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

                KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON: EXAMINING THE STATE
                       OF REGIONAL GRID RELIABILITY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 25, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-12

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

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

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    60-019 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

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

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

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

                               Professional Staff

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

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

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Florida, opening statement.....................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
    Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    13
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    17

                                   Witnesses

    Manu Asthana, President and Chief Executive Officer, PJM
      Interconnection................................................    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   201
    Gordon van Welie, President and Chief Executive Officer, ISO New
      England........................................................    33
        Prepared statement...........................................    35
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   206
    Jennifer Curran, Senior Vice President, Planning and Operations,
      Midcontinent Independent System Operator.......................    46
        Prepared statement...........................................    48
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   213
    Richard Dewey, President and Chief Executive Officer, New York
      Independent System Operator....................................    58
        Prepared statement...........................................    60
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   226
    Lanny Nickell, Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer,
      Southwest Power Pool...........................................    66
        Prepared statement...........................................    68
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   234
    Elliot Mainzer, President and Chief Executive Officer, California
      Independent System Operator Corporation........................    76
        Prepared statement...........................................    78
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   254
    Pablo Vegas, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electric
      Reliability Council of Texas...................................    87
        Prepared statement...........................................    89
        Additional material submitted for the record.................    95
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   263

                               Submitted Material

    Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
    List of documents submitted for the record.......................   157
    Letter from Matthew J. Agen, Chief Regulatory Counsel, Energy,
      American Gas Association, to Mr. Latta and Mr. Pallone.........   158
    Letter from Danielle Russo, Executive Director, Center for Grid
      Security, SAFE, to Mr. Latta...................................   160
    Report of the North American Electric Reliability Cooperation,
      ``2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment,'' December 2024.......   164
    Report of the North American Electric Reliability Cooperation,
      ``Reliability Insights: The Interconnected Gas and Electric
      Systems,'' March 2025..........................................   174
    Fact sheet from the North American Electric Reliability
      Cooperation, ``2024 Long Term Reliability Assessment''.........   176
    Letter of March 25, 2025, from the American Public Power
      Association to Mr. Guthrie, et al..............................   177
    Article of March 25, 2025, ``Trump Says Coal Should Make a
      Comeback. At what price?,'' by Peter Behr, Politico Pro........   180
    Article of December 8, 2022, ``The Business Case for New Gas is
      Shrinking,'' by Lauren Shwisberg, RMI..........................   188
    Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025, ``Temporary
      Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from
      Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government's
      Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects''...........   196

    KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON: EXAMINING THE STATE OF REGIONAL GRID RELIABILITY

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                                Subcommittee on Energy,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:14 a.m., in
    the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
    Hon. Robert E. Latta (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Latta, Weber, Palmer,
    Allen, Balderson, Pfluger, Harshbarger, Miller-Meeks, James,
    Bentz, Fry, Lee, Langworthy, Rulli, Evans, Goldman, Fedorchak,
    Guthrie (ex officio), Castor (subcommittee ranking member),
    Peters, Menendez, McClellan, DeGette, Matsui, Tonko, Veasey,
    Schrier, Fletcher, Auchincloss, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Also present: Representatives Carter of Georgia and Joyce.
        Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations;
    Jessica Donlon, General Counsel; Andrew Furman, Professional
    Staff Member; Sydney Greene, Director of Finance and Logistics;
    Emily Hale, Staff Assistant; Megan Jackson, Staff Director;
    Mary Martin, Chief Counsel; Joel Miller, Chief Counsel; Ben
    Mullaney, Press Secretary; Jake Riith, Staff Assistant; Jackson
    Rudden, Staff Assistant; Chris Sarley, Member Services/
    Stakeholder Director; Emma Schultheis, Clerk; Peter Spencer,
    Senior Professional Staff Member; Kaley Stidham, Press
    Assistant; Matt VanHyfte, Communications Director; Rasheedah
    Blackwood, Minority Intern; Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy
    Staff Director and General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority
    Staff Director; Perry Hamilton, Minority Member Services and
    Outreach Manager; Kristopher Pittard, Minority Professional
    Staff Member; Emma Roehrig, Minority Staff Assistant; Kylea
    Rogers, Minority Policy Analyst.
        Mr. Latta. Well, good morning. The Subcommittee on Energy
    will now come to order.
        And the Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

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

        Welcome to today's hearing, ``Keeping the Lights On:
    Examining the State of Regional Grid Reliability.'' Today, we
    will continue the subcommittee's work to address the ongoing
    electric reliability crisis facing our Nation.
        The witnesses before us are each of the regional grid
    operators and ERCOT, who collectively cover two-thirds of the
    country. These organizations are charged with overseeing
    reliability to their State or region, administering markets for
    the sale and purchase of electricity products, and coordinating
    transmission development.
        While each grid operator functions in a similar manner,
    they all take unique approaches to addressing the regional and
    demographic differences of communities and their footprints.
    But no matter where in the country they serve, they are
    confronting the challenges facing our power sector.
        It is no secret that our country is in the midst of a
    reliability crisis, and it could not come at a worse time. The
    North American Electric Reliability Corporation, NERC, recently
    stated that 52 gigawatts of generation will retire in the next
    4 years. To put this into context, that is the rough equivalent
    of 40 nuclear plants or 500 square miles of solar panels.
        While dangerous amounts of baseload generation are leaving
    the grid, we are facing historic levels of demand entering the
    system and interconnection queues that are backlogged with
    intermittent resources and battery storage facilities. We know
    that renewables are not a one-on-one replacement for
    dispatchable baseload power that is essential to reliability
    and provides spinning reserves needed to stabilize the system
    through fluctuations.
        It is not clear that the pace at which baseload generation
    is coming online will bridge the gap of retiring supply and
    meet increasing demands over the next few short years.
        As we are well aware, these new demands are largely driven
    by developments in artificial intelligence and domestic
    manufacturing. Achieving a leadership position in the
    development of AI and reshoring domestic manufacturing is not a
    pipe dream to strive for, it is a national security imperative
    that could shape America's future in the global economy.
        Regional grid operators before us today are on the front
    lines of the reliability crisis, and this is a new era of
    historic electricity demand.
        When operating correctly, electricity markets should allow
    clear market signals to drive investment into new generation,
    efficient interconnection of new resources should address
    increasing demand, and coordinated transmission planning should
    bring needed electricity supplies to growing load centers.
        However, these organizations and electricity markets do not
    operate in a vacuum. Excessive Federal overreach, like the
    Clean Power Plan 2.0, drove significant premature retirements
    of baseload power and discouraged long-term investment into
    baseload generation sources. Significant subsidies for
    intermittent generation undermine the economies of baseload or
    on-demand dispatchable generation resources that are essential
    to keeping the lights on.
        These grid operators are also tasked with the difficult job
    of maintaining reliability and resource adequacy as States
    implement restrictive policies designed to attack fossil
    resources. Because the interconnected nature of much of our
    bulk power system, the decisions of one State to drive out
    baseload power inherently impact the reliability of our
    neighboring States.
        All these problems are compounded by systematic permitting
    challenges that make it nearly impossible to develop new
    infrastructure in large parts of our country. Markets cannot
    build where governments do not let them do. We need to address
    these challenges through a pragmatic whole-of-government
    approach that recognizes the benefits of different source--of
    fuel sources, the limitation of others, and prioritizes energy
    expansion.
        There is a value to ensuring a diverse resource mix, but it
    is important to recognize that not all electrons should be
    treated equally. The variability of intermittent resources like
    wind and solar innately require backup generation during
    inclement weather conditions and where battery storage
    facilities are operationally restricted. Often it is during
    these periods of inclement weather when we need electricity the
    most to protect the health and safety of our communities.
        I look forward to today's discussion regarding the ongoing
    reliability crisis and the important steps regional grid
    operators are taking to correct market inefficiencies to keep
    the lights on for all Americans.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. And with that, I yield back the balance of my
    time and at this time recognize the gentlelady from Florida,
    the ranking member of the subcommittee, 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

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

        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Latta. And welcome to
    our witnesses today. And I want to thank you and everyone
    working to keep America's power system as modern and as
    efficient, affordable, and reliable as it can be, from the
    linemen who were restoring power after the devastating
    hurricane season in my neck of the woods to folks dealing with
    wildfires, extreme events, and just now the new calls for huge
    new sources of energy and capacity across the country.
        A resilient and reliable electric grid that utilizes the
    cleanest resources possible is vital to all Americans. And
    decade after decade, we have modernized energy sources in the
    grid, and we must continue to do so.
        And while I am pleased that we are focused on strengthening
    the grid, the hearing ignores the damage being done by the
    Trump administration and Elon Musk to reliable, affordable
    energy, including the investments under the infrastructure law
    and the Clean Energy Climate Resilience Law, the IRA.
        Since I started thinking about this hearing, I have had the
    lyrics from ``Wicked,'' that great dance number, stuck in my
    head, ``Dancing Through Life'': ``We are dancing through life,
    no need to tough it when you can slough it off as you do."
        For example, the early Trump shutdown of grants and loans
    halted electricity and grid projects, causing chaos and
    additional costs for co-ops and power producers and,
    ultimately, consumers. Then you have the illegal layoffs of
    energy experts in various agencies, the illegal firings of the
    Department of Energy Inspector General, and the disruption of
    electricity trade between Canada and the U.S. It is all leading
    to higher cost for American consumers.
        For instance, the U.S. imposed a 10 percent tariff on
    Canadian electricity imports. And Ontario retaliated with a 25
    percent surcharge in electricity exports to Michigan, New York,
    and Minnesota. And although Ontario suspended the surcharge,
    the tariffs have strained the integrated power grid shared by
    the two countries. This interconnected system has historically
    provided reliability and cost benefits, but tariffs now are
    threatening its efficiency.
        So I urge colleagues to stand up to this chaos that is
    fueling higher costs and uncertainties. It has weakened our
    ability to strengthen the grid.
        And as Republicans hammer out their tax giveaways to
    billionaires, that should not come at the expense of grid
    infrastructure investments and clean energy tax credits for
    solar, wind, nuclear, and pollution reduction.
        One analysis predicts that repealing the clean energy tax
    credits would increase annual energy costs for each U.S.
    household. It would cost us about 800,000 jobs and decrease our
    GDP.
        Solar wind and battery storage are the cheapest and
    cleanest ways to add energy supply to the grid now. They are
    driving down energy costs now. RTOs, ISOs, and FERC are making
    progress on interconnection queues, and Congress should help
    them. Because we understand there are over 2,000 gigawatts of
    energy and storage waiting in line. That is equivalent to about
    one billion homes at peak demand.
        Also, there are many commonsense, practical policy
    solutions to help our grid connect more resources and
    strengthen the grid. My bicameral Advancing GETs Act is a great
    example. The bill would encourage FERC to implement shared
    savings, incentives that promote the deployment of grid-
    enhancing technologies--that is the cheapest way to supercharge
    our power grid--and would allow utilities to earn a profit for
    saving money and save consumers billions on their electricity
    bills every year.
        Similarly, the Expediting Generator Interconnection
    Procedures Act would make commonsense reforms to the outdated,
    sluggish process that we use to bring energy of all kinds onto
    the grid. We could promote the use of automation and
    standardization studies, ensuring that grid upgrade costs are
    fairly allocated to customers who benefit from the
    interconnection of new resources.
        The energy affordability crisis we are grappling with today
    requires real forward-looking policy solutions. It requires a
    politically independent and well-staffed FERC, and it requires
    a consistent commitment to energy policy, one that keeps
    Americans safe, helps us compete with our foreign adversaries,
    and continues to deliver investments in jobs across America.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky,
    the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for 5
    minutes for his opening statement.

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

        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Chairman Latta, and thank you for
    the recognition. Thank you for all of our witnesses being here.
    There's a lot of sayings that--I don't see my friend from
    Michigan in here on our committee this morning, but her
    husband, a lot of sayings are attributed to Chairman Dingell
    over looking at the globe and say, ``That is the jurisdiction
    of Energy and Commerce.'' Another one is, he always said, if
    it--for our jurisdiction--``If it moves, it is energy. If it is
    not moving, it is commerce.'' So that is our jurisdiction.
        So I use the Dingell corollary. It takes energy to move
    commerce, and for us to be successful to turn--somebody said
    the other day that AI turns energy into intelligence. And so it
    is vitally important that we as a country get together and
    figure out how we are going to beat China, and it is by having
    affordable, reliable delivery of electric power.
        And the complicated question of how to deliver that power
    effectively is compounded by the tremendous increase in demand
    projected over coming years for specific purposes like AI, and
    broader increases in consumer demand. I know we have met slower
    energy growth over the last generation and also more
    efficiency, which is absolutely part of it is to be more
    efficient, but now we are seeing a rising in demand. And so we
    have to ensure affordable, reliable delivery of power to meet
    our needs, and the tremendous amount of energy it is going to
    require for the utility grid.
        So here in Congress we must identify and understand the
    forces impacting the ability of engineers to plan and operate
    this system for better or for worse. And we must address the
    commonsense policy reforms that will allow utilities and
    operators to do their work cost-effectively.
        Over the past decade, certain Federal and State policies
    have made it more difficult for operators to keep the lights
    on. The threats of the Biden administration's electricity
    policy was to shut down baseload coal and limit natural gas
    generation with onerous new rules and regulations. During this
    time, many States also established policies to transition away
    from fossil generation that is essential for maintaining grid
    reliability. Momentum behind this so-called transition
    continues just as a generational increase in power demand is
    emerging.
        Consider how new demand growth is clashing with the
    residual Biden-Harris policies today. In December, the North
    American Electric Reliability Corporation, NERC, projected peak
    power demand to grow by 151 gigawatts--151 gigawatts over the
    next 10 years. Over the same period, NERC reports expected
    retirements of dispatchable generation which is needed for
    reliability to be as much as 115 gigawatts. This gap between
    retirements and growth in demand alone accounts over 240
    gigawatts or an equivalent amount of power needed to support
    195 million homes over an entire year.
        Ensuring the availability of reliable power will require
    stopping and reversing retirements of dispatchable resources
    and building out new natural gas generation and eventually
    nuclear and other reliable sources. Yet the vast amount of the
    new generation that is aligned today to connect the grid is
    intermittent wind and solar, which cannot be relied upon when
    you need it the most.
        As a result, half of the Nation is at risk of power
    shortfalls over the next 10 years--think about it, half the
    Nation. For all the benefits of all-the-above resource
    policies, the current path that incentivizes a massive
    renewable build is putting the electric system out of balance
    and dramatically increasing risk.
        Today we will talk to the grid operators that are caught at
    the center of the clash between failing policies and strong
    economic demand affecting our Nation's generation mix. They
    must deal with the consequences, so understanding the
    challenges you face and how you plan to meet the growing demand
    is essential for our work.
        Last week the Secretary of Energy noted that the
    existential security implications of our race with China on AI
    and other advanced technologies, a focus on meeting the China
    challenges and with the DeepSeek, that should wake us up that
    we are challenging China. We can't always expect to be on top
    if we don't focus on being on top. So that raise--should raise
    serious questions about what is necessary to clear the way in
    permitting and regulatory policy, which will enable tremendous
    energy and power growth in the coming years.
        Recognize we have to be--we have to be focused on making
    sure we do everything in the right way and in a sustainable way
    as much as we can possible. But we have to fully appreciate the
    scale of the pace of change coming because of the AI, the data
    centers, and the demand. As well with Microsoft. Microsoft
    data--not all, but some Microsoft data centers can use as much
    power as the city of Seattle. That puts it into perspective.
        I look forward to this discussion. I will yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the
    ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

