillion boost to
GDP. And the climate impact? Practically zero. Even under
extreme assumptions, our climate simulations showed that this
would raise global temperatures by no more than a measly 0.03
degrees Celsius by 2100.
So the path forward is clear. Ill-conceived policies that
restrict energy access and pose real harm while offering
virtually no environmental benefit. But policies that promote
energy abundance through innovation and regulatory reform can
deliver massive gains for economic growth, public health, and
long-term prosperity. So it is no exaggeration to say expanding
energy access isn't merely smart policy, it is a moral
imperative.
Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dayaratna follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin Dayaratna, Ph.D., Acting Director, Chief
Statistician, and Senior Research Fellow, Center for Data Analysis, The
Heritage Foundation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-Wstate-DayaratnaK-20250402.pdf
------
Mr. Begich [presiding]. I thank the witnesses for their
testimony. The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes
each for questions.
Voice. You are up first, sir.
Mr. Begich. OK, the Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
My first question is for Ms. Gibson.
Ms. Gibson, our Ranking Member cited traditional energy
subsidies of $15 billion annually. Given your expertise in
alternative energy, how much in subsidies was provided under
the Inflation Reduction Act?
Ms. Gibson. Thank you for your question. I don't, oh, thank
you. Thank you, sir.
Thank you for your question. I don't know the exact number
offhand.
Mr. Begich. OK. Well, let me see if I can help a little
bit. According to the University of Pennsylvania Wharton
School, the CBO dramatically underestimated the $391 billion in
energy and climate provisions, and that the true estimate is
actually $1 trillion over a 10-year period. The Cato Institute
placed the number actually much higher, between $2 trillion and
$4.67 trillion. And that is over 100 times the cited subsidy
that was mentioned in the opening remarks for an industry
sector that makes up less than 10 percent of domestic energy
production.
The truth is that the subsidy that appears to be required
for so-called renewable energy to be competitive as an economic
energy source only masks the true cost of that energy and
dramatically increases the debt our Nation passes on to the
next generation.
My next question is for Mr. Sweetnam.
Your analysis makes a critical point about energy
transitions. They take time and they tend to be additive, not
subtractive. That aligns with what Alaskans know, my home
state, wind and solar can complement but not replace baseload
power in a State with 30-below 0 winters and thousands of miles
between grid connections. So let me ask you, given what we have
seen with recent grid instability and surging demand, how
dangerous is it economically and strategically to over-estimate
the speed of the renewable transition, particularly when it
leads to sidelining proven resources like Alaskan oil and gas?
Mr. Sweetnam. Thank you for the question.
It is true that the grid has become less reliable as we
increase our dependence on renewable energy. It also makes the
energy more expensive, and we see that all around the world.
Because the wind and solar are weather dependent, they are
intermittent. And so they can produce when the sun is shining
and the wind is blowing. But there are periods, and sometimes
there are long periods, when the wind is not blowing. And of
course, every night you have to worry about not having solar.
But even on cloudy days you don't have the peak capacity.
So what happens is that if you want the grid to be
reliable, you have to have dispatchable capacity equal to your
peak load. And so that means that you need to have gas or coal
or nuclear, something that you can turn on and off that is not
weather dependent. And when you have to have that capacity, but
then you bring in the renewables and you run the renewables,
the load factor, the capacity factor, those other facilities
goes down. And that is what makes the electricity more
expensive. And we have seen it all around the world in the U.S.
and Europe, State by State, in Asia where I am working. You can
see, as you increase the renewables, the price to the customer
goes up. And that is because you have to have two energy
systems, and that is just more expensive.
The issue of sort of, yes, so I will leave it there. Thank
you.
Mr. Begich. A follow-up question. We have noticed in
Alaska, in areas where there are microgrids deployed, the
attempt to utilize renewable energy sources as an adjunct to
traditional diesel fuel generation has led to actual increases
in the consumption of diesel fuel. Can you comment on perhaps
why that may be the case?
Mr. Sweetnam. I think I would have to know the specifics.
You are saying increases. If they are replacing, I don't think
that should cause an increase. So I am sorry----
Mr. Begich. Well, what we----
Mr. Sweetnam [continuing]. I would need to know the
specifics here.
Mr. Begich. Yes, and I will provide you with some
additional specifics. So----
Mr. Sweetnam. Thank you.
Mr. Begich. Yes. So what we have observed is that that, in
order to continue to restart that diesel generation capacity,
it actually increases the amount of diesel consumption because
of the intermittent nature of the so-called renewable sources
of energy.
Mr. Sweetnam. Yes. You have raised a very important point,
which is that because the renewable sources like wind and solar
are direct current, they have to go through an inverter to
create the alternating current that our electric grids run on.
And they don't have the physical inertia associated with the
rotating machinery, the generators. And in fact, they follow
the generators.
And what happens is, if there is a reduction in a renewable
energy, you can have a shortage and then a trip-off and a
blackout. In Australia in 2016 they had a black start problem
where they didn't have enough rotating machinery. So the
inertia associated with the rotating machinery is very
important to the stability of the grid.
Mr. Begich. Thank you for clarifying that. Now I would
recognize our Ranking Member, Dr. Dexter, for any questions for
the witnesses.
Dr. Dexter. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Gibson, you have read the testimony from other
witnesses and heard some of it today. Do those economic
estimates of impacts from digging up even more oil and gas from
public lands seem realistic to you? And why or why not?
Ms. Gibson. Thank you, Dr. Dexter, for the question. No,
they do not.
And I will just say quite simply that we have seen this
movie before, and that in 2017 and 2018 there were pretty
exaggerated cost estimates as to what could be gleaned from the
auctioning of leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in
the billions. And what resulted from that auction was less than
1 percent of what was originally put on the table.
Dr. Dexter. Thank you. and what evidence do we have that
renewables lead to lower energy prices for consumers? It has
been refuted here this morning. I just want to hear from you on
that.
Ms. Gibson. Yes, absolutely.
I mean, every year there is increasingly mounting empirical
evidence that renewables are our economic future. They are
driving economic growth. In the top 12 States in which
renewables have penetrated the grid more than anywhere else, 10
of those States, prices are less for consumers. People don't
have to pay as much on their energy bills. The proof is in the
pudding.
Dr. Dexter. OK. And if we meet our energy needs with
renewable energy, how will that impact our economy?
Ms. Gibson. Overall, positively.
I mean, the economic benefits are tremendous in terms of
consumer savings, industry, development, jobs, manufacturing,
sales, as well as we will lead the world in energy innovation
and get ahead of our competitors such as in China.
Dr. Dexter. And I am just going to add to that, as someone
who does care for folks who are impacted by toxic fumes and
other smoke exposures, that we know that the exposure to those
substances in the air absolutely impact our health. And the
dramatic impacts of adverse health outcomes need to be factored
into these economic models.
I think that we will move on to public health now. We
pursue at this point, or we are discussing whether we pursue, a
transition to clean, renewable energy. And Ms. Gibson, can you
speak to how continuing to prop up the oil and gas industry in
the name of energy dominance could increase public health risks
and affect the well-being of communities across the country?
Ms. Gibson. Well, I would say, Dr. Dexter, you probably
know more than most, but dramatically it increases the
likelihood of premature death, of cardiovascular disease, of
respiratory illnesses.
And I would invite anybody, including esteemed members of
this Committee, to come take a trip of Cameron Parish,
Louisiana and talk to the multi-generational fishermen that
live there, who we represent, whose families have been impacted
by the LNG facilities that they are building on top of their
communities, and the impacts it has had on their family, the
very real health impacts that it has had on these people's
families and lives.
Dr. Dexter. I would also want to ask whether you believe
that NEPA is the barrier to expanding clean energy
infrastructure and development.
Ms. Gibson. No. NEPA is not the barrier. NEPA is not a
permitting statute. I know that it is often the scapegoat in a
lot of conversations. But NEPA, in fact, if used correctly, can
increase efficiency of the build-out of infrastructure.
Dr. Dexter. Excellent. Thank you. And in our last few
minutes, Ms. Gibson, can you please briefly describe the work
the Southern Environmental Law Center does on the ground for
communities impacted by natural disasters?
Ms. Gibson. Yes, absolutely. I would say that the most
recent example that comes to mind, unfortunately, is what
happened in western North Carolina when we were hit by
Hurricane Helene. Our organization worked directly with
communities on the ground.
Solar, I should add, was absolutely integral to supporting
those communities and providing power when gas and fossil went
offline after the hurricane hit. And our own staff members are
members of this community that lived through this horrible,
horrific extreme weather event.
And right now there are fires burning in North Carolina,
South Carolina, New Jersey. And we are, of course, seeing an
increased rise of weather events across the country, and we
need to address these issues, and we need to address them now.
Dr. Dexter. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Begich. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
Committee Chairman, Mr. Westerman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, again, thank
you to the witnesses for your testimony.
Ms. Gibson, do you support nuclear power? And does your
organization support building more nuclear power?
Ms. Gibson. We believe in safe, reliable energy.
Mr. Westerman. Does that include nuclear power?
Ms. Gibson. With increased research and more efficiency,
there is a possibility in the future.
Mr. Westerman. So right now----
Ms. Gibson. But right----
Mr. Westerman [continuing]. It doesn't include nuclear
power.
Mr. Sweetnam, The data shows that oil, gas, and coal
produce 84 percent of the energy in the United States right
now. And without getting into a lot of detail, we know that
solar panels take up 4,000 to 10,000 acres of land per
gigawatt, whereas you build a nuclear power plant, it is much,
much less land than that. And the energy density on oil and gas
and coal is much greater. But do you see any foreseeable way in
even the next 100 years to not have any fossil fuel component
to our energy supply?
Mr. Sweetnam. Well, you would have to have dispatchable
power if you want to have an electrical grid. And so relying
solely on interruptible power, you would need to have some way
to store the electricity. And so batteries are efficient and
economic for storing about 4 hours of electricity, but when you
get into long-term storage and seasonal storage it is very
uneconomic.
So to me it is possible to have a completely renewable
system, but it has only been done in areas that are very small
and very specific. You really need to have the dispatchable
energy or very large electricity storage, which is difficult.
Mr. Westerman. Which would more than likely include nuclear
power and advancing----
Mr. Sweetnam. Yes, yes.
Mr. Westerman [continuing]. More hydraulic.
Mr. Sweetnam. Yes, so the nuclear----
Mr. Westerman. Hydro-electricity.
Mr. Sweetnam. Excuse me.
Mr. Westerman. And as we look at oil and gas production, we
saw a kind of a peak in conventional oil production in the
1970s. And then fracking came along and we saw an uptick again.
I believe it was this week I saw an article in the New York--or
the Wall Street Journal that suggested the Permian may be
peaking on oil production using fracking. But we also know
there is a new technology out there called CO2
enhanced oil recovery, and I believe some of the projections
show we could get another 10 percent of the oil out of
conventional wells and fracked wells using CO2.
Can you comment on how important new technologies, and Mr.
Jensen, you may want to comment on this, too, are to being able
to get more energy production, and what our focus should be on
these new technologies?
Mr. Sweetnam. Yes, the new technology is extremely
important, and you are absolutely right that we were concerned
that the U.S. was running out of oil and gas. And now, as a
result of the fracking technology, we are the largest oil and
gas producers in the world.
In addition to the new technology allowing more recovery of
resources, it also expands the competitiveness of the industry.
In the 1980s, with a higher computing capacity as computers
became stronger, small companies with just two or three people
could compete against the majors, who up until then were the
only ones who could do the seismic processing that was
required. So the new technology not only allows you to recover
more resource, but it also makes the industry more competitive.
Mr. Westerman. Mr. Jensen?
Mr. Jensen. I would add to that. As we expand the
production and we expand leasing, it will give new
opportunities to develop new technologies. And so, through a
combination of executive orders that are limiting the barriers
to energy production and then legislation that might expand
production further, these things will work synergistically with
new technology, and they will all work together to increase
energy output more rapidly.