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

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Latta.
        For the third time this Congress, we have had an important
    hearing focusing on the reliability and affordability of
    electricity in this country. And for the third time, my
    Republican colleagues are going to purposely ignore the fact
    they are attempting to repeal the single biggest incentive to
    build electricity capacity in this country, and that is the
    Inflation Reduction Act. Repealing billions of dollars in
    technology-neutral funding for all types of new energy is not
    the way to address the increasing need for energy.
        It also ignores the fact that the Trump administration is
    freezing Federal funding and trying to rescind grants for grid
    reliability projects that the grid operators sitting before us
    today have said are vital to addressing increasing energy
    demand. It also ignores the fact that President Trump is
    attempting to put tariffs on electricity imports from Canada,
    which could seriously drive up energy costs for people in the
    Midwest and the Northeast.
        It is time that we recognize that the chaotic and
    constantly changing policies of Trump and Elon Musk are the
    single greatest threat right now to grid reliability.
        Just last week, yet another study came out, this time from
    Energy Innovation, showing that repealing the Inflation
    Reduction Act would increase American families' power bills.
    Republicans are talking about the importance of affordability,
    but their actions don't match their words.
        Despite continued Republican attacks on our grid's
    reliability and affordability, today's hearing is still
    important. Regional grid operators play a critical role in
    keeping the lights on for our customers. And 27 years ago, FERC
    Order 888 brought competition to electricity markets around the
    country. Since that time, the competition encouraged by these
    markets has broadly lowered wholesale energy prices and made
    the grid cleaner, all while ensuring reliability.
        But that is not guaranteed. And I am worried that some of
    the rules of the road that govern regional transmission
    organization could start to harm consumers.
        Last year, partially as a result of poor market design,
    capacity prices in the PJM region exploded from $29 to $270 per
    megawatt day. And these price increases aren't abstract. They
    are directly responsible for roughly $25 per month increase in
    New Jersey power bills that my constituents will start feeling
    this June.
        So, Mr. Asthana, I want to be clear: This is completely
    unacceptable. PJM's years of dragging its feet on reforming its
    capacity markets and interconnection queue are finally coming
    home to roost, but it is my constituents who are stuck paying
    the bill. PJM has demonstrated a complete inability to connect
    resources to the grid in a timely fashion. And I recognize that
    PJM has taken a number of steps in the last few years to
    rectify this, but frankly it is too little, too late.
        The years of inaction have already taken their toll. A
    recent report found that, if PJM had implemented proactive
    transmission planning and simplified interconnection processes
    years ago, it could have avoided half of these costs. And I am
    frustrated that PJM is touting its progress in connecting more
    energy with its grid when it still has not fully complied with
    FERC's requirements under Order 2023. Meanwhile, PJM is
    spending my constituents' rate paper dollars--ratepayer
    dollars, I should say--suing for over--Order 2023, creating
    further uncertainty for potential developers of power plants.
        And, Mr. Asthana--I hope I am pronouncing it right--your
    organization simply must get its act together. I appreciate
    that PJM has introduced some short-term tweaks to its market
    and is working together with States, including New Jersey, to
    find a pathway to protect ratepayers, but this all should have
    been figured out years ago.
        And as we continue this discussion today, it is important
    we recognize that, in this time of increased demand for
    electricity, families are increasingly at risk of their power
    bills becoming unaffordable. Grid operators and, frankly, FERC
    must remember that they have a legal obligation to ensure that
    their policies are just and reasonable, and anything else does
    a disservice to the American people who depend on you.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
    the balance of his time. And this now concludes Member opening
    statements.
        The Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to committee
    rules, all Members' opening statements will be made part of the
    record.
        We want to thank all of our witnesses for being with us
    today and taking time to testify before the subcommittee. Each
    witness will have the opportunity to give an opening statement
    followed by a round of questions from the Members.
        Our witnesses today are Manu Asthana, the president and CEO
    of PJM Interconnection, LLC; Mr. Gordon van Welie, president
    and CEO of Independent Service Operator of New England; Ms.
    Jennifer Curran, the senior vice president for planning and
    operations at Midcontinent Independent Service Operator; Mr.
    Richard Dewey, president and CEO of New York Independent System
    Operator; Mr. Lanny Nickell, the chief operating officer of
    Southwest Power Pool; Mr. Elliot Mainzer, the president and CEO
    of California Independent System Operator; and Mr. Pablo Vegas,
    the president and CEO of the Electric Reliability Council of
    Texas, ERCOT.
        Again, we appreciate all of our witnesses for being with us
    today. And before we get started, just a quick reminder about
    our light system in front of you. You will have 5 minutes to
    give an opening statement. At 4 minutes, you will get a yellow
    light, meaning you have 1 minute remaining. Red light signifies
    your time is up. So if you please wrap up when you see the red
    light come on.
        Also, just pull the mike up close to you as you are
    speaking.
        And at this time, we will begin with our witnesses that are
    before us today. Mr. Asthana, you have 5 minutes to give an
    opening statement. Thanks again for being with us today.

       STATEMENTS OF MANU ASTHANA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
     OFFICER, PJM INTERCONNECTION; GORDON VAN WELIE, PRESIDENT AND
      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ISO NEW ENGLAND; JENNIFER CURRAN,
     SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PLANNING AND OPERATIONS, MIDCONTINENT
    INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR; RICHARD DEWEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
    EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR; LANNY
      NICKELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
       SOUTHWEST POWER POOL; ELLIOT MAINZER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
       EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR
      CORPORATION; AND PABLO VEGAS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
             OFFICER, ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF TEXAS

                       STATEMENT OF MANU ASTHANA

        Mr. Asthana. Yes. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor,
    Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the
    subcommittee, good morning. My name is Manu Asthana. I am the
    CEO of PJM Interconnection. PJM works to ensure the reliable
    flow of power to 67 million people across 13 States and DC. We
    serve about one in five Americans.
        We are fully regulated by the FERC. As you know, FERC plays
    a critical leadership role in our industry. And the value of
    having a fully staffed, well-functioning Federal regulator,
    particularly at this time, cannot be understated.
        We don't have a profit motive. Our core mission is grid
    reliability. Our work, along with that of our member companies,
    has ensured a strong and stable grid for almost a century since
    our founding in 1927.
        More recently, however, we have seen three notable trends I
    wanted to share with you that concern us. First, dispatchable
    thermal generation is retiring, often driven by Federal or
    State policy.
        Second, most of our interconnection queue is made up of
    intermittent renewable generation. And I want to be clear:
    These generators play an important role on the grid, and we
    want them--we want them to come online, but they are not a one-
    for-one substitute for the machines that they are replacing.
        And finally, third, electrical demand is growing, driven
    primarily by data center load growth. Less supply, more demand:
    It adds up to increased reliability risk and higher prices. And
    we are seeing this across large parts of our country. This is
    not just a PJM phenomenon.
        Our industry has been working hard on solutions.
    Specifically, in PJM, amongst other things, we have reformed
    our generator interconnection process. We had a queue of about
    200,000 megawatts of generation. We have whittled that down to
    67,000 megawatts, an incredible amount of progress, with
    another 50,000 megawatts through the queue ready to go. And,
    actually, parts of it have started to construct, and some has
    already come online. We have opened new pathways for generators
    to connect to the grid, and we have implemented reforms to our
    market rules.
        And the good news is these initiatives are having an
    impact. I am happy to report several generators have withdrawn
    their retirement decisions. We have a shuttered nuclear power
    plant that has announced its return and is working hard to come
    back.
        Pennsylvania's former largest coal plant is being studied
    to come back to life as a gas generator. Demand response
    providers are looking for ways to bring more supply onto the
    system, and developers are working hard to bring their projects
    to market. In fact, just last week, one of the new pathways to
    interconnection that I talked about resulted in 27,000--almost
    27,000 megawatts of new generation applying to interconnect to
    PJM, which is very exciting.
        But our work is not done. It still takes roughly 18 months
    to build a data center. Takes 5 years-plus to build a power
    plant. And global supply chains for grid components like
    transformers and turbines are backlogged.
        The stakes are high, and we remain committed to the task at
    hand. In our opinion, we have six key areas of focus for the
    industry looking forward, and I wanted to share them with you.
        First, we must keep the supply that we have today. More
    retirements are going to make it much harder for us to serve
    this load growth. Second, we must try to bring back what we can
    from retirement, whether in its current form or repowered form
    with a different fuel, or using those sites for different
    generators. Third, we need to connect new generators rapidly,
    and that includes upgrades of existing generators. Fourth, we
    need to harness demand flexibility, which I think is a real
    hidden opportunity. Fifth, we do need siting and permitting
    reforms for generation and transmission, and we could use help
    with that. And, finally, more investment in natural gas
    infrastructure is needed to support power generation
    flexibility.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Asthana follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your opening
    statement.
        Mr. van Welie, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for
    your opening statement.

                     STATEMENT OF GORDON VAN WELIE

        Mr. van Welie. Good morning, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member
    Castor, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, and members
    of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
    here today.
        Like other regions, New England's electric system is
    undergoing an energy transition. Historically, power system
    planning has focused on having enough resources. We refer to
    this as resource adequacy. However, as we transition to more
    weather-dependent resources, one of the biggest challenges
    facing New England is making sure that there is sufficient
    energy in the system to meet expected electricity growth.
        The wholesale markets run by ISO New England effectively
    price supply-and-demand conditions, providing important signals
    to developers when investment is needed. However, the wholesale
    markets alone cannot assure resource adequacy. State and
    Federal policies also play a key role in achieving regional
    resource adequacy.
        While the wholesale markets operate on shorter timeframes,
    the States have the ability to structure longer-term
    commitments, through various hedging strategies, to incentivize
    to develop the sufficient resources to meet the resource
    adequacy standard that is priced in our capacity market.
    Moreover, the States have the ability to address barriers to
    entry for resources participating in wholesale electricity
    markets. These longer-term commitments can also protect
    consumers against price volatility in both the energy and the
    capacity markets.
        In short, the ISO and the New England States have a joint
    and complementary role in achieving resource adequacy.
    Furthermore, investor confidence in the wholesale markets is
    dependent on a supportive policy and regulatory framework at
    both the State and the Federal level.
        As a region, New England has made progress in evolving the
    market design to align with the resources that are coming
    forward. We are implementing new approaches to plan the
    transmission system to meet the States' policy objectives, and
    we have new tools to help us better quantify our reliability
    risks in a rapidly changing power system across the region.
        Incentivized by State policies, the region has invested
    heavily in energy efficiency and behind-the-meter solar
    resources, which have effectively reduced demand for
    electricity from the grid operated by us in New England. These
    investments, coupled with relatively little interest from data
    centers and other AI-driven activities, has meant that New
    England has thus far not seen the rapid growth in consumer
    demand forecasted in other regions.
        The reliability and market outlook for the near term is
    favorable, though potential challenges lie ahead. Our latest
    10-year forecast projects regional electricity consumption will
    increase by about 17 percent over the next decade. It remains
    to be seen whether that load growth will outpace the net effect
    of generator retirements and new supply coming online.
        It is difficult to build new grid-scale energy
    infrastructure in New England. And recent developments give us
    cause for concern about the region staying on pace with
    maintaining resource and energy adequacy as load grows. This
    may have implications towards the end of this decade.
        Due to recent Federal executive actions, New England is
    facing new uncertainty about the timing of offshore wind
    development, which has been planned as a major new domestic
    source of energy for our region.
        As of January, battery storage and wind resources make up
    the largest proposals in our interconnection queue at 47
    percent and 45 percent, respectively. There are currently no
    other categories of resources proposed at that scale. And this
    could have implications in both the near and the short term.
        The current deliberations about new tariffs on imports have
    the potential to affect not only the price of electricity in
    New England but also the availability of power to New England
    from our longstanding electricity trading partners in eastern
    Canada. This could also have implications in both the near and
    the long term.
        As demand grows for electricity in New England, the region
    will need new resources to meet resource adequacy needs, and it
    will be critical to ensure that we have a supportive policy and
    regulatory framework in place to allow for the entry of those
    resources.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. van Welie follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                      STATEMENT OF JENNIFER CURRAN