Mr. Westerman. So we hear the argument that oil is a global
commodity, if we produce more it could drive the prices down,
maybe get to a point where we couldn't afford to invest in
producing more oil. But oil is easily traded across the globe.
But can you explain how gas is different from that, how
there is such a huge demand for gas but the transportation
restrictions on gas are really hindering our ability to produce
and sell more gas?
Mr. Sweetnam. Yes. Transportation is a much larger
component of the cost of distributing gas than of oil. So you
are absolutely right. Oil is very much an international
commodity because the transportation cost relative to the value
of the commodity is so low.
Natural gas, it is different. Natural gas may sell for $2
or $3 an MCF, but you need to spend an additional $5 to
refrigerate it, ship it across an ocean, and then re-gasify it.
So that is why the international gas market is growing more
slowly, but it is continuing to grow, and we do fully expect
that gas trade will continue to expand, especially in countries
who need more electricity, need more dispatchable power, want
the clean energy of natural gas. And so they will be using more
and more natural gas. This is especially true in Asia.
Mr. Westerman. And we have over four quadrillion cubic feet
of natural gas, which is pretty mind-boggling.
I yield back.
Mr. Collins [presiding]. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Hernandez for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
So I understand the fossil fuel industry is one of the
major drivers behind the climate crisis, and that climate
change, in turn, is intensifying natural disasters by
increasing the frequency and the severity of extreme weather
events. Ms. Gibson, can you speak to the role that renewables
can play in bolstering community energy resilience and
supporting critical local infrastructure after such disasters?
Ms. Gibson. Absolutely. Renewables are more resilient, more
reliable than fossils. During Winter Storm Uri and Winter Storm
Elliot, Winter Storm Elliot, especially, wind produced four
times the amount of energy than was originally anticipated. And
meanwhile, fossils were completely offline. And they were
providing much-needed power to people in desperate times.
Mr. Hernandez. And, you know, I come from Puerto Rico and
we have some of the highest electricity rates in the country,
partly because we rely on imported fossil fuels for energy. How
could expanding renewable energy in disaster-prone areas reduce
dependence on fragile fuel supply chains that can be disrupted
by storms, wildfires, or other disasters?
Ms. Gibson. It would increase reliability, resilience, and,
quite frankly, safety and security of the communities and
people.
Mr. Hernandez. And would you say that, you know, utility-
scale solar and battery installations are easier to scale up
rapidly in response to energy crises than fossil fuel
infrastructure?
Ms. Gibson. It is not me that would say that, it is the
evidence and the empirical data. The writing is on the wall. It
is faster to deploy and it is cheaper.
Mr. Hernandez. Right now Puerto Rico faces a shortage of
close to 800 megawatts. It is expected in the summer. And, you
know, I will be very transparent. I will take whatever I can
find in terms of energy sources to prevent power outages in the
summer, even if tomorrow we discovered the dirtiest source of
energy in the history of the world. Obviously, it doesn't have
to be that way.
If we had to find a temporary solution to that generation
problem, could renewables be an alternative, given the ease of
scaling them up quickly?
Ms. Gibson. Absolutely.
Mr. Hernandez. Could you provide maybe more concrete
examples as to how you could address a 700 or 800 megawatt
shortage using renewables in a very short time frame?
Ms. Gibson. Well, Representative, I am not an engineer, but
I am sure that there are people smarter than me that could
provide that answer to you.
But I will say that, again, it is faster and cheaper,
period.
Mr. Hernandez. OK.
Ms. Gibson. That is what the evidence shows.
Mr. Hernandez. OK. Mr. Sweetnam, I think you were nodding
in disagreement, and I would love to hear your opinion.
Mr. Sweetnam. Well, my recommendation would be to get a gas
turbine on a barge. In other words, people who need power
rapidly, on the order of 800 megawatts, and you could--if you
bring a gas turbine on a barge and use that, you can hook right
into the grid. And that would be done. You would use a re-
gasification floating vessel, which is also easily leased.
Puerto Rico, I think it is very interesting you mentioned
that, because the island communities are tougher for energy,
and it does make energy more expensive. The island of Kauai, if
I might, committed to going to renewable energy, and so they
have gotten very close with lots of solar. But it is a very
small system, and it has taken up a lot of land for a small
population in Kauai. But that would be an example to look at.
But they did need to find a way to guarantee reliability, and
so they took their existing coal plant, shut off the coal
burner, and replaced it with a biogen generator. But they
haven't got that up and running yet, so they are still using
diesel.
But that would be a way you could get dispatchable source
with solar and storage. But it is a big project. And so if you
want to get 800 megawatts this summer, you just need to find a
barge with a generator on it and fuel it with LNG.
Mr. Hernandez. Oh, and I appreciate that. That is very
helpful. That is something that we have heard and that I
believe the Administration is considering. And like I said, I
am more interested in solving the problem right now than
necessarily, in the issue of energy.
Now, I have heard that the supply chains for natural gas
turbines are also very backed up, and it may take years to get
the necessary equipment. Do you have something to say about
these challenges?
Mr. Sweetnam. It is true that there is a backlog for new
turbines for a permanent installation, and a lot of those are
being purchased for artificial intelligence funding. But there
are companies that rent them. So if you need 800 megawatts this
summer, you are not going to be purchasing a permanent
installation for that.
Mr. Hernandez. Right. I appreciate your responses, and
thank you both.
I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Stauber for 5
minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, and thanks to our
witnesses for being here. I am going to change gears just a
little bit.
Here in the United States we responsibly and ethically
produce our abundant energy and natural resources better than
anywhere else in the world. And when we do, we are able to
bolster our economy, create good-paying union jobs, and raise
much-needed revenue for the Federal, State, county, and local
governments. We have a decision before us today. We could
either develop our own energy and minerals resources here,
enjoying all of the economic benefits that come with it, or
rely on foreign adversarial nations like China or Russia.
I am glad that under the Trump administration and
congressional Republicans it is clear which path we will take
over the next 4 years. While this morning's hearing has focused
primarily on economic impact of developing Americans' abundant
energy resources, I want to focus on the incredible prospect we
have to develop our Nation's critical and other non-fuel
minerals, including the tremendous mineral wealth we have in
the Duluth Complex and elsewhere across northern Minnesota.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey's latest data
published earlier this year, the development, processing,
refining, and recycling of non-fuel minerals in the United
States contributes nearly $29 billion to our Nation's GDP
annually. That is even while this Nation is stuck currently
with the Biden-era policies that have locked up a vast majority
of our Nation's critical minerals like those in the Duluth
Complex in northeastern Minnesota.
It is policies like the Biden administration's mining ban
in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota, which
locked up over 225,000 acres from responsible mineral
development. And as my colleagues all know well by now, this
jeopardized development of the Duluth Complex, where there are
trillions and trillions of dollars of mineral wealth. If we are
able to develop our tremendous mineral wealth in Minnesota,
Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Michigan, Wyoming,
Montana, and everywhere in between, that $29 billion annually
added to our Nation's GDP will skyrocket.
I want to point out a figure that when we talk about mining
from the raw material, the gross domestic product to our
economy, I just mentioned $29 billion. That is just the
original estimate on the GDP. It doesn't go downstream, which
is hundreds of billions of dollars that we can add to our GDP
annually if we are allowed to mine those critical minerals
here. We have to mine them, process them here, and then we can
manufacture here.
Mr. Sweetnam, while your testimony and research has focused
primarily on oil and gas development, including the impact that
domestic production of oil and gas can have on OPEC's ability
to control oil and gas prices, I believe the same arguments can
be made for global mineral commodities. Would you agree that,
just like the oil and gas development, domestic critical
mineral development would weaken China and other adversarial
nations' control over global mineral prices and their ability
to artificially manipulate mineral commodity prices?
Mr. Sweetnam. So the concentration of these strategic
minerals, especially those needed for wind turbines and solar
panels and batteries, China dominates not only the extraction
and processing, but also the refining of those materials to an
extraordinary degree.
So where OPEC+ has a market share of about 35 percent, for
many of these minerals China has a market share of 80 percent.
And they have been happy or willing to use that dominance when
they want to put economic leverage on other countries.
So I absolutely agree that the concentration of those
minerals and processing in China is a security risk, and it
would be helpful to address it with U.S. production.
Mr. Stauber. With my 20 seconds left, I really appreciate
that comment. We can mine here, we can process here, we can
manufacture here. We do it better, in my opinion, better than
anybody else in the world. And when we know better, we should
do better. We cannot allow adversarial nations to control our
destiny. As the Under Secretary of Defense said when I asked
what would it be like if China stopped selling us their
critical minerals, and it would be devastating and dangerous.
Department of Defense and Energy Under Secretaries said that to
me. It would be devastating and dangerous. When we know better,
we do better. We do it better here in the United States of
America than anywhere in the country.
I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes myself for 5 minutes
for questioning.
Mr. Sweetnam, I just want to pick up right where Mr.
Stauber left off. Not to mention the fact that China uses child
labor to mine these critical, rare Earth minerals. But let's
look at China. China processes nearly 90 percent of the global
rare Earths. I think you were alluding to that a few minutes
ago. Sixty percent of production and eighty-three percent of
processing, and China is the primary import source for fifty
critical minerals here in the U.S., the primary processing
source.
So given that China's dominance in the extraction process
and refining of these critical minerals that are essential to
the manufacture of wind and solar equipment, what are those
energy risks that Mr. Stauber was talking about that are
created by accelerating our reliance on this renewable energy?
Mr. Sweetnam. So it is truly economic risk because China,
with such a large position in these minerals, can decide what
price they will sell them at, and they can cut off customers.
So if in the U.S. we have manufacturers who are depending on
those materials, they can easily be cut off or the price can be
raised. And because they have so much more market power than
OPEC did, similar to the effects of the Arab oil embargo and
the Iranian oil crisis when we saw prices skyrocket, cutting
off those materials would also have that effect.
If I may, I would also like to point out we hear very much
about how the renewable energy is clean, the wind and solar.
But in fact, what you are doing is you are not eliminating
emissions, you are exporting emissions because the mining and
processing and manufacturing of those strategic critical
materials for the renewable technologies are being produced
with coal energy in China. So as you will see, the emissions of
the world are continuing to go up.
So even though it is correct that we have seen a lot more
installation of renewable energy, CO2 emissions are
not going down. And the reason they are not going down is that
the developed countries are exporting their emissions to the
developing world in China. And that de-industrialization that
we are observing in Germany, the de-industrialization is also
happening in Japan because of high energy costs. And so,
hopefully, we will not do the same thing in the United States.
Mr. Collins. You are right. As a matter of fact, China is
opening up numerous coal plants every week. So we are just
exporting emissions. And the fact that China has made no bones
about it, they want to be dominant by 2045 in every category
from economic to military. And so we have got to get our
processing and our own refining and our mining back to America.
Mr. Jensen, I want to thank you for testifying today. I
want to talk to you about the energy costs for Georgia
families. In your written testimony you talk about the price
reductions and say that a Georgia household of 3 in 2025 with a
10 percent price decline will save $763. With a 50 percent
reduction, Georgia families could save $3,800. Can you tell me
what is needed for Georgia families to be able to save this
money?
Mr. Jensen. Yes. Thank you for the question, and I will
tell you. But first I will note that those numbers you just
cited, that is only the direct costs. And so, when you take
into account the indirect costs associated with energy prices,
those numbers could be twice to three times as high savings for
Georgia families.
And for that to happen there needs to be an all-of-the-
above energy strategy in the United States to increase every
stage of energy production, and we have seen this
Administration start to implement that strategy through
executive order. But if we want that to be as successful as
possible and to be lasting, then the way to do it is through
legislation, as well.
Mr. Collins. Well, expand on it. Why is the cost of energy
so high that families could save anywhere from $700 to $3,800
bucks, depending on that price reduction?
Mr. Jensen. We have seen for this previous Administration a
severe constraint on the types of energy sources that are most
widely used natural gas, oil and we have seen those constrained
for the last 4 years, driving up prices. And so now we have
also seen other kinds of energy like nuclear constrained. And
so, if we start to unconstrain America's potential to produce
these resources, then we can snap up and start to see a
dramatic increase in production.