        Ms. Curran. Thank you.
        Good morning, Chair Latta, Ranking Member Castor, Chairman
    Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the
    subcommittee. I am Jennifer Curran, vice president of
    operations and planning for the Midcontinent Independent System
    Operator, or MISO, as we are more commonly known. It is a
    pleasure to be here today as you consider the state of regional
    grid reliability and its impact on our Nation. I hope MISO's
    experiences and insights will be helpful as you continue your
    work on this.
        MISO serves over 45 million customers in a territory that
    spans all or part of 15 States. We created in 2024 alone $5
    billion in value for the region. That in turn has an impact on
    cost for consumers in the region.
        Unlike some other RTOs, in MISO our utilities and load-
    serving entities are the ones with the responsibility for
    resource adequacy. We work closely with them to ensure that
    there is an accurate picture of the evolving and current
    resource risks that exist, so that as they make their
    investment decisions they can be better informed.
        We are fuel-source and policy neutral in MISO. That means
    we do not advocate, prefer, or favor any kind of fuel type or
    electric policy. Instead, we work to implement State and
    Federal policies and the goals and objectives of our members.
    That doesn't mean, of course, that we are disinterested
    observers. Reliability of the bulk electric system is our
    mission, and that is the topic today.
        And as we consider the energy landscape, I think we have
    already talked about a number of the factors, and MISO is no
    different. We see rapid retirement of existing resources,
    significant growth of noncarbon-emitting resources, many of
    which do not have the same attributes in terms of duration of
    operation as those retiring resources, and, of course, load
    growth driven not just by data centers but also the reshoring
    of manufacturing into the U.S.
        We have been following and working to get ahead of these
    issues for a number of years through an initiative we call the
    Reliability Imperative. Over the last several years, we have
    made a number of changes, including instituting changes to how
    we accredit generation resources. That is how we determine how
    they will perform during those most high-risk hours and gives
    us all a more accurate picture of the resource adequacy
    picture.
        We are updating our markets, things like market pricing
    signals to ensure that we are sending the right signal to
    incent generation output during the times of the tightest
    operating conditions.
        Over the past few years, we have approved over $30 billion
    of new regional transmission lines that will substantially
    improve electric transfer capability across the region and
    ensure electric reliability and the associated economic growth.
        We, like others, have instituted a number of improvements
    to the generator interconnection queue process to hasten the
    approval of generation. And we are currently seeking approval
    at FERC for something we call the Expedited Resource Addition
    Study. That study is a temporary framework to provide an
    ability to expedite certain new-generation projects that are
    desperately needed to meet resource adequacy and reliability
    risks.
        But much more work remains to be done. One of the easiest
    approaches is to slow down the retirement of the existing
    resources. We need to keep as many of the resources as we have
    online until adequate replacements are in place to ensure that
    we are able to continue to provide customers 24 hours a day, 7
    days a week, 365 days a year.
        But that doesn't mean we can slow down investment in new
    infrastructure. We need to continue at a very rapid pace the
    development of new-generation resources of all types to serve
    that growing electricity need, and we need to ensure that we
    are investing in the transmission assets that are needed to
    deliver that energy to where it is needed.
        Finally, we need to continue to work on process reforms to
    ensure that our markets and planning processes enable the
    changes to meet the changes we need in the future. Things like
    the Expedited Resource Adequacy Study that I mentioned, things
    like ensuring that we have the right accreditation for demand
    side and other resources, the addition of market products and
    the like are all going to be important to our future.
        MISO's extensive analytical work and operational experience
    make it clear that no single electric-generating resource type,
    transmission line, new technology, or process change is going
    to solve all of our problems on its own. It is a multifaceted
    problem that is going to take a coordinated approach that
    leverages all of these tools.
        I appreciate your attention to these vital issues, and I
    look forward to working with Congress and Federal and State
    regulators to ensure a reliable electric system.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Curran follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                       STATEMENT OF RICHARD DEWEY

        Mr. Dewey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        On behalf of the NYISO, I would like to thank Chairman
    Latta, Vice Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Castor, and Ranking
    Member Pallone, subcommittee members, staff, and all for the
    invitation to discuss the state of grid reliability with you
    today.
        My name is Rich Dewey. I am the president and CEO and a 25-
    year veteran of the New York ISO. My full statement has been
    filed with your offices, but I want to share a couple of key
    points with you at the start here.
        For the past 25 years, New York ISO has operated the New
    York State power system to the strongest reliability criteria
    in the Nation. In addition to standards enforced by the North
    American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC, we comply
    with standards by the NPCC, or the Northeast Power Coordinating
    Council, as well as the New York State Reliability Council,
    which is specific to New York.
        We are champions of the essential role that the power grid
    plays in preserving the health and safety of New Yorkers,
    empowering our modern economy. It is our number-one priority.
    In addition or in filling this role, we perform essential
    planning studies that are continuously monitored to ensure
    reliability. And we administer wholesale electricity markets
    that allow for the most efficient scheduling and solutions to
    meet the reliability needs for consumers, which is a critical
    piece.
        In New York State today--primarily driven by public policy,
    and like many other parts of the country--the power system is
    rapidly transitioning to a cleaner supply resources. This
    transition presents significant challenges because firm
    dispatchable generation, primarily powered by fossil fuels, is
    being replaced by intermittent wind and solar and storage
    resources that are dependent on the weather.
        At the same time, demand is growing significantly due to
    the electrification of the economy and welcome economic
    development and manufacturing. More than twice as much legacy
    generation has been retired in recent years as the entry of
    this new supply.
        In my filed comments and these remarks, I am going to
    highlight how our planning processes and how our markets
    position us to tackle these challenges.
        From a planning perspective, we have a comprehensive
    reliability planning process that examines the future in three
    ways: We do a 20-year scenario-based analysis to show options
    of how the power system could transform over the next 20 years;
    we have detailed reliability studies that look for potential
    reliability violations over a 10-year horizon; and on a
    quarterly basis we do short-term assessments to allow us to
    rapidly react to changing conditions.
        In short, we are continuously studying the reliability of
    the grid and are prepared to take actions when it is necessary.
        Our most recent reliability study which looks at the 10-
    year horizon identifies reliability violations as early as
    2033. Acceleration of load growth or unplanned generator
    retirements could accelerate these deficiencies. Our report
    also highlighted the increased reliance on electricity in
    winter, the heightened severity of winter reliability events,
    the uncertainty of fuel supply, as well as the reliance on a
    rapidly aging generation fleet.
        In order to satisfy load growth projections necessary to
    meet these economic factors, more generation and transmission
    assets are needed.
        From a markets perspective, our wholesale electricity
    markets play a crucial role in delivering reliable outcomes and
    at the least production costs. Properly designed markets ensure
    pricing signals, attract necessary new resources to the right
    location, incentivize needed performance response from existing
    resources, and shift investment risk from consumers.
        The NYISO markets optimize schedules to supply resources to
    maximize value to consumers, performance from suppliers, and
    provide the right attributes for reliability. Recent innovative
    market products at the NYISO encourage dynamic scheduling of
    reserves, encourage flexibility of load through demand
    response, and signal entry of distributed energy resources and
    energy storage that will improve the flexibility of the system.
    This flexibility will be crucial to manage the intermittency
    inherent in the grid of the future and are important components
    of the market.
        I want to thank you for the opportunity to share these
    thoughts with you. I look forward to your questions and future
    dialogue.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dewey follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                       STATEMENT OF LANNY NICKELL

        Mr. Nickell. Well, good morning. Chairman Latta, Vice
    Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Castor, Ranking Member Pallone,
    and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
    to speak to you this morning about grid reliability.
        I am Lanny Nickell. I am currently executive vice president
    and chief operating officer of Southwest Power Pool, and I am
    the incoming CEO as of April 1. We are a regional grid
    operator, serving 18 million people across 14 States in the
    central part of our country. We are responsible simply for
    keeping the lights on today and in the future.
        Our industry is at an inflection point as it experiences a
    rate of change I have not previously seen in my 32-plus-year
    career. Over the last decade, the transition and resource mix
    and demand growth has drastically increased operational
    complexity and has almost exponentially increased risk of
    having to interrupt electric service due to insufficient
    supply.
        We have already witnessed significant growth in both our
    summer and winter peak demands. Our current summer peak was 10
    percent higher than the highest peak set 2 years earlier. And
    this winter we set a winter peak that was 2.5 percent higher
    than the previous winter record demand.
        Electricity use in our region grew about 25 percent over
    the last 10 years. This growth in demand is expected to
    continue in unprecedented fashion as we are forecasting peak
    demand to be as much as 50 percent higher over the next 10
    years, mostly driven by the AI data center boom.
        As consumption has grown, we have also witnessed a rapid
    shift from a more steady source of dispatchable generation to a
    more intermittent renewable heavy generation mix. In other
    words, many aging coal and gas plants have been retired and
    replaced with wind generation in our region, shrinking the firm
    capacity margin that we have long depended on for reliability.
    This growing imbalance between the rising demand and a less
    dispatchable, more intermittent resource mix lies at the heart
    of what we have referred to as our generational challenge.
        Without a collective set of corrective actions, we will
    struggle to keep up with future needs, and our risk of not
    being able to continuously supply electric service to consumers
    will be at an all-time high.
        On our end, in SPP we have been acting to increase regional
    requirements for excess capacity, and we are urging generators
    to stay online until sufficient replacement capacity is ready.
    We are working feverishly to accelerate our study processes for
    generator interconnections, and we have recently approved a
    transmission expansion plan requiring over five times the
    transmission investment of our previous largest project
    portfolio. We need significantly more generation and more
    transmission to meet the growing demands, and we need it to be
    interconnected much quicker than we have historically seen.
        We will also need more of the generation being
    interconnected to be dispatchable so that it is available when
    needed to offset the variability of intermittent weather-
    dependent generation. Simply put, we need a lot more steel in
    the ground, and time is short. Meeting this challenge will
    require everyone's cooperation. We have to work together.
        For example, we need a fully functioning FERC so that they
    can continue their good work ensuring reliability, permitting
    infrastructure, and supporting competitive energy markets.
        Additionally, utilities can bring generation and
    transmission. RTOs can work together to lead and envision this
    future that we are all depending on.
        We all have to do our part to safeguard the grid so that
    the life-enhancing and life-sustaining product of power can
    continue to be provided as affordably as possible. I am
    confident that we can meet this challenge, but we cannot do it
    alone. We need your help.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nickell follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                      STATEMENT OF ELLIOT MAINZER

        Mr. Mainzer. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor,
    Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    My name is Elliot Mainzer. I serve as president and CEO of the
    California Independent System Operator Corporation, commonly
    referred to as the CAISO.
        The CAISO is a nonprofit public benefit corporation that
    does not own any generation or transmission assets. We play a
    number of key roles to ensure the grid is reliable, including
    transmission planning, overseeing interconnection of new
    resources, operation of electricity markets, and providing
    reliability coordinator services to entities across the Western
    interconnection. We do not operate a centralized capacity
    market but work with State and municipal entities to ensure
    adequate procurement and deployment of generation and storage
    resources.
        Like other regions of the country, California has faced
    extreme weather and other challenges. But the CAISO and our
    State partners have made major advances in reliability in
    recent years due to commonsense approaches to expanding energy
    supply, efficiently interconnecting new resources, and
    proactively planning for transmission upgrades. New resources
    are coming online at a rapid pace.
        Since 2020, over 24 gigawatts of new generation capacity
    has been added to the CAISO grid, including approximately 7
    gigawatts last year. This new capacity includes over 11
    gigawatts of battery storage. The CAISO relies on these new
    resources as well as a diverse generation mix that includes
    solar, wind, geothermal, bio gas, hydro, natural gas, and
    nuclear generation to maintain reliability. During the next 5
    years, we expect resource growth to continue to be comprised
    largely of battery storage, solar, and wind resources.
        At the CAISO, we work to ensure safe and reliable service
    to our electricity customers through collaboration with
    California State agencies and other local regulatory
    authorities.
        The CAISO, the California Public Utilities Commission, and
    the California Energy Commission have entered into a memorandum
    of understanding to help synchronize load forecasting, power
    and transmission planning, interconnection queueing, and
    procurement of new resources. This enhanced coordination has
    been essential to onboarding the thousands of megawatts of new
    generating capacity and battery energy storage that have come
    online in recent years and will continue to guide our approach
    to ensuring reliability and resource adequacy in California.
        The reliability of our grid has also been advanced by
    thoughtful and timely oversight by FERC. Last year, FERC
    approved a comprehensive set of interconnection queue reforms,
    resulting from an extensive CAISO stakeholder process that was
    anchored in our approach to coordinated planning. Based on our
    implementation so far, we have observed a significant reduction
    in projects clogging our interconnection study process.
        The CAISO's most recent transmission plan included 26 new
    projects at an estimated cost of $6.1 billion to support over
    85 gigawatts of new resources by 2035. We are also actively
    engaged in several interregional transmission projects that
    will access clean energy resources identified in the CPUC's
    resource planning efforts that will also help deliver new
    generating resources and support reliability for utilities in
    other States.
        Electrification of transportation and buildings has been
    the primary driver of load growth today within the CAISO's
    footprint. The CEC's latest demand forecast shows a 33 percent
    growth in peak demand over the next 10 years and a 45 percent
    growth in peak demand over the next 15.
        Currently, there is about 1 gigawatt of data center load
    connected to the CAISO system. The CEC projects an increase in
    data center loads over the next 15 years with a sharp increase
    projected to start around the 2028 timeframe. The CAISO is
    working diligently to serve emerging large electric loads
    within our footprint, including major transmission enhancements
    to the transmission system in the Silicon Valley.
        Reliability in the West is further enhanced by the success
    of the CAISO's Western Energy Imbalance Market, which has been
    in operation since 2014. Optimizing supply and demand in 15-
    minute and 5-minute intervals, the Western Energy Imbalance
    Market today spans 22 market participants in 10 States and
    leverages the significant transmission connectivity and
    resource diversity across parts of the West, which is
    particularly valuable during extreme weather events.
        We are now working to extend a new day-ahead market
    platform to others in the West. Fully approved by FERC in 2024,
    the Extended Day Ahead Market will expand the ability to
    optimize supply and demand in the day-ahead timeframe, which
    will further enhance market efficiency and reliability and
    reduce cost to the ratepayers of participating utilities.
        The CAISO recognizes that our work continues in order to
    maintain the pace of new resource development to meet growing
    electric demands and State policy goals. We remain focused on
    implementing our coordinated planning and interconnection
    processes in extending our market service offerings to other
    entities across the West.
        We look forward to further engaging with the Federal
    Government to ensure reliability and cost savings for
    electricity consumers.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to be here this
    morning, and that concludes my testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mainzer follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                        STATEMENT OF PABLO VEGAS