The United States, I have been poking around these data
recently. We are huge in these energy markets, and so we
actually govern the global price of energy. And if we produce
more, we can influence the price of energy both in the United
States and at a global level.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. I see my time has expired. I tell
you what, I think we are going to go with a second round of
questioning, and the Chair now recognizes Mr. Westerman for 5
minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you to
the witnesses.
Mr. Dayaratna, can you explain how the Congressional Budget
Office scores energy projects, and how you would do that
differently?
Dr. Dayaratna. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
My understanding is that the Congressional Budget Office
will take legislation that is given to them and score it in a
static manner. What I would recommend doing is incorporating a
dynamic macroeconomic feedback, incorporating the larger
manifestations of the increased supply of the various sources
of energy that are being altered by the proposed policy.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you. And so I want to switch gears a
little bit and talk about the importance of permitting reform
to be able to not only produce energy, but also to do mining.
I know a couple of these gentlemen to my right have vast
mining deposits in their States, and America is blessed with a
lot of minerals and elements, except we don't get them out of
the ground. And if you look at the report from USGS on critical
minerals, we are 100 percent dependent on imports on a lot of
these minerals and elements, even though we have them right
here in the U.S.
And recently I have had companies come to me and say they
have got deposits of, like, graphite, which we are 100 percent
dependent on graphite, and if you look at who is the dominant
world supplier of graphite, it is China. So why wouldn't we
develop our graphite? And the feedback is it is because there
is a concern that China will dump graphite on the global
market, drive down the price, and make it uneconomical to have
a project here in the U.S.
So if we could get past all the hurdles to permitting on
some of these mines, then you got the economic problems of
dumping by foreign countries. And these are things that are not
only critical to our national security, but also critical to
energy, because when you are talking about energy anymore, and
especially electric energy, you are talking about mining and
minerals and elements.
So Mr. Jensen, I will start with you. Can you comment on
the importance for permitting reform, for developing more
mining materials, and how to combat dumping by our adversaries
to keep production out of the United States?
Mr. Jensen. There is a combination here where, if you
combine the tariff approach that this Administration has taken
for national security reasons, and you combine that with
permitting reform to speed up the permitting with smart de-
regulation to make it so that there are not, you know, too many
barriers to getting these things out of the ground, then it
will solve that issue where it will at once allow for us to
increase the domestic production here, and at the same time it
will put up barriers for our trading partners who have their
own barriers against us. And it can create this reciprocity in
the way that we treat our trading partners.
And so I think the key here is to combine the strategies
where you have tariffs and you have de-regulation and you have
permitting reform. And you put the three together, and then we
can see all of these resources that are on the ground here
start to be dug up and produced and refined, and then used in
the markets.
Mr. Westerman. And Mr. Sweetnam, could you elaborate on
that, as well, and maybe talk about--you know, the tariffs are
a way to incentivize more production here, but it is still
going to take time to get these mines up and permitted up and
operating.
I know Mr. Wittman, who is on this Committee, has a bill
called the SECURE Act that would create a national repository
for critical minerals and elements that could maybe help in
that area in the interim while we get the mining up.
And also, can you comment on how important that is to the
overall energy picture?
Mr. Sweetnam. So the permitting is extremely important for
the mining and also for the gas industry.
So with the mining, the permitting is very important, and I
agree with what Mr. Jensen just said about the importance of
permitting on mines. Even when you do get the permitting, it is
my understanding that you are still talking about 10 to 15
years to open new mines. So doing something in the interim,
perhaps a strategic reserve, is a very sensible thing to do
with respect to those strategic minerals.
The other area where permitting is very important is in
natural gas transportation. And we have seen in the past where
the inability to permit pipelines has situations where we have
enormous reserves of natural gas in the Marcellus in
Pennsylvania, and yet in Massachusetts they are still importing
LNG at a much higher cost, simply because we can't get permits
to build pipelines from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts. So I
think the permitting reform is extremely important.
And also, with the increased electricity generation,
increasing electricity load associated with artificial
intelligence, data centers, and electric vehicles, on all of
those you are going to want to be able to have the permitting
reform that allows natural gas to get to where those generators
are, in addition to the renewable transmission lines.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you. I know, talking about
CO2 enhanced oil recovery earlier, some of the stuff
I have been reading and getting information on said we could
use all of the CO2 produced in the United States in
recovery, which would be sequestering the CO2. But
you obviously can't do that without an elaborate pipeline
network, which----
Mr. Sweetnam. Yes.
Mr. Westerman [continuing]. You have got to have permitting
to be able to that.
Mr. Sweetnam. Yes. And in fact, the CO2 molecule
is much larger, so the pipelines need to be even larger. The
CO2 technology is not new. They have been doing it
in the industry for decades. And so you just have to have the
right reservoir to be able to enhance the recovery with
CO2. Right now we use naturally-produced
CO2 from the ground. But if you capture the
CO2 from an industrial plant or a generator, then
you can use that to enhance the oil recovery. They are doing
that in Abu Dhabi right now, and we are actually doing that
also in Texas.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you. I went way over time, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Collins. That is all right. You are the Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Begich for 5
minutes.
Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question here
is to Dr. Dayaratna.
You did a fantastic job providing some high-quality
information. I know that some of the conversation that we have
had so far this morning has focused on health outcomes, and
health outcomes are important. Public health is important. If
we are polluting the environment, we need to understand that.
What is fascinating about the data that you provided is
global per capita energy consumption and its relationship to
four key health metrics, one of those metrics being the number
of doctors per 1,000 people; another being life expectancy in
years; another, child mortality rate; and another, maternal
mortality deaths per 100,000 live births. What we see in your
data very clearly is an extraordinarily strong relationship
between energy production and positive health outcomes. And we
hear from folks on the other side of this issue often that
producing energy creates negative health outcomes, but the hard
data says the exact opposite. Can you provide us with some
additional context to your research on these matters?
Dr. Dayaratna. Oh, absolutely, and that is a great
question, Congressman.
So as I was alluding to when I began my testimony, many
people take energy for granted. Like, when you flip on a light
switch or turn on your car, many people don't understand the
beauty that goes on behind the scenes. This is exactly the case
in terms of health care, for example. Energy is needed to
enable doctors to do their jobs, to train doctors. So this is
why you see more doctors in areas that consume more energy.
In terms of life expectancy and child mortality and
maternal mortality, life expectancy increases, child and
maternal mortality plummet because in countries that consume
more energy, they have more access to this lifesaving medical
equipment and they have the ability to power them.
But this is, to me, actually one of the most interesting
parts of that analysis. And the paper that that is coming from
is titled, ``Powering Human Advancements,'' with my colleagues,
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Richard Stern, and Miles Pollard, and it
is published on the Heritage Foundation website. If you look at
deaths due to dirty air and deaths due to dirty water, they
plummet in countries that consume more energy by over 90
percent compared to the less-developed counterparts on the
other side of the world. And the bottom line is affordable and
reliable energy is paramount to being able to have clean air,
to being able to filter water and engage in modern sanitation
techniques.
So the bottom line is access to affordable and reliable
energy is paramount to a flourishing society.
Mr. Begich. Thank you. Thank you for that additional
context. I couldn't agree more.
You know, we have a moral imperative in this Congress to
ensure that we have inexpensive, abundant, reliable energy, no
matter where that source is coming from, because the data, the
hard data, shows that that is what is in the best interest of
the public health. And I appreciate that research that you have
done and the hard work that you have put in.
One additional question for Mr. Sweetnam. Expanding our
strategic reserve for critical minerals, we have an
opportunity, I believe, in this Congress to take a look at the
critical minerals that we hold in reserve and the critical
minerals that we do not currently hold in reserve.
Can you give us some additional context, or maybe just some
of your own thoughts on why we should have strategic mineral
and energy reserves, and why they are important to our national
security and economic interests?
Mr. Sweetnam. One way I think about it is an example of
when Japan was trying to protect its fishing areas from the
Chinese, and the Chinese kept encroaching, and so the Japanese
coast guard captured a Chinese fishing vessel. The Chinese
immediately shut off the supply of iridium to Japan, which is
the blue in CRT in computer displays. The Japanese caved within
a week and gave the fishing vessel back. So that ability to
have so much control over critical materials and ability to cut
them off, I think, provides an economic risk to us that we
don't want to live with.
Mr. Begich. Thank you for that insight.
You know, Alaska has nearly every critical mineral on the
critical minerals list. As our Chairman mentioned earlier, it
does no good if they stay in the ground. We have got to get
them out of the ground, we have got to mine those resources,
process those resources, and then ensure that we have the
requisite storage of those resources in strategic reserves in
the event that they become necessary for economic or national
security purposes.
And with that I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Moore for 5
minutes.
Mr. Moore of WV. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
inviting me to the hearing. I really appreciate it, as one that
comes from an energy State, as well.
So I just want to start off here. So I am from West
Virginia. Obviously, we do coal, gas, and oil, so we do all
three. And so my entire life I have watched our industries
under attack. I mean, that is what has been going on,
especially around coal, and so regulations have really been a
primary driver in that as it relates to the fossil fuel
industry.
And so for 2025 you got utilities plan to retire 12.3
gigawatts of capacity, a 65 percent increase in retirement
compared to 2024. And of that you are going to see 4.7 percent
of the total U.S. coal fleet get retired in 2025. However, as
has been pointed out here, the energy consumption in the United
States from AI data centers alone could require as much as 14
gigawatts by 2030.
So let me ask. The regulatory environment has continued to
destroy the coal industry. FERC takes nearly 3 years to approve
for large-scale infrastructure projects. What are the ways in
which we can decrease the length of time for approval of this
process?
Anybody, I am----
Ms. Gibson. I can take that one----
Mr. Moore of WV. Yes, sure.
Ms. Gibson [continuing]. Representative.
I would say that we have little to no issues in permitting
with interstate gas infrastructure. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission approves close to almost 100 percent of
the projects that is before it. And these are large, complex
projects. And they complete an environmental impact statement
for the larger ones, as well as their jurisdictional authority
over LNG facilities. 99 percent of those get approved as well,
and they sail their way through permitting.
If we want targeted, smart permitting reform, we need to be
thinking about interstate transmission lines. We need to be
thinking about renewables.
Mr. Moore of WV. Do you know how long it took to build the
Mountain Valley Pipeline, Ms. Gibson? Do you have any idea?
Ms. Gibson. I know that the Mountain Valley Pipeline likely
never should have been built, Representative.
Mr. Moore of WV. Yes, it took 14 years, 14 years to build
it in a country where we built, like, the Empire State Building
in 1 year and 45 days. It is a real tragedy, what is happening
in this country.
And, you know, just out of curiosity here, Mr. Sweetnam,
this is your----
Mr. Sweetnam. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moore of WV. Just out of curiosity, I see--you know,
maybe you are just focused on oil and gas, but I don't see coal
mentioned in this at all. Why is that?
Mr. Sweetnam. At the Energy Policy Research Foundation we
are focusing on oil and gas permitting, and I thought that was
the primary----
Mr. Moore of WV. Yes.
Mr. Sweetnam [continuing]. Focus of this, yes.
Mr. Moore of WV. Yes. No, that makes sense. OK.
Well, in any event, yes, I just don't understand. I mean,
and we have faced it. We have, like, 1,000 years of gas in West
Virginia, and we can't build a pipeline in less than 14 years
to get it out. And I am just curious, since you are focused on
that, maybe you could touch on that a little bit.
Mr. Sweetnam. No, I think absolutely the permitting of
pipelines does take way too long. I don't agree that they get
permitted in a timely manner. And we also saw the pausing of
the LNG export facilities in the Biden administration, which
was of great concern to potential importers in Asia of U.S.
natural gas.
But specifically with respect to pipelines, the inability
to permit the interstate pipelines, the example of getting
Marcellus gas up to the northeast, would greatly lower energy
prices for consumers.
Mr. Moore of WV. All right. Thank you.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Stauber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Before I begin my second round of questioning, I would like
to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record from the USGS
figure 1, the role of non-fuel minerals commodities in the U.S.
economy estimated values of 2024, and it is this page in the
book, Mr. Chair.