        Mr. Vegas. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor, Chairman
    Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, and Vice Chairman Weber, and
    members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to be here
    representing the Electric Reliability Council of Texas--or
    ERCOT, as we are referred to--where we manage the flow of
    electricity to over 27 million Texans.
        Texas continues to experience unprecedented economic and
    population growth, driving electricity demands to record levels
    each year. At the same time, the energy mix that powers Texas
    is evolving rapidly, with intermittent resources and battery
    storage playing an ever-increasing role in system operations.
    This transition presents opportunities but also real challenges
    that require planning and investments to ensure system
    reliability.
        Today, I want to share how ERCOT is managing this shift
    while keeping reliability at the forefront, the lessons that we
    have learned from recent weather events, and why ensuring a
    balance and resilient power supply remains essential for the
    future.
        In the summer of 2023, ERCOT set a new all-time peak demand
    record of 85,508 megawatts. Last month, we set a new winter
    peak demand record of 80,525 megawatts, a demand level that is
    normally seen and experienced in the summer.
        This isn't just about a growing population. Texas has
    become a magnet for industries that require increasing amounts
    of electricity, from semiconductor plants to data centers,
    broad industrial growth, and large-scale industrial
    electrification in the Permian Basin.
        Today, wind and solar make up 42 percent of our installed
    generation capacity. Both of those represent the most installed
    capacity in the United States, with thousands of megawatts
    being added each year.
        Battery storage, which was just emerging a few years ago,
    is playing a critical role in balancing supply and demand
    during tight grid conditions, and it is acting as a growing
    bridge asset during critical hours.
        From an operations perspective, solar generation helps to
    meet peak afternoon demand, and batteries provide rapid
    response to system fluctuations with their growing presence in
    the ancillary services market.
        Wind and solar power are variable by nature, meaning that
    their output is not always available when it is needed most.
    Batteries help significantly, but current storage technology is
    still limited in duration, in our market typically 1 to 2
    hours, meaning that it cannot fully replace the need for
    traditional, long-duration dispatchable generation.
        Natural gas, coal, and nuclear power still supply 65
    percent of the delivered energy on the ERCOT grid in 2024.
    Those long-duration dispatchable resources remain the backbone
    of reliability, providing critical generation around the clock.
        We are seeing an uptick in the generation interconnection
    queue from gas generation, and efforts that have been
    spearheaded by the Texas legislature, such as the Texas Energy
    Fund, are providing incentives for dispatchable power plant
    development.
        We cannot lose sight of a fundamental reality: A reliable
    grid must have a balanced mix of generation resources,
    especially with the all-of-the-above approach we see in the
    ERCOT power region.
        Additionally, flexible demand is becoming a more critical
    component of reliable operations, and we are exploring ways to
    best leverage that potential in the face of a significant
    forecast of demand growth ahead of us.
        Immediately following Winter Storm Uri, the Texas
    legislature put in place a set of weatherization standards
    during the 2021 legislative session. And to date, ERCOT has
    conducted over 3,300 inspections of generation resources and
    transmission facilities. The weatherization program inspects
    facilities for various preparation measures intended to
    reasonably ensure sustained operation at weather-zone-specific
    cold and hot conditions. And new programs such as the Firm Fuel
    Supply Service is available to ensure reliability during winter
    events in the event of a fuel curtailment for gas generation
    resources.
        This combination of efforts has shown to be beneficial over
    the last several winter seasons, where the performance held to
    the standard that Texans have come to expect from their grid.
        As we look to the future, ERCOT remains focused on ensuring
    that Texas has a grid capable of supporting its continued
    growth and economic success. That means encouraging investment
    in dispatchable generation, expanding and modernizing
    transmission infrastructure, leveraging demand-side solutions
    and new technologies, and enhancing grid security and
    resilience.
        The ERCOT grid is not alone at being at an inflection
    point. We are balancing record-breaking demand growth with a
    rapidly evolving generation mix, all while ensuring that we are
    focused on reliability for millions of Texans. It is a
    challenge, but it is also an opportunity to build a smarter,
    stronger, and more resilient grid that can continue to support
    Texas and the United States for generations to come.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Vegas follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your statement.
        And that concludes our opening statements from our
    witnesses. And at this time, we will start questions from our
    members. And I will start with myself for 5 minutes.
        And I am going to ask the same question I have asked for
    the last 2 years, maybe just get an answer more or less from
    everyone: We have to have more or less power produced in this
    country?
        Mr. Asthana. More.
        Mr. van Welie. More.
        Ms. Curran. More.
        Mr. Dewey. More.
        Mr. Nickell. A lot more.
        Mr. Mainzer. Significantly more.
        Mr. Vegas. Agreed. We need more.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Asthana, if I can start my questions with you. There
    are reports of supply chain delays for dispatchable generation
    resources as well as ongoing delays for essential grid
    components such as distribution transformers. How important is
    it to address these delays quickly?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes, I think it is both critical to address
    the delays quickly as well as try to be creative with the tools
    that we do have immediately. And we are trying to do both.
        Mr. Latta. Well, let me follow up. Your testimony also
    details a striking graph explaining the delta between grid
    additions and deactivations. How much value is there to bring
    back mothballed power plants back online immediately or short-
    term or long-term reliability challenges?
        Mr. Asthana. I think it is an important part of the mix.
    And I think it is an important part of the mix because it
    requires less reliance on the supply chain. Because these
    plants exist, and so it is easier in some cases to actually
    restore them than to build a whole new one. But I think it is
    part of the solution. If we can get plants back from mothball,
    we would appreciate it.
        Mr. Latta. Let me just follow up real quick on that. In
    your testimony, you had mentioned--you said--how long does it
    take to build an AI plant?
        Mr. Dewey. Data center, maybe 18 months.
        Mr. Latta. OK. And then how long to build a power
    generation station?
        Mr. Asthana. Five-plus years.
        Mr. Latta. Is that including the permitting?
        Mr. Asthana. Including the permitting, yes.
        Mr. Latta. OK. Thank you.
        Ms. Curran, your testimony similarly discusses the need to
    allow reliability to inform the pace of retiring generation
    resources. How can we ensure that the pace of retiring
    generation resources does not outpace the addition of new
    resources?
        Ms. Curran. So first and foremost, it is considering
    reliability in those retirement decisions. Today, as those
    decisions are made, they are generally driven by policy, in
    some cases economics. But there is not a check, at least at the
    MISO, to determine what the impact would be on the ability to
    have sufficient energy to serve the system.
        Mr. Latta. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Asthana, if I could go back to you again. Your
    testimony went on to highlight some of the barriers of
    generation growth, including Federal and State energy policies,
    supply chain constraints, and systematic permitting challenges.
    As I stated in my opener, the markets that you administer do
    not operate in a vacuum.
        How are the policies outside the purview of your
    electricity markets and grid operations causing premature
    retirements and inhibiting growth in generation development?
        Mr. Asthana. Absolutely. So there is multiple, mostly
    decarbonation policies that are State and Federal that have
    either forced generators to choose between really expensive
    upgrades that they couldn't afford or to go offline and have
    pushed generation offline.
        And, you know, I wrote down something you said, Chairman:
    ``Markets cannot build what governments do not let them.'' I
    think we are seeing that. It is also true for power plants
    cannot operate if governments do not let them. And we have seen
    policies that do that.
        An example of that is the EPA 111 decarbonization policy. I
    mean, again, I don't make a value judgment. Climate change, in
    my opinion, is real and needs to be addressed. But I think
    reliability needs to be addressed also and simultaneously.
        Mr. Latta. Let me follow up one last question to you. I
    have heard concerns from workers in an Ohio coal plant about
    what are the detrimental effects of the previous
    administration's policy and recent State=level initiatives that
    could threaten their jobs.
        As you grapple with challenges resulting from rapid and
    widespread retirements of dispatchable generation without
    adequate replacement, is there merit in pausing the adoption of
    harmful policies at the Federal and State levels?
        Mr. Asthana. For a reliability perspective, definitely
    there is merit in making sure that we don't retire generation
    that we will need to keep the lights on.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        In my last 38 seconds, Mr. Nickell--it will be real quick,
    if I may--while much of the focus of our electric grid is on
    increasing demands for electricity from data centers and
    domestic manufacturing, we also have to make sure the
    ratepayers are not unduly burdened. As you mentioned in your
    testimony, SPP enjoys some of the lowest wholesale electricity
    prices in the country because of your diverse generation mix in
    renewables and baseload.
        Will new investments into energy-intensive industries raise
    costs on ratepayers, or how can these new investments lower
    price for households? I only have about 3 or 4 seconds.
        Mr. Nickell. Yes, it could. It depends on how you do it,
    and I think we have to be really smart about how we move
    forward with that. Today, transmission needed to serve new load
    is spread across the region. It is cost-shared. We may not be
    able to do that when large data centers are located in certain
    very specific locations. So we are evaluating that now.
        Mr. Latta. OK. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
        I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, the ranking member
    of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes for her questions.
        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Last week, the President fired--illegally fired the
    Commissioners from the Federal Trade Administration. Two of
    those members, Commissioners on the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, enjoy
    basically the identical statutory protections as the FTC
    Commissioners, meaning that the President likely thinks he can
    fire the FERC and NRC Commissioners too.
        And I think the politicization of our energy regulators,
    allowing the President's whims to dictate which FERC and NRC
    Commissioners can serve, is an awful idea, and it follows the
    National Nuclear Security Administration firings by Elon Musk.
    All of this really socks it to consumers, whether we are
    talking affordability, reliability. It is just dangerous and
    costly.
        Mr. Asthana, I heard you talk explicitly about a stable
    FERC and what that means to your operation. In fact, at one of
    our last hearings, a witness said they never want to see
    proceedings before FERC and State utility commissions to become
    politicized.
        So I would like to ask each of you: Is more
    politicalization of FERC a good thing or a bad thing?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes. I would say FERC is an incredibly
    professional body, and I think they make technical decisions,
    and we rely on that--on that technical expertise.
        Ms. Castor. So just if you could answer maybe more or less,
    should FERC be more politicized or less politicized?
        Mr. Asthana. I think less between those two choices, for
    sure.
        Mr. van Welie. So my observation over the years is FERC has
    tried to stay in the middle to the extent possible, and I think
    that less politicization is helpful.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you.
        Mr. van Welie. The other point I would make is it needs to
    be alignment between Federal and State policies.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you.
        More or less politicized?
        Ms. Curran. For the same reasons, I will also say less. The
    stability of FERC is very important to move all of these things
    forward.
        Mr. Dewey. A less politicized, balanced approached would
    make all this transition a whole lot easier.
        Mr. Nickell. Less politicized, independent absolutely is
    important for keeping the lights on.
        Mr. Mainzer. A strong and independent FERC is essential to
    the success of our industry, so I would say less
    politicization.
        Mr. Vegas. Speaking on behalf of my peers since FERC really
    doesn't provide much oversight in Texas, I think a stable,
    independent FERC works best.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you.
        One of our greatest challenges today is getting new sources
    of electricity onto the grid as quickly as possible in this era
    of increased electricity demand. Interconnection processes,
    while critical to maintaining the reliability of the grid, can
    also take far too long under the current framework.
        Last week, FERC Commissioner David Rosner wrote a letter to
    each of you detailing new opportunities to streamline the
    interconnection process. In a recent study by the Midcontinent
    Independent System Operator, MISO, an automated process was
    able to nearly replicate in 10 days the results of an
    interconnection study that took nearly 2 years to conduct.
        So, Ms. Curran, can you briefly talk about what MISO found?
    What are the results? How can other grid operators start
    looking at automating and speeding up their interconnection
    studies?
        Ms. Curran. Sure. Absolutely. One of the challenges,
    actually, in operating the grid is that there is not a lot of
    software development that happens in this space.
        There is a vendor that has come to market that has put some
    automation around work that currently takes more of a guess-
    and-check approach by our engineers, and by automating some of
    that work with a codified rule set, we have been able to speed
    up on small samples the progress of the queue study by quite a
    bit. We are very optimistic about it. We are starting to apply
    it to larger samples. We do spend a lot of time with our peer
    RTOs sharing best practices, including information about what
    we are doing here.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Nickell, you have also had some success here. What
    else can FERC do to support this kind of innovation?
        Mr. Nickell. Encourage us, which clearly is happening with
    the letter from Commissioner Rosner. Very much appreciate what
    he has tried to do with that.
        Ms. Curran spoke about the fact that we share best
    practices already, and we have got a lot that we are really
    focusing on. We call it transformative technology. We are going
    to have to rely on that, and we are going to have to depend on
    artificial intelligence to make the solutions not only quicker
    but much better.
        So thank you for your support, and we will need that
    support from FERC and the encouragement that they have already
    begun to provide.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
        I will yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the
    chairman of Energy and Commerce Committee, for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the
    recognition.
        Thank you all for being here.
        You know, on the FERC and then the other agencies, we just
    can't assume that the members of those agencies don't have
    agendas as well. And so we want them to work--want them to work
    properly, but we also have oversight and checks and balances we
    need to have.
        When I first came into the role that I have this Congress
    right before--actually, I have kind of been associated more
    with the healthcare side of this committee. Our committee has a
    broad--as I pointed to Mr. Dingell earlier, we have a lot of
    broad jurisdiction.
        And I had an opportunity that--we are actually going to
    have a great opportunity in a couple of weeks to have a hearing
    with Eric Schmidt from--Google Eric Schmidt, not Senator Eric
    Schmitt--wrote a book with Henry Kissinger called ``Genesis,''
    presented it at the Library of Congress, and I walked away with
    my mouth open, my heart beating, going, ``Wow, this is the
    fight of our lives. Are we going to win the AI battle with
    China?'' And it really is. It is the fight of this committee, I
    think, or at least the direction I want to take the committee.
        And he didn't say this. These are my words, not his, but