With that being said, Mr. Jensen, you had talked about--you
mentioned----
Mr. Collins. Mr. Stauber, without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. Sorry about that. A little slow.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Jensen, you mentioned the all-of-the-above
energy strategy. I couldn't agree with you more. And then the
best will rise to the top, right? So wind and solar may work in
different parts of our Nation, but don't force northern
Minnesota, who is going through a snowstorm right now, to
depend on energy that is not reliable, that is intermittent,
not affordable. So I love your comments about all of the above,
and I would add the best will rise to the top.
Mr. Sweetnam, you had talked about the critical minerals
and the Chinese dominance. In the Congo 15 of the 19 industrial
mines are owned by the communist country of China. And even the
Biden administration agreed with this statement: Thirty-three
percent of the cobalt that comes into the United States is
mined by child slave labor out of those mines.
So with that being said, you had mentioned people are OK
driving their EV vehicles or their green technology as long as
it doesn't come from our country. I had heard a term last week
called we are exporting our environmental guilt. We are
exporting our environmental guilt. We are OK saying everything
is green and we want green technology, et cetera, yet we turn a
blind eye when the Biden administration agrees with a
memorandum of understanding to bring the cobalt here.
Ms. Gibson, you cannot agree with that, can you?
Ms. Gibson. Of course I condemn child labor. We condemn----
Mr. Stauber. Thank you. That----
Ms. Gibson [continuing]. Child labor, I am a mother
myself----
Mr. Stauber. I agree. I agree with you. And Ms. Gibson, in
northern Minnesota we have been mining for 145 years. The
cleanest water comes right from the ground in the heart of
mining country. Would you rather the Minnesota miners, under
the best environmental standards, the best labor standards in
the world, mined that cobalt so we can use it in our country,
rather than getting it from the communist country of China
using those poor labor conditions? Yes or no?
Ms. Gibson. Again, of course----
Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
Ms. Gibson [continuing]. We condemn child labor.
Mr. Stauber. Ms. Gibson, do you know how long, on average,
it takes to open up a mine from exploring to mineral
extraction? Do you know the average time it takes to open up a
United States mine?
Ms. Gibson. [No response.]
Mr. Stauber. I will give you a hint.
Ms. Gibson. Do you want me to answer?
Mr. Stauber. I will give you a hint. It is not 30 and it is
more than 28. Can you imagine that? The only country that takes
longer is Zambia.
Here we are, we have a strategic national security issue in
this country. And we talk about permitting. Let's get it done
for all industries, as Mr. Jensen said. When we do that, we can
hold the security of this country in the palm of our own hands.
The only State that has more mineral wealth than Minnesota
is Alaska. And the Biden administration put more sanctions on
that State of Alaska than they did Iran. Unbelievable.
So we have an opportunity not only in this Committee, the
Natural Resources Committee, to extract the minerals here under
our labor standards. We are blessed with the abundance of these
natural resources. Let's do it right and let's lead the world.
I will be damned if I will let China control the destiny of
this country. When we know better, we do better.
Mr. Sweetnam, you gave the example of China and the Japan
example. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine that?
We are at the crisis point in our Nation as far as
strategic national security not only in energy, but critical
minerals. We must secure our Nation's strategic national
security by mining them here using the American labor, American
technology. It is American communities for American economy.
This is the fight of the 21st century, in my opinion: energy
and critical mineral dominance. And there is not a country that
is set up for it in the world but the United States.
I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member
Dexter for 5 minutes.
Dr. Dexter. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and I very much
appreciate the passion of this argument and the discussion we
are having here today.
I also want to just make it very clear that Ms. Gibson is
here for a certain testimony, certainly not to condone any of
the things that was just brought up by my colleague.
I also want to just mention that, despite the ongoing
improvements in safety for miners and other occupations, and
despite Minnesota's high-quality protections, the Iron Range
mining in Minnesota has three times the rates of mesothelioma
than is expected. And as a lung doctor I have taken care of
patients with mesothelioma from time of service from mining.
Certainly, black lung and silicosis are things that we see.
These are the costs of doing mineral mining, in addition to the
asthma, fires, and smoke exposure that we put people through
with our refineries, with our oil production. We do not take
into account the human impacts of these challenges.
And so I just want to make it also clear, there were some
questions about subsidies, and the International Monetary Fund
estimates there is approximately $754 billion in direct
subsidies in the U.S. every year for oil and gas production.
I am just going to ask you, Ms. Gibson, did the Inflation
Reduction Act provide subsidies indefinitely for renewable
energy?
Ms. Gibson. No, Dr. Dexter.
Dr. Dexter. Thank you. I would agree with that. I think we
certainly have subsidized oil and gas production. In fact, we
have abandoned mines and different infrastructure across this
country.
And a stranded asset is an investment that loses value or
becomes unusable before the end of its expected useful life.
And in the energy context that could mean we build a methane
gas plant and finance it over 40 years, but we can't use it
after 10 years because it is cheaper to use renewable energy.
And that is the trajectory that we are seeing as we continue to
improve the technology for renewables. Maybe we require it to
be shut down to deal with a climate emergency. These are costs
that I believe are not being taken into account in these
amazing numbers that we are being convinced of today.
I wanted to ask Mr. Dayaratna, sorry if I did not say your
name correctly. Does the model that you reference in your
testimony account for the economic risks of stranded fossil
fuel assets as the world continues to pursue decarbonization
efforts?
Dr. Dayaratna. I am sorry. The question was about the risks
of stranded fossil fuel assets?
Dr. Dexter. Just the economic risk if we are building these
methane plants or CO2 capture plants, and then we
strand them, as we know this is happening across the country.
There is stranded infrastructure that then has to be cleaned up
by the government because the industry is not doing that. Is
that something that has happened----
Dr. Dayaratna. I see.
Dr. Dexter [continuing]. In the past?
Dr. Dayaratna. The Energy Information Administration's
National Energy Modeling System, I believe that they do not
incorporate for that. But at the same time, I think what you
are getting at, OK, well, anyway, go ahead.