    essentially he said it. He said that it is like being the
    dollar being the world currency. Somebody is going to have the
    world currency. Europe has chosen not to be that by their
    energy policies and their regulatory policies, which is right
    in the purview of this committee. China--we don't want to have
    the regulatory policies of China, but we--so if you talk to
    people in this area, they say we have the brain power. We have
    the capital. We have to have a stable regulatory environment,
    and we have to have the energy. We absolutely have to have the
    energy.
        And so if you look at the demand and growth of energy, what
    the scary thing about it is, even if we said, ``All right,
    let's go full bore,'' we are still probably a decade behind
    where we need to be.
        And so when I talked in my opening statement--so this is
    for Mr. Asthana and Mr. Nickell. In my opening statement, I
    mentioned that we are going to take offload power, baseload
    power--we are going to take it offline as much as--almost as
    much as we are going to--demand is going to grow in the next
    few years.
        And so what do we need to do, Mr. Asthana--is that how you
    say it correctly?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes.
        Mr. Guthrie. And Mr. Nickell. So what do we need to do to
    reverse just retirement of generation we know that produces
    energy that we need?
        Mr. Asthana. I think there are a couple of things,
    Chairman. One is just sending the right price signals so that
    those generators can afford to stay. Those do lead to increases
    in prices for customers, but I think that is----
        Mr. Guthrie. How do we send the right price signal?
        Mr. Asthana. Our markets are doing that. Our markets are
    holding up a mirror and reflecting back the supply-and-demand
    situation, and this pricing is being----
        Mr. Guthrie. So that happens without government doing
    anything? There is no initiative we need to do to----
        Mr. Asthana. Not for Congress, I would say. I think FERC is
    critical in making sure that the markets are holding up a true
    mirror to the supply and demand situation but not for Congress.
    I think----
        Mr. Guthrie. What would be a not-true mirror if they are
    holding up--what would FERC do to hold up not a true mirror?
        Mr. Asthana. Well, I would say there is a lot of tweaking
    that can happen around the market rules, and we have been
    continuously improving them. But the fact is I think that all
    of our markets are in some shape or form signaling we need more
    supply, and that is--
        Mr. Guthrie. But that is my question, I guess.
        So if the market is signaling you need more supply, and you
    are saying--you are taking baseload power offline--not because
    of what Congress or the government is doing, it is because the
    market signal is not there--I don't understand that then.
        Mr. Asthana. Yes. So let me get to the second part of my
    answer, which is the markets cannot keep a power plant open if
    it is illegal to operate the power plant, no matter what price
    signal you sent.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK.
        Mr. Asthana. And I think--so there are laws, whether they
    are environmental laws passed by the States or the Federal
    Government----
        Mr. Guthrie. I get your point. There is not a role in the
    market. There is a role in us to allow you to participate in
    the market.
        Mr. Asthana. Yes.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. OK. That makes sense. All right.
        Mr. Nickell?
        Mr. Nickell. You bet. And thank you for the question.
        So I mentioned in my testimony earlier that RTOs have a
    role to play, and that role consists of leadership and vision
    and communication. We have to be more visible, and within SPP's
    footprint, we have done just that. We have been communicating
    the challenge that we are facing.
        Mr. Asthana talked about market signals. For us, what that
    looks like is setting a requirement that all load serving
    entities have to meet for excess generation, and that
    requirement has been increased now three times over the last 2
    years.
        Mr. Guthrie. You need stability in the market.
        Mr. Nickell. So utilities know that in order to be able to
    meet that requirement, they can't retire generation until
    significant replacement generation is available.
        Mr. Guthrie. All right. Thanks. And I only have 20 seconds.
        So, I mean, if the world's existential threat is climate
    change, or if you believe it--I am simplifying this to two. It
    is a little more complicated--dominating AI over--being the
    world platform for AI.
        If you go the European route and say it is all climate
    change and we are going to let AI not participate in that
    market, that world--if you go that route, you are going to cede
    the AI to China. And China is building a coal plant every 2
    weeks to support the energy, first of all. So you are not going
    to win. You are going to lose both. And that is why we have to
    focus on making sure we win this battle in a responsible way.
        So thank you, and I will yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the
    ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Latta.
        You know, I want to say with the full committee chairman, I
    want to win the AI battle with China too, but you have got a
    national security advisor who can't even send an email without
    jeopardizing national security. I mean, I don't know how the
    hell we are going to win an AI battle with China with these
    characters running the show, including the Vice President and
    the Secretary of Defense and the others. I mean, it is like a
    clown show. But, in any case, let me go back to the issue at
    hand.
        Mr. Asthana, as I alluded in my opening statement, I am
    incredibly frustrated at the cost that PJM's failures are
    imposing on my constituents. The vast majority of the rate
    increase on New Jersey families is due to what happened with
    PJM's capacity market.
        So do you think it is fair that families around the region
    are seeing their bills spike? Simple question.
        Mr. Asthana. Let me correct the record. So New Jersey
    imported last year 43 percent of the energy that it consumed,
    OK? And that is New Jersey's right to have that plan. That is a
    benefit of being a PJM.
        New Jersey's plan to make up that gap was to build offshore
    wind from 2018 onward. And New Jersey came to us and said,
    ``Hey, can you help us with the offshore wind plant?'' And we
    put in probably more effort than we have with any other State
    to help New Jersey with the offshore wind plant, and we were
    proud to do it. And, in fact, the New Jersey BPU gave us credit
    for saving New Jersey consumers $900 million through our work.
        Now, the problem is there is not one turbine spinning----
        Mr. Pallone. I have to get to my other questions. But, yes,
    the Trump administration is doing whatever they can to stop any
    kind of offshore wind. They repealed all the permits and
    whatever. So to talk about offshore wind when you have an
    administration that is totally opposed to any kind of wind
    power, I don't even know what the point is.
        But, look, you said in your testimony more supply, more
    demand. You said that you are trying to create more supply now.
    But I just think it is a shame that New Jersey families are
    paying for what I consider PJM's mistake. The changes that PJM
    is making that you talked about, whether it is the processes to
    get energy hooked up to the grid or for regional plant--
    transmission planning or capacity markets--all of these changes
    should have been made years ago, in my opinion.
        So why didn't PJM make its reforms to its interconnection
    queue and grid-planning processes a decade ago? Why did it wait
    so long?
        Mr. Asthana. Well, just to clarify my answer earlier since
    you asked, the reason we don't have turbines spinning offshore
    in New Jersey--it happened before the current administration.
        Mr. Pallone. No, I know. But, look, Trump has killed the
    whole thing. So, you know, he made that decision to pull it
    all. It is a political decision. It is a mistake.
        Back to this. Why didn't PJM make its reforms to its
    interconnection queues and grid-planning process a decade ago?
    Why did it wait so long? I appreciate you testified about how
    you are trying to increase supply and address these things, but
    what was the reason for the delay?
        Mr. Asthana. It wasn't a delay, Ranking Member. We have
    been making continuous reforms for the last decade, and the
    process for interconnection needs to match the type of
    generators that are interconnecting. And so when the generators
    shifted to more intermittent renewable generators, we shifted
    our process with the support of FERC.
        And I would point to you, we have 50,000 megawatts of
    generation ready to go--ready to go--on a system that only
    consumes 150,000 at peak----
        Mr. Pallone. Well, I just think you should have made these
    changes sooner, and the pace of change just hasn't been
    acceptable.
        But I want to shift to a national problem. The Inflation
    Reduction Act is, in large part, responsible for making nearly
    all the planned new electricity generation in this country
    feasible. Without it, the economics for many of these projects
    simply wouldn't work, driving rates up even higher for
    families.
        So let me just ask--I know there is only a minute--Mr. van
    Welie. In your testimony, you mentioned the battery storage,
    wind resources, and grid-scale solar make up nearly the entire
    of ISO New England's interconnection queue. Would it be good or
    bad for your grid's reliability if the repeal of the Inflation
    Reduction Act meant that none of those projects were ever
    built, if you will?
        Mr. van Welie. I think it is going to make it harder for
    the supply resources to come forward.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. See, I mean, my point with the
    two--both gentlemen is I think that we need more supply. There
    is greater demand. We need to have all kinds of energy
    generation. I am an advocate for wind, for solar, for nuclear,
    and I understand that we also need more with fossil fuels. We
    need all of the above.
        But what I see happening here is that, you know, right now,
    because of the efforts by the Republicans, you know, to repeal
    the Inflation Reduction Act, that is not going to happen. And
    there is going to be less supply and greater demand, and that
    is not a good thing.
        So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired and
    he yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, the vice
    chair of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Weber. I thank the chairman for the recognition.
        I do want to make note that the Member from New Jersey
    calling the administration clowns was an editorial statement
    and not necessarily reflecting the view of the management. I
    want to get that in the record.
        But I also want to ask some of you all--we will start over
    here with you on the left. Do you ever feel or hear--or you
    feel about hearing about you are somewhat unfairly criticized
    because sudden environmental changes happen which you had zero
    control over? Do you all ever feel like you are unfairly
    criticized in that regard?
        Mr. Asthana. Thank you for the question. I think I would
    say yes, but I also think it is fair to hold us to a high
    standard. We want to be held to a high standard.
        Mr. Weber. OK.
        You are next. You are feeling, yes or no, unfairly
    criticized?
        Mr. van Welie. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. OK.
        Ma'am?
        Ms. Curran. Sure.
        Mr. Weber.Sir?
        Mr. Dewey. Absolutely. We strive to be the authoritative
    source, the independent source of information. So as long as we
    can stick to the facts and its balanced assessment of what the
    impact to some of these policies are, that is generally a safe
    place to be, and it is helpful--
        Mr. Weber. Kind of like Sergeant Friday. They just stick to
    the facts.
        Sir?
        Mr. Nickell. You asked a difficult question. We deserve the
    criticism that we deserve. There are things that we can do
    better and we will do better, and we deserve criticism for
    those.
        Mr. Mainzer. I think at the end of the day it all starts
    with accountability--with extreme accountability for
    reliability. If we get criticized, we will take it, but we are
    always going to stay focused on producing results.
        Mr. Weber. Mr. Vegas?
        Mr. Vegas. Vice Chairman, we are always working to get
    better. Continuous improvement is our motto.
        Mr. Weber. Absolutely. And I hope people watching this
    interview or seeing it later--this hearing--recognize that you
    all have a very critical place to play--a role to play.
        So I am going to come back to you, Mr. Vegas. In Texas, as
    you discussed in your testimony, Texas is seeing significant
    investments into data centers and manufacturing facilities
    because of our business-friendly State posture and access to
    reliable and affordable power, quite frankly. Can you discuss
    how these particular opportunities are important to potential
    economic development projects?
        Mr. Vegas. It is critical. Economic growth is directly
    correlated with energy reliability and affordability, and we
    recognize that in Texas. The light regulatory environment that
    we have enables resources to be added to our grid more quickly
    than virtually anyplace else in the U.S. on both the supply and
    on the demand side. That is the engine for economic growth, and
    we continue to try to do everything to--
        Mr. Weber. And we recognize that. I am glad you all do.
        And for our colleagues across the aisle who have filed a
    proposition to make ERCOT join the rest of the grid, you know,
    we have a bumper sticker that says, ``Don't mess with Texas.''
    So we want to adhere to that.
        How do you conduct generation and resource planning to
    ensure all electricity consumers are paying the lowest possible
    rates and yet still have reliable power? You actually alluded
    to it in your testimony.
        Mr. Vegas. Yes. Affordability is something that is at the
    front of our strategic pillar and focus. So we think about
    reliability as well as affordability.
        And the way we do allocations in Texas, you know,
    everything just flows down to load, to consumers, large and
    small alike. And so it is really important, especially as we go
    into a growth environment--which we are all going into--to look
    at how that cost allocation is done to make sure it is
    continued to be done fairly.
        We have a method that we have been using for the last 20
    years. It has been working, but we are going into a new phase.
    Looking forward, it is a good time to look at that again and
    make sure it remains fair.
        Mr. Weber. Well, thank you for that. And ERCOT leads the
    Nation in renewable energy. Of course, you weren't there when
    the CREZ project went into effect. You know, I spent 4 years in
    the Texas House before I got demoted to Congress. And so we
    passed that project. We made sure that energy was efficient.
        So wind and solar are compromising 42 percent of ERCOT's
    installed generation capacity, and yet Texas remains well-
    balanced with dispatchable sources providing 65 percent of
    deliverable energy. Given that solar is one of the fastest
    energy generation sources and its role that it plays in ERCOT,
    how important is us in Texas that solar technology is
    manufactured right here in the U.S. of A.?
        Mr. Vegas. It is critical that we see the supply chain move
    here to the United States. The security and the reliability of
    that supply chain is fueling the growth and a lot of the energy
    supply in the country. So the ability to have that supply chain
    protected here in America is critical.
        Mr. Weber. So when you see restraints on supply chains--I
    know this is a question for each and every one of you, but I am
    down to 27 seconds--on those supply chains, and these things
    are getting built in China as well as other countries, you all
    have to cringe. You have to know in your heart of hearts that
    this stuff needs to be done in the United States of America.
        Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back you 10 seconds.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New
    Jersey's Eighth District for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman.
        This summer, my constituents in New Jersey are bracing for
    a 17 percent increase in their utility bills. This jump is
    completely unacceptable and unsustainable, especially
    considering it was avoidable. PJM blames these increases on
    increasing demand and decreasing supply. I would like to
    understand these claims a bit better, specifically the point on
    decreasing supply.
        One of the biggest drivers in the last capacity auction was
    a significant change in how dependable PJM assumed natural gas
    plants were. According to its independent market monitor, fully
    half of the price increase we saw in this auction was due to
    the change in how reliability was calculated. To put it in
    plain English, it turns out that natural gas plants were less
    reliable than we thought, and now our constituents are paying
    the price.
        Mr. Asthana, can you talk about why PJM only updated those
    accreditation values for natural gas plants last year and not
    earlier, especially after Winter Storm Uri in Texas, where we
    saw thermal plant outages drive a huge amount of the unexpected
    outages?
        Mr. Asthana. Thank you for that. That is a great question.
        The answer to that is because after Winter Storm Uri in
    Texas--we get our natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica
    shales from our region. And we went to the industry in that
    region and said, ``Hey, are we protected? Are we winterized?
    Are we protected against this sort of winter outage risk in the
    fuel supply system?'' And the answer was yes. And then we had
    Winter Storm Elliott, and we learned that we weren't. We lost
    almost a quarter of our generation.
        And so immediately after Winter Storm Elliott, we said we
    have to recognize this risk that we have now seen in how we
    accredit generation, and that is when we took action.
        Mr. Menendez. OK. But we have to acknowledge, right, there
    is increasingly changing weather patterns, right? And so we
    have to sort of be a little bit more on the forecast front than
    we can do in sort of historical trends, because these changes
    are happening so quickly that to prevent these types of outages
    and shortages, we need to be a little bit more forward-thinking
    and think about redundancy to ensure we are not just hoping for
    the best-case outcome but preparing for the worst-case outcome.
        I know you have also referenced eight policies driving
    generator retirements. I just want to make the point that, even
    though policy may have influence on such retirements, PJM and
    its partners have reasonably known for years about a large
    number of these retirements. Surely the capacity market has
    known about these retirements for a long time as well and
    priced them in.
        The discussion about transitioning to clean energy sources
    has been ongoing for decades. These retirements of
    decarbonization policies which PJM blames for decreasing supply
    should not have been a surprise.
        As Ranking Member Pallone mentioned, PJM by far has the
    worst backlog and slowest interconnection process of any other
    grid operator in the country. Thousands of projects are waiting
    to get connected. As you talk to us about the importance of
    building more power, your organization has lagged in its
    ability to actually connect power to the grid. Now our
    constituents are paying for this mismanagement, and I am
    concerned that my constituents will continue to foot the bill
    with additional increases in 2026 and beyond.
        So will PJM commit to taking every step possible to bring
    new generation online, including the clean energy sources
    already in the queue, and bring down costs for New Jerseyans?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes. We are definitely committed to that.
        I do have to correct you. We do not have the worst queue in
    the country, particularly when you adjust for the size of our
    system. We serve 21 percent of U.S. GDP. We believe we have
    less than 20 percent--much less than 20 percent of the national
    queue. So the work that we have done on our queue is showing
    dividends.
        But to your question, absolutely. New Jersey is critical to
    us. We want to do everything we can to support you, and we are
    committed to accelerating our queue continuously as much as we
    can.
        Mr. Menendez. I appreciate it. What immediate steps is PJM
    taking to address their interconnection backlog?
        Mr. Asthana. Well, the steps we have taken already that I
    pointed out have got us from almost 200,000 megawatts in the
    queue down to 67,000 left to go, with 50,000 more through the
    queue signed, ready to build, some of which we are building.
        So for that 67,000, we have a FERC-approved process. We are
    executing it now. We will get 17,000 of that by the end of this
    year, the other 50,000 by the end of next year. Then we will be
    on a regular 1-to-2-year queue cycle, which is a huge
    advancement from where we have come, and we are not stopping
    there.
        On top of that, we have just opened two additional windows
    for generators to come into the queue to add to what we already
    have. So we are growing the queue by opening the door, and we
    have a lot of people that want to come through that door, and
    we are committed to processing them as well.
        Mr. Menendez. And just real quickly, with respect to the
    energy capacity that is cleared but is yet to be connected to
    the grid, what challenges are those developers facing in
    getting their projects online?
        Mr. Asthana. A lot of supply chain issues, financing
    issues, and a lot of what we call NIMBY issues--not in my back
    yard. People don't want the infrastructure where they live.
        Mr. Menendez. And with respect to supply chain and
    financing, does the disruptive nature of this administration
    help with supply chain issues and with financing issues? Yes or
    no.
        Mr. Asthana. I am not sure.
        Mr. Menendez. I think the answer is no.
        Thank you so much. I yield back.
        Mr. Weber [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
    Palmer.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Curran, MISO issued warnings about brownouts and
    blackouts. What was the basis for those warnings?
        Ms. Curran. If you are speaking to the NERC assessment that
    recently came out, we do a forward projection of the expected
    supply-and-demand balance.
        Mr. Palmer. That was the basis? The NERC assessments?
        Ms. Curran. The NERC assessment, I think, was where that
    forecast was made, via NERC.
        Mr. Palmer. Wasn't the NERC assessment that the biggest
    challenge for meeting power demand and avoiding the blackouts
    and brownouts the change to the resource mix?
        Ms. Curran. No. The NERC assessment laid the information
    that we showed, which says that our forecast of the amount of
    supply that is available to meet the demand that we expect
    faces shortfalls in the coming years.
        Mr. Palmer. But I think the MISO report also indicated that
    it was the shutting down of hydrocarbon-produced power and
    trying to replace it with renewables had created basically, in
    my terminology, a deficit in power output that has not yet been
    met.
        The NERC report, particularly in 2023, in assessing the
    challenges facing our power grid, said that the single biggest
    challenge or threat for power output was the change in resource
    mix. In other words, to put it in lay terms, we have shuttered
    too many hydrocarbon plants without bringing online enough
    renewables to meet the demand.
        When you take that in context to the fact that we are in an
    arms race with China for development of artificial intelligence
    and quantum computing, I think it really becomes problematic.
    And we keep talking about--we get into my colleagues on the
    other side of the aisle and their concerns about the climate.
    We all are concerned about climate issues, but we are losing
    sight of what I think is a major national security issue.
        If China--whoever takes the lead in artificial intelligence
    and quantum computing, they are going to be the superpower. And
    we don't have the power generation capacity right now that we
    are going to need. We have got to build these data centers.
    They are going to require massive amounts of power.
        So I am glad to hear--and I am not sure I have heard this
    before from some of my colleagues, that they support all of the
    above, including nuclear, which is where I think we need to go.
        I am going to ask Mr. Vegas, Mr. Asthana, Ms. Curran, Mr.
    Nickell. In your opinion, did the EPA take--each of you
    coauthored comments--I will set this up--to the EPA during the
    previous administration which expressed strong concerns about
    the Clean Power Plant 2.0 because of the impact it would have
    on reliability within each of your footprints. And then those
    in charge of ensuring grid reliability in your respected
    areas--it should have been imperative that the EPA, who does
    not have the necessary expertise to analyze reliability, listen
    to those concerns.
        And what I would ask each of you, in your opinion, did the
    EPA take your concerns into consideration when they were
    finalizing the Clean Power Plant 2.0?
        Mr. Vegas?
        Mr. Vegas. No, I don't think EPA adequately considered
    reliability in making their final determinations----
        Mr. Palmer. Mr. Asthana?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes. I would say the same thing as Mr. Vegas
    said.
        Mr. Palmer. Ms. Curran?
        Ms. Curran. So a little more nuance from me. I think that
    they did make some changes in response to our feedback, but as
    my colleagues noted, not nearly sufficient to address the issue
    at hand.
        Mr. Palmer. Mr. Nickell?
        Mr. Nickell. Congressman Palmer, I would agree with Ms.
    Curran. I think they did listen. I don't think they went far
    enough.
        Mr. Palmer. But would you all agree that the Clean Power
    Plant 2.0 impacts reliability in your area and ultimately will
    impact the ratepayer?
        Mr. Vegas?
        Mr. Vegas. Yes. It has the potential to shut down nearly
    14,000 megawatts of coal plants in our region, which would
    affect reliability and cost.
        Mr. Palmer. Which goes back to the point I am making
    earlier that we have shut down too much hydrocarbon-generated
    power without bringing renewable power online or some other
    form of power generation to meet the demand.
        Same question to you, Mr. Asthana.
        Mr. Asthana. Yeah. It definitely raises reliability
    concerns for us.
        Mr. Palmer. Ms. Curran?
        Ms. Curran. Yes. Reliability concerns.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you.
        Mr. Nickell?
        Mr. Nickell. Yes. Absolutely increases our reliability
    concerns and increases our concerns about the affordability of
    electricity as long as those units are needed to be maintained
    online.
        Mr. Palmer. Real quickly, in my last second here, would it
    have been more workable if FERC or some other agency had done
    the actual reliability assessment? Quickly, yes or no.
        Mr. Vegas?
        Mr. Vegas. I am sorry. I didn't understand the question.
        Mr. Palmer. Would the EPA rule have been more workable if
    the Agency or FERC had conducted an actual reliability
    assessment of the rule's impacts and adjusted the rule to
    prevent these impacts?
        Mr. Weber. Very quickly, please.
        Mr. Vegas. It would have been more--yes, it would have been
    more effective.
        Mr. Palmer. Mr. Asthana?
        Mr. Asthana. That is a tough hypothetical for me to answer.
        Mr. Palmer. Ms. Curran?
        Ms. Curran. Somebody needs to be doing reliability analysis
    on retirement.
        Mr. Palmer. That is a good answer. Thank you.
        Mr. Nickell?
        Mr. Nickell. I agree with Ms. Curran.
        Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman recognizes the lady from Virginia, Ms.
    McClellan, for at least 5 minutes.
        Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Castor, for having this hearing.
        Mr. Asthana, I am glad that you mentioned the lessons
    learned from Winter Storm Elliott. As you know, Virginians will
    never forget Winter Storm Elliott in 2022 when more than
    100,000 people in the Commonwealth and 1.5 million others in
    nearby States lost power. And while we expected some outages,
    40 gigawatts of coal and natural gas plants failed, shutting
    down, as you said, a quarter of PJM's generation capacity. Gas
    plants alone, whether due to the issues at the power plant or
    issues with gas availability, were responsible for 70 percent
    of the outages.
        Now, that didn't need to happen. And with more clean energy
    generation and smarter long-term transition planning, we could
    have kept the lights on and saved families money.
        Renewables actually performed well during the storm, and
    wind power exceeded expectations thanks to the strong winds of
    the hurricane.
        As you mentioned, we can't afford to ignore these lessons,
    particularly as climate change continues to make winter storms
    and other extreme weather events more frequent and severe. And
    so, while we want to ensure that we have enough generation to
    meet demand, we want to also make sure it is reliable and can
    meet peak demand.
        And so when clean energy combines with energy storage,
    these generation sources can play a key role in stabilizing the
    grid during peak demand, and clean and renewable energy are
    also becoming cheaper to operate than fossil-fuel-based
    generation and help protect consumers from fuel cost spikes.
        So the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Project is one that
    we care very much about in Virginia, Democrats and Republicans.
    And if it had been up and running during Winter Storm Elliott,
    it is estimated it could have saved ratepayers an estimated $10
    million in a single day.
        So, Mr. Asthana, would you agree that adding renewable
    energy paired with storage to the grid can benefit grid
    reliability?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes, it definitely can, and we would love more
    of that, and we support Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind
    significantly.
        If I may, I just wanted to add one clarification. The
    outages that consumers saw during Winter Storm Elliott in
    Virginia were not because we didn't have generation. It was
    because of icing and storm damage for more local power lines.
        Ms. McClellan. OK. But it was the gas power plants, right?
        Mr. Asthana. It wasn't really because of the gas power
    plants. It was because of storm damage to the local--even
    though we had a lot of gas power plants fail, in part thanks to
    exports from Rich in New York, we had enough power to serve all
    our customers.
        Ms. McClellan. But the point is you had gas power plants
    fail, and if the wind project had been up, the wind generation
    could have helped to keep people online during that.
        Mr. Asthana. It would have helped us import less from New
    York.
        Ms. McClellan. I am going to take that as a yes.
        So you can understand why I am perplexed that the Trump
    administration has this all-out war on wind and wants to
    prohibit any new wind projects, when we keep hearing from our
    friends on this committee on the other side of the aisle that
    we need more generation. That includes more renewables in the
    mix. And so I am glad we agree that that would help.
        And I hope PJM keeps this in mind as it makes selections
    for its projects that it is expediting under the new
    Reliability Resource Initiative framework, because I am
    concerned that if frameworks like that are used for more than a
    one-time fix, it could permanently imperil the benefits that
    consumers see from regional grids and competition.
        So can you confirm that PJM views RRI as a one-time
    intervention into its interconnection queue?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes.
        Ms. McClellan. Thank you.
        Now, I was very glad to hear all of the witnesses talk
    about how important an independent FERC is, and I agree. But
    FERC is not the only Federal agency that is important to
    whether new generation projects come online. Is that right?
        Mr. Asthana, I will start with you.
        Mr. Asthana. Yes. There are various agencies that have a
    role.
        Ms. McClellan. And two of those are the Department of
    Energy and EPA, right?
        Mr. Asthana. [Nonverbal response.]
        Ms. McClellan. And you cannot have new generation come
    online without mandated-by-law reviews by EPA, right?
        Mr. Asthana. I think it depends on the State. So I don't
    know the answer to that question specifically.
        Ms. McClellan. OK. Well, subject to check, it is yes.
        But you would agree that the Department of Energy and EPA
    play an important role in new power generation coming online?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes, I agree.
        Ms. McClellan. OK. And yet, President Trump and DOGE have
    led to the firing of over a thousand employees from the
    Department of Energy----
        Mr. Weber. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. McClellan [continuing]. And the EPA, and that is going
    to take us in the wrong direction.
        And I yield.
        Mr. Weber. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
    Allen, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chair Weber and Chair Latta, for
    convening this hearing to hear our Nation's regional grid
    operators. I would also like to thank all of you for your
    testimony today.
        Obviously, we pointed out the importance of grid
    reliability as paramount. We have rising electricity demand,
    and we must ensure that our grid's capacity meets that demand.
        Georgia benefits from a vertically integrated energy system
    ,which I believe delivers reliable and affordable power
    tailored to our State's unique needs. Nuclear energy plays a
    vital role in this equation. My district is the location of
    Plant Vogtle. We are very proud of this achievement. It is the
    Nation's largest clean nuclear energy facility, the first two
    new reactors built in over 30 years, and it exemplifies our
    commitment to sustainable, dependable power.
        Mr. Asthana and Mr. Dewey, while State and Federal efforts
    have aimed to prevent the premature closure of nuclear power
    plants, some facilities have nonetheless shut down earlier than
    anticipated. Had those plants not been allowed to close, what
    effect would they have had on wholesale energy and capacity
    prices, and how would open plants have impacted consumers in
    your region?
        Mr. Asthana?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes. We need more nuclear, and if we had it,
    it would--other things being equal, result in lower prices.
        Mr. Allen. Okay. Mr. Dewey?
        Mr. Dewey. Same situation in New York. The closure of the
    Indian Point plant was deemed to be a safety issue by New York
    State as a policy matter. That eliminated 2,000 megawatts of
    carbon-free supply close to New York City that would have
    certainly--certainly did impact capacity prices.
        Mr. Allen. OK. Ms. Curran and Mr. Vegas, Congress has been
    working to speed the licensing and deployment of nuclear
    reactor technologies. Are either of you working to develop
    incentives in how prices are formed to encourage investment in
    the very long-term assets nuclear power provides to the