Dr. Dexter. No, please. Please----
Dr. Dayaratna. No, I was just going to comment on broader
questions regarding the public health questions that I think
you might be getting at, that I think you suggested were not
incorporated in the analysis, which I am happy to address.
Dr. Dexter. So let's talk about the stranded
infrastructure.
Dr. Dayaratna. OK.
Dr. Dexter. As we are building we are talking about taking
diesel turbines off the coast of Puerto Rico and other things
that have to be created because there is a shortage. Correct?
So if we create infrastructure and it is abandoned, is that
cost accounted for?
Because we have a history of doing that throughout this
country. There is stranded oil wells across this country,
correct?
Dr. Dayaratna. So between the business-as-usual case and
the high oil and gas case and the simulations that I discussed,
as well as the carbon reduction simulations, those variables
were all considered equal between the cases. So I think it is
like comparing apples and oranges to ask a question like that,
to be honest.
Dr. Dexter. So you don't think it is relevant that we
subsidize----
Dr. Dayaratna. When you are computing the deltas----
Dr. Dexter [continuing]. The development of this
infrastructure?
Dr. Dayaratna. Excuse me?
Dr. Dexter. When we are subsidizing the development, and
with infrastructure there are tax deductions. We are
certainly----
Dr. Dayaratna. Oh, I see your question. My personal opinion
is that there shouldn't be subsidies, period, whatsoever in the
marketplace, if that is what you are asking.
Dr. Dexter. I appreciate that perspective.
And with that I am over time, so I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5
minutes.
Mr. Sweetnam and Mr. Jensen, I just want to make a comment
on both of you when you are talking about speeding up permits.
And one of the reasons I came to Congress is the fact that you
have got excess litigation going on out there that is actually
harming and making permitting extremely long. And until we get
control of these nuclear verdicts, these environmentalists that
are out there that have no skin in the game, that are just
suing to sue to hold up projects, until we get them and make
them accountable and make them pay for that, then you are going
to see continued permits to drag on and on for years. We need
tort reform in this country. We need it on a Federal level to
make these people accountable.
And as a matter of fact, you know, if they want to go
somewhere to have their trade, go to China. That would be a
good place for them to start, because we are the cleanest right
here in the United States of America.
With that I want to go with climate change a little bit.
Ms. Gibson, you mentioned moving away from conventional forms
of energy in order to curb climate change. Can you cite the
actual impact on global temperature as a result of moving
toward an American energy portfolio heavily?
And if not exclusively, then dependent on renewables, you
know, as you were talking about in your testimony.
Ms. Gibson. Well, I will just respond to some things that
Dr. Dayaratna said earlier.
Mr. Collins. Well, I would appreciate it if you would
answer my, I have got a number of questions, but can you cite
the actual impact on global temperature as a result of moving
toward your renewables?
Ms. Gibson. Well, I would say even the number that was
given by the doctor earlier, even with very generous
assumptions for the fossil fuel industry is bad news all around
and doesn't take into account our collective responsibility----
Mr. Collins. But can you cite the actual impact of moving
towards your renewable? That is what I am asking. I am not
asking for you to respond to anything that Dr. Dayaratna said.
It is just a simple question that you have in your testimony.
You said we were----
Ms. Gibson. Of increased----
Mr. Collins. You said it was going to change. I am just
asking you how much. What is the actual impact on the global
temperatures?
Ms. Gibson. The actual impact on global temperatures?
Mr. Collins. Yes, what is it going to be?
Ms. Gibson. I think it is very well established at this
point that increased harmful weather events that will impact
not only our energy infrastructure----
Mr. Collins. All right.
Ms. Gibson [continuing]. But our communities----
Mr. Collins. It was a number question, but that is OK.
Dr. Dayaratna, as we just heard, some claim that increasing
drilling here in the States is going to exacerbate climate
change. That is essentially what Ms. Gibson in her testimony
was talking about. Does your modeling at Heritage offer any
estimates of this?
And what about the policies that are seeking to reduce the
carbon emissions?
And you got any response to the no response?
Dr. Dayaratna. Yes, sir. So again, we used the model for
the assessment of greenhouse gas-induced climate change, which
is not our model, it is a model by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. And taking into account the increased
emissions from the high oil and gas case, which--again, they
are not our assumptions, these are the Energy Information
Administration's assumptions about a high oil and gas scenario.
Using overly-sensitive assumptions about the climate, there
would be no more than a 0.03 degrees Celsius temperature
increase by the end of the century.
Now, if you go in the other direction, which I think was
the second part of your question about reducing emissions
through carbon-based regulation, if the United States were to
completely abate fossil fuels starting today, there would be
less than 0.23 degrees Celsius temperature mitigation by the
end of the century, again assuming an overly-sensitive climate.
You could play with our model online. It is the Heritage
Foundation Climate Calculator, where you have all these
assumptions and you could play with them. And these are
considered the most extreme assumptions about the climate.
Mr. Collins. Good. Thank you. Thank you. That is all the
questions that I have, so I am going to yield back.
I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony
and the members for their questions.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions to the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing. Under Committee rule 3, members of the
Committee must submit questions to the Subcommittee clerk by 5
p.m. on Monday, April the 7th. The hearing record will be held
open for 10 business days for these responses.
If there is no further business----
Dr. Dexter. Wait, Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask for some
records to be submitted into the----.
So I would just like to introduce for the record a paper
that, thank you, Mr. Chair, paper that estimates the value of
stranded assets in oil and gas infrastructure in the U.S. under
a scenario in which climate change mitigation limits warming to
0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100--or 2 degrees Celsius. Not the
change, sorry. This estimate puts the value at around $300
billion.
And we have two other documents I would like to submit for
the record. So thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Collins. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Collins. So if there is no further business, without
objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gosar
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD001.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD007.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD008.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD009.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD010.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD011.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD012.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD013.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD014.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD015.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD016.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD017.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD018.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD020.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD021.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD099.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD022-U2.pdf
------
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Dexter
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD002.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD003.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD004.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD005.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250402/118088/HHRG-
119-II15-20250402-SD006.pdf
[all]