    systems?
        Mr. Vegas. Yes. Congressman Allen, we are looking at
    opportunities inside of the Texas Legislature to incentivize
    the development of nuclear power in the State of Texas.
        Mr. Allen. OK. Mr. Curran?
        Oh, Ms. Curran. I am sorry.
        Ms. Curran. That is OK. Just making sure it was me.
        So our States are largely vertically integrated, and so it
    is the State utility regulatory commissions that are making
    those resource decisions. So while our market signal does
    provide information about the overall supply/demand balance,
    ultimately, those choices are made in the States.
        Mr. Allen. A question for all of our witnesses. Nearly 20
    percent of our Nation's electricity is generated by 94 nuclear
    reactors constructed 40 to 50 years ago. These reactors
    represent enduring assets, continue to deliver significant
    value long after the visionary decisions to build them were
    made. Today's market conditions, however, would likely
    discourage companies from pursuing such generational
    investments. As States grapple with rising power demands, they
    are seeking innovative tools to drive the deployment of next-
    generation nuclear facilities.
        So I offer this question to all of our witnesses: How can
    these potential State actions fit within your markets?
        Starting with you, Mr. Asthana.
        Mr. Asthana. Yes. I would like to clarify. About half of
    our States are actually vertically integrated, where the States
    can make that decision on what they want to build, and then the
    other half, it is based on the market.
        But I do think it is difficult for private capital to build
    nuclear power plants today. It is just really difficult. It is
    very risky and very expensive. And so I think if we as a Nation
    want more nuclear power, we should think about ways to support
    it federally.
        Mr. Allen. Uh-huh. Mr. van Welie?
        Mr. van Welie. Good question. So it really comes down to
    the States. I mentioned in my testimony that the States have
    the ability to select resources and make longer-term
    commitments to certainly resource classes. There is renewed
    entry in small modular reactors in New England. So there are
    conversations happening in State legislatures and with
    governors.
        And so, you know, ultimately, I would make the same point
    Ms. Curran made, which is the ISO does not select these
    resources. It is really up to State policymakers to decide how
    they want to go about incentivizing or contracting for certain
    resource types.
        Mr. Allen. Yes. Ms. Curran?
        Ms. Curran. Yes. I have nothing to add to that.
        Mr. Allen. OK. Mr. Dewey?
        Mr. Dewey. New York State has initiated a blueprint process
    for exploring the development of new nuclear, specifically
    small modular reactors. We would welcome that from a grid
    operation standpoint, and with our all-in approach towards
    generation, we think it would be a good mix for our fleet.
        Mr. Allen. OK. I am out of time. So if you would submit for
    the record the answer to that question, I would appreciate it.
    And I have an additional question that I will submit to you,
    and if you would answer that for the record.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado for at
    least 5 minutes.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Allen, I have such good news for you because in the
    last Congress when we had Chair Duncan of this subcommittee and
    I was the ranking Democrat on this subcommittee, we passed the
    ADVANCE Act, which we actually all voted for on both sides of
    the aisle in this committee. It went to the floor. We passed
    it, and President Biden signed it.
        And what this bill was designed to do is exactly what you
    are concerned about, which is to streamline and modernize the
    regulations around nuclear power.
        And as Mr. Pallone said, my colleagues on the other side of
    the aisle really every time seem stunned that Democrats support
    an all-of-the-above approach. But as we are seeing large loads
    like data centers and increasing demand for electricity all
    across America, we recognize that we are going to have to have
    an all-of-the-above approach, including renewables and
    everything else.
        So, you know, let's stop acting like we haven't done
    anything, because the last Congress we did some very important
    things. One of the important things we did was the Inflation
    Reduction Act. I want to talk to some of you about that.
        Now, all of the panelists early in this hearing, all of you
    said that demand for electricity is going to increase in this
    country. Is there anybody who disagrees with that?
        No. They are all shaking their heads no.
        And so the second question is, regardless of the source of
    the power to accommodate the increase, we are just going to
    need to have a variety of sources for electricity transmission,
    and we are going to have to increase reliability. Does anybody
    disagree with that statement?
        No. They are all shaking their heads no.
        Well, so one other question is, all of your grids that you
    are talking about here today, they don't just rely on fossil
    fuels. They also rely increasingly on renewable energy. Does
    anybody disagree with that statement?
        No. They are all shaking their heads no.
        Here is why I ask that. Because my colleagues on the other
    side of the aisle are implying that the way we are going to
    solve the issue of increased demand and increased reliability
    is by just simply jettisoning renewable energy and going, I
    guess, to nuclear and fossil fuels.
        Is there anybody who thinks that your agencies and the
    people who you--are running the grids could jettison all
    renewable energy?
        No. They are all shaking their heads no.
        There was a recent study that was published by a think tank
    called RMI, and what it said is that the Inflation Reduction
    Act made clean energy cheaper than more than 90 percent of
    proposed gas plants.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to put
    that article into the record.
        Mr. Weber. So ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Now, collectively, the IIJA and the IRA allocated almost
    $17 billion in loans and grants for grid development, but
    despite that, the Republicans voted 54 times to repeal the
    clean energy plan since the Democrats passed the IRA.
        So I don't have time to ask all of these wonderful
    witnesses today. So the one closest to me is Mr. Asthana. I am
    sorry for you. But what I want to ask you is, if we repealed
    all of that money going for grid development from the IRA,
    would that help or hurt our ability to stabilize the grid and
    to increase production?
        Mr. Asthana. I think in the near term, the interconnection
    queue is full of a lot of renewable projects, many of whom are,
    I am sure, counting on the IRA. And so I am sure it would make
    those less likely to come, and we do need them to come.
        Ms. DeGette. OK. Does anybody disagree with that on this
    panel?
        No. They are all shaking their heads no.
        Now, I just want to ask one more thing to follow up on what
    Ms. McClellan was asking.
        Mr. van Welie, in your written testimony you talked about
    offshore wind as a potential vital resource for grid
    reliability in New England. Is that right?
        Mr. van Welie. Correct.
        Ms. DeGette. Now, were you aware that, as part of the very
    early Executive orders, President Trump signed an Executive
    order putting a halt to wind production offshore nationwide?
        Mr. van Welie. Yes.
        Ms. DeGette. What would that do to the ability to have
    reliable grid production in New England?
        Mr. van Welie. It has an impact, as I said in my testimony,
    towards the end of the decade because we were counting on these
    resources coming into the system by the end of the decade.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to put a
    copy of that Executive order into the record.
        Mr. Weber. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Weber. The gentlelady's--
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much. I yield back.
        Mr. Weber [continuing]. Time has expired. She yields back.
        The gentleman now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Pfluger, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to state that I believe in the best of the above,
    not all of the above, and I think that differs from State to
    State. In west Texas, we have no access to hydropower,
    unfortunately, like they do in the Pacific Northwest. But if
    you have access to affordable, reliable sources, then we should
    use those.
        Mr. Vegas, I think we need to do a math problem here. So
    sorry for math in public, but let's talk about what the current
    demand is in Texas for what ERCOT is serving. What are we
    seeing annually?
        Mr. Vegas. Current demand peak in the summer is around 80
    to 85 thousand, and in the winter about 80,000.
        Mr. Pfluger. OK. And in the next 3 or 4 years with added
    industrialization, added population, data centers, what do we
    think that is going to grow to in Texas?
        Mr. Vegas. We are now forecasting that, by 2030, we expect
    around 150,000 megawatts. So that is an additional 65,000
    megawatts over where we are today.
        Mr. Pfluger. Almost double?
        Mr. Vegas. Almost double.
        Mr. Pfluger. In 3 to 4 years. This is incredible.
        So what I want to get to is, when you look at the balance,
    you are balancing price. You are balancing reliability. You are
    balancing all these different things.You know, what are the
    best sources that you are looking for today at 85 and, in 3
    years, at 150-plus?
        Mr. Vegas. So we are getting to a point on the Texas grid
    where you can start to see that the peak demand is exceeding
    the dispatchable generation that we have available on the grid.
    So it is important, as we look forward, to meet the demands of
    this growth to grow the supply in a balanced way.
        The balanced resource mix brings, I think, the best
    portfolio for consumers. It brings cost combinations that vary
    and give the optimal price, and it also brings characteristics
    around reliability and resilience that are important.
        So as we look forward, we need to make sure we keep up with
    firm dispatchable generation in addition to the strong growth
    that we continue to see on renewables.
        Mr. Pfluger. Firm dispatchable generation.
        So I just looked it up on your website, ERCOT.com. And
    right now in my hometown, it is 78 degrees. And we have got a
    little bit of wind, which is serving 18 percent of the grid, 45
    percent solar.
        But talk to us about when it is hot or when it is cold and
    how reliable on those days where you have 100-degree-plus--
    which we have about 90-plus days in the summer in Texas of 100
    degrees or more--or when it is cold. How reliable are those
    sources?
        Mr. Vegas. Yes. As I said earlier, over the course of a
    year, the actual delivered energy on the Texas grid, 65 percent
    of it comes from our thermal fleet, which is our coal, our
    natural gas, and our nuclear. They are the backbone of
    reliability. They complement what we are getting from the
    renewable mix as well. And right now we need all of the supply
    that is there. It is clear that we need it all. We are seeing
    63 percent right now coming from renewables.
        But when the wind isn't blowing and when it is nighttime
    and in the summer when it is hot, you still need a lot of
    energy to support that air-conditioning load, and that requires
    long-duration, dispatchable resources to do that.
        Mr. Pfluger. I have only taken a few weather classes in my
    life, but I would invite my colleagues on the other side of the
    aisle to come out to west Texas in the summer. It is miserable.
    When the wind blows in the springtime, it at least cools you
    off, but not in the heat of the summer.
        NERC said that we are in a reliability crisis. That is
    their 2024 overview, their analysis. Do you agree with that
    going forward?
        Mr. Vegas. I think the concern with the pace of load growth
    and the pace of retirements, coupled with the lack of
    dispatchable, long-duration resources coming online, leads to
    that being a logical conclusion.
        Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Asthana, I feel like there were responses
    that you had in a previous line of questioning, and I would
    like to give you a minute or so if you want to clear up
    anything or talk about the role of natural gas, which,
    obviously, I think as you look at ERCOT is very important, and
    it seems like it is to you as well.
        Mr. Asthana. Thank you for that. The only clarification I
    would make is about half of our system, our capacity is natural
    gas. And the rate of investment in natural gas infrastructure
    has significantly lagged the rate of growth of natural gas
    utilization. And so natural gas is becoming less flexible for
    us, and that is why one of the things I mentioned in my top six
    hit list is making sure that we invest in natural gas
    infrastructure, because we need it to be flexible.
        Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Vegas, I will end with you in the last few
    seconds. When government dictates policy that doesn't allow you
    to have the right capacity or the right mixture, what does that
    do to affordability, reliability, and, at the end, what does it
    do to our national security?
        Mr. Vegas. It is absolutely detrimental to affordability
    and to reliability, and it risks our energy security.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
    Ms. Matsui, for at least 5 minutes.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
    chairman and the Ranking Member Castor for calling this hearing
    today.
        And I want to have a special welcome to the California ISO
    president, Elliot Mainzer. You haven't been asked many
    questions, so I will ask you a lot of them today.
        At any rate, grid operators face many challenges today:
    rising electricity demand, aging infrastructure, rising energy
    costs, and the need to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. My
    Republican colleagues often say we need more energy, not less.
    Well, I agree. We need more energy, but it must be cleaner,
    cheaper, and built faster than we have in decades.
        Yet President Trump is deliberately obstructing energy
    projects, freezing funding, halting critical projects, and
    firing Federal employees responsible for maintaining and
    permitting our energy infrastructure. Reuters reported last
    week that President Trump and Elon Musk's mass layoff have
    predictably slowed Federal energy permitting.
        Mr. Mainzer, hypothetically, if many energy projects in
    California were delayed because there is no Federal employees
    to review permits, how would that impact grid reliability?
        Mr. Mainzer. Given the increasing demand for electricity,
    anything that crimps the supply will have detrimental impacts
    on reliability.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. It has also been reported that President
    Trump and Elon Musk have fired Bureau of Reclamation employees
    that operate and maintain critical hydropower infrastructure.
        Mr. Mainzer, hypothetically, if we see a significant
    reduction in hydropower output because these systems are not
    adequately maintained, how would that impact grid reliability?
        Mr. Mainzer. Well, hydropower plays a critical role not
    only within California but in the broader West, also in the
    Pacific Northwest. So maintaining and maintaining the health of
    those assets is critically important.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. The Federal Government is not Twitter. We
    cannot let Elon Musk play around and gamble with our critical
    infrastructure. If a dam fails or the electric grid goes down,
    the consequences could be catastrophic.
        Meanwhile, congressional Republicans are planning to repeal
    Federal energy tax credits that are currently financing
    hundreds of energy projects across the country. Independent
    analyses from Aurora Energy Research and Energy Innovation show
    that repealing the IRA tax credits would cost American families
    billions in higher energy costs and reduce new energy
    deployment by hundreds of gigawatts.
        Mr. Mainzer, hypothetically, if there is a significant drop
    in the number of financially viable energy projects over the
    next 10 years, how would that affect reliability?
        Mr. Mainzer. Again, I think as I and my other colleagues
    have mentioned here today, anything that is going to impact the
    supply of commercially viable projects to meet the rapidly
    growing demand in our grids is going to be problematic and
    could potentially compromise reliability and affordability.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. So that would impact our ability to meet
    new energy demand and slow down the time to power up our new
    data centers?
        Mr. Mainzer. Yes.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. I know a lot of my Republican colleagues
    think clean energy is unreliable, and many of my colleagues
    like to point to California as proof that clean energy is
    unreliable, but that view is really badly outdated.
        Mr. Mainzer, very briefly, can you talk about how grid
    reliability has improved in California over the last few years?
        Mr. Mainzer. A reliable grid relies on a portfolio of
    resources of different attributes and complementary
    characteristics. What we have found in California, as we have
    seen the State choose to elect a much larger proportion of
    solar energy in particular, is that by pairing those resources
    with dispatchable batteries, that that has helped to increase
    reliability in recent years.
        So it is a portfolio effect. We need to plan carefully, but
    by carefully considering all the different resource attributes
    and making sure that they are all available to the system, we
    have been able to significantly improve reliability in recent
    years.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you.
        CAISO has also worked to improve reliability in meeting
    rising demands by supporting the build-out of long-distance
    transmission infrastructure and by participating in larger
    energy markets spanning 10 Western States.
        Mr. Mainzer, can you briefly explain how improving
    interregional energy transfer across the Western U.S. helps to
    improve reliability and meet rising demand?
        Mr. Mainzer. Yes, thank you. We have been very fortunate
    over the last decade to be able to take advantage of the
    significant transmission connectivity that exists between
    California and the Northwest and the desert Southwest. And by
    leveraging that transmission connectivity and resource
    diversity, we have been able to operate a Western Energy
    Imbalance Market that has significantly improved reliability
    and affordability. We are also engaged in working with other
    States and other utilities to further enhance the Western grid,
    which will make a big difference in reliability going forward.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you very much. My time is up. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Weber [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back. The
    Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee for 5--at
    least 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. At least 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
        Mr. Nickell, I am going to start with you, so listen
    closely. I am going to come up with a scenario for you. And in
    this scenario, let's assume that Southwest Power Pool increases
    its wind capacity by 30-fold over two decades. And let's say
    that on a very windy day, as much as 90 percent of your
    regent's demands met by wind power. The date is February 27.
    And let's just say that changing wind speed caused generation
    to plummet by 12,000 megawatts in just 2 hours. So what are you
    going to do when the wind dies down in this scenario?
        Mr. Nickell. That is an interesting scenario. I don't know
    where you picked up on that.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Right out of my head.
        Mr. Nickell. It is a real scenario. It is something we have
    experienced. And what we were forced to do is to rely on the
    backup generation that we had available, and that primarily
    consists of gas generation because it can be started quickly,
    it can be ramped up quickly, and it could meet the need very
    reliably. So that is what we did.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. Thank you for that answer.
        Ms. Curran, it is your turn. In this scenario, let's say
    that you experience a wind drought that lasts 40 consecutive
    hours. How do you make up for that?
        Ms. Curran. Thank you, another familiar scenario that did
    happen to us. The way you make up for it is with resources that
    do have fuels that are available on demand. So in MISO that
    would be coal and gas generation that is able to run for that
    duration.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. Thank you, ma'am.
        Now, Mr. Asthana, it is your turn. The date is December 24,
    2022, during one of the coldest days that the Tennessee Valley
    Region's ever experienced in decades. And TVA calls and says it
    doesn't have enough power to meet this demand. So what do you
    do, sir?
        Mr. Asthana. That is a great question. Thank you. They did
    call. They called me directly.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes, they did.
        Mr. Asthana. And we did our best to support them with a
    significant amount of exports.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. So what kind of exports?
        Mr. Asthana. They were on the margin, natural gas and oil.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. And why did you still have enough power
    on your wires to help TVA while still meeting your own needs?
        Mr. Asthana. Well, we had healthy reserves then, and so we
    were able to support our neighbors. And it wasn't just TVA. We
    were exporting power to multiple neighbors at the same time.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. I remember that, and I had a lot of
    companies that had to shut down from some brownouts and
    blackouts.
        You know, I have looked at all your testimony, and the key
    challenges every one of have you talked about was the rising
    demand in energy due to electrification, manufacturing growth,
    data centers, you know, producing AI. And then you talk about
    generation transition, accelerated retirements of transitional
    power plants who are outpacing new renewable generation
    capacity. You talked about extreme weather impacts and then
    transmission limitations. And current infrastructure is
    inadequate to meet growing needs. And new projects face
    regulatory and logistic hurdles.
        And, you know, the testimony paints a really clear story,
    and for one, wind energy may have value to power companies, but
    it cannot be depended upon when people need it most. And this
    wind energy has been widely deployed around the country because
    of generous government subsidies which increase reliability
    problems, as it crowded out more reliable sources.
        So I personally think that it is astonishing that wind
    continues to receive government subsidies, and especially while
    the utility companies still have to keep their other power
    plants online even when they aren't making any money, just to
    make up for the overbuilt wind. As long as the policies that we
    make here continue to emphasize unreliable weather-dependent
    energy rather than supporting the no-fail grid, blackouts are
    going to keep happening, aren't they?
        And so I think it is time we have to revisit our priorities
    and focus our efforts toward keeping the lights on, ladies and
    gentlemen. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you
    all.
        Mr. Weber. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington for
    at least 5 minutes.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
    witnesses as well. As all of you know, the Pacific Northwest
    does not have an RTO or ISO represented here. Our energy
    markets and balancing authorities are very different. RTOs are
    not, though. Most of us are seeing exploding load growth in the
    Northwest because of affordable energy. In the Pacific
    Northwest, it is chip fabrication and data center expansion
    that are the demand drivers.
        Now, depending on who you ask, we are likely facing a
    nearly 16 percent increase in load growth by the end of the
    decade, five-fold increase in what was previously forecasted,
    and we have heard today about how long it takes to interconnect
    and to build new energy.
        Now, I say ``likely'' because we don't have great quality
    of data inputs for these models, and accurately forecasting
    load growth from data centers is difficult because they are
    notoriously secretive. We also know these companies shop around
    to multiple utilities, potentially duplicating the same load in
    several service territories.
        For the existing data centers, operators often don't want
    to share data about their energy uses for proprietary or
    national security concerns.
        Mr. Asthana, you have been on a lot today. I have got
    another one for you. Given the surge of demand that you are
    seeing at PJM, I am more concerned about making sure we are
    building strategically than about overbuilding. But considering
    all of these challenges, how do we ensure that power planters
    have the right tools to accurately predict load growth?
        Mr. Asthana. A wonderful question. Thank you for that. We
    are at a time where growth demand is growing rapidly and the
    rate of the growth is incredibly uncertain. I mean, it is
    really hard, all the issues you talked about, whether you are
    double-counting something or not, and so we significantly
    discount down from the gross numbers that are being submitted
    to our utilities. In fact, they will discount their numbers
    based on their own criteria, some of which are--have people put
    up money behind this project, or is this just a conversation or
    a signed contract? But I do think this is an opportunity for
    continued refinement.
        Ms. Schrier. Does discounting numbers mean lowballing the
    estimate?
        Mr. Asthana. No, not lowballing but applying criteria. So
    if you start with a gross pool that is huge and it is not just
    plausible, how do you cut down to what you think is reasonable?
    Their filters apply. Have these people, you know, put up money?
    Do they have a signed contract? Have they acquired the land?
        Ms. Schrier. Got it. OK, thank you.
        We all agree we are going to need a lot of energy and
    really fast, and we want more domestic manufacturing. We talk
    about that all the time. We are going to win, that we need to
    win the AI race with China, and that is going to require a ton
    of energy. And no power planter is saying natural gas won't be
    part of that puzzle. Absolutely will. But really, we should all
    have the goal of deploying more non-GHD-emitting energy. So
    let's do these things, like nuclear and geothermal and the
    like.
        My next question is for Mr. Mainzer and Mr. Nickell. At the
    last hearing with your organizations, I asked both CAISO and
    SPP about the governing structures of day-ahead markets
    developing in the West. And there have been significant
    developments since then with Bonneville's draft decision to
    join SPP markets plus. But I would love to hear from each of
    you how utility membership in your market would uniquely
    benefit the Pacific Northwest in the face of surging growth
    from data centers and manufacturing. And I am going to start
    with Mr. Nickell.
        Mr. Nickell. So thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
    SPP's current 14-State footprint is flush with a lot of wind
    generation. In fact, you heard it earlier today that we have
    seen as much as 90 percent of our demand served by wind
    generation. We know it is not always available. It is plenty
    available when the wind is blowing. And the same thing can be
    said of the solar generation that is in the desert Southwest
    part of the United States. When the Sun is shining, it is a
    tremendous resource, and we love having it available to us.
        The same thing is true of the hydro generation of the
    Pacific Northwest. We find that for those participants that
    want to participate in our market, a tremendous opportunity to
    leverage a diverse portfolio of renewable generation that is
    very important to you and to your constituents in the
    Northwest.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you. Mr. Mainzer.
        Mr. Mainzer. Which I would just add that from a physics and
    economics perspective, we have that connectivity today to the
    Bonneville system. We have been leveraging it for years and
    providing billions of dollars of economic and reliability
    benefits, and I give Bonneville a lot of credit for pushing the
    envelope on governance. And we're also reforming our governance
    structure to address their concerns. Thank you.
        Ms. Schrier. And thank you for heading up on development
    for so many years. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta [presiding]. The gentlelady's time has expired,
    and yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Iowa's First
    District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking
    Member Castor, for holding this important hearing on grid
    reliability. Iowa's First District has emerged as a national
    leader in renewable energy, including wind energy, with 59
    percent of our electricity now generated from this renewable
    resource. It has the power to be transformative to our region,
    driving down energy costs for families and businesses while
    also creating jobs in manufacturing.
        Our success with wind demonstrates how quickly clean energy
    can be deployed at scale. In just 5 years, we have reduced coal
    dependence from 45 percent to 23 percent while maintaining some
    of the lowest electricity rates in the country.
        However, as I have already heard, we have to recognize that
    a balanced, diversified approach is critical for grid
    reliability. Our natural gas facilities in Coralville and
    Burlington provide flexible generation needed. Our historic
    Keokuk Hydroelectric Plant contributes baseload renewable power
    that has been operating reliably since 1913. And we have an
    additional hydroelectric plant at Lake Red Rock.
        The closure of Iowa's only nuclear plant, Duane Arnold,
    represented a loss of 601 megawatts of carbon-free baseload
    power. And I am encouraged by next year's discussion about
    potentially restarting operations at this facility.
        And as we listen to testimony from the regional grid
    operators today, I am particularly interested in MISO. I have
    been there. I had a wonderful tour, and I encourage all Members
    to visit their grids and how they are integrating increasing
    amounts of renewable energy while ensuring we maintain
    sufficient dispatchable resources to address the reliability
    challenges highlighted in your memorandum.
        The recent loss of load expectation, a 2025, 2026 study
    found that wind's effective load-carrying capability in winter
    dropped drastically from 53 percent to 29 percent year over
    year. And we, of course, saw that in the polar vortex in Texas.
    As a State that is invested heavily in wind, this is
    concerning. What is driving this change, and what are the
    implications for future wind development?
        And, Ms. Curran, what is your approach to maintaining
    reliability?
        Ms. Curran. Thank you. One of the implications of this
    portfolio shift that is underway is that we have increasing
    dependencies and correlations between our type of generation,
    and we are increasingly looking at what is available when it is
    most challenging from an operational perspective, including the
    time when you most need resources maybe changing. And that
    certainly affects that accreditation.
        We are very focused on making sure that we are coming up
    with the right values so that those that are making the
    decisions to invest in resources can understand what value they
    provide, both from that capacity perspective as well as energy.
        The other piece of the equation that we have not talked a
    lot about today is transmission. So transmission is necessary
    to get the resources from where they are generating to where
    they are needed. At MISO, we benefit from a large geographic
    diversity, and that means we have the opportunity to transport
    power across multiple States that may have different weather
    patterns at different times to help meet that reliability need.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you.
        Mr. Asthana, President Trump has made it clear that he sees
    colocation as a key arrangement to power data centers. However,
    colocation arrangements and PJM have become a major policy
    topic at FERC and in States that inhibited timely access to
    energy for data centers. When structured correctly, colocation
    can provide timely access to energy while ensuring other
    ratepayers are held harmless. How can PJM ensure that
    colocation arrangements are allowed to move forward in a timely
    manner?
        Mr. Asthana. We actually made a filing with FERC yesterday
    highlighting three different ways in our current rules that you
    can actually accomplish colocation, and then we suggested five
    other mechanisms to do that. And now we are awaiting feedback
    from FERC on how best to proceed.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you. In the 2024 Long-Term
    Reliability Assessment, NERC recommends that to maintain demand
    and supply balance, dispatchable generators, including carbon-
    based fuel generators, must be available and capable of
    following changing electricity demand.
        And for the past 2 years when I was on this committee, we
    have hammered on this. To ensure reliability, what measures are
    you taking to discourage premature retirement of carbon-based
    fuel generators, such as the Power Plant 2.0 rule? How are we
    able to maintain dispatchable--our energy when we are retiring
    carbon-based fuel generators prematurely?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes, I mean, for me, I think I partially
    answered this earlier, but part of it is through sending the
    right market price signal to induce in the State. Part of it is
    through working with our States and, you know, Federal
    regulators to try to ensure that we don't have rules that force
    these generators offline prematurely.
        Ms. Curran. And I would say the same market rules that
    ensure that these resources get appropriate compensation, and
    then in our ability as having a regional view providing
    information about what the supply/demand balance really is. And
    we have seen States taking action based on that information
    that we have provided.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much. Mr. Chair, I have a
    question to submit for the record, and I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired,
    and yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
    Texas' Seventh District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you so much, Chairman Latta. And
    thank you to our witnesses for your time and your testimony
    today. I am glad to have Mr. Vegas here from ERCOT as a fellow
    Texan for this important hearing. And no surprise, I will have
    a few questions for you.
        But I think there has been a really important theme that
    has come out of today's hearing. And as we have discussed, the
    United States is on the brink of a new boom in energy demand.
    And demand arises from things we have touched on, from data
    centers and AI development, from widespread electrification,
    to, as you noted, Ms. Curran, efforts to reshore American
    manufacturing that we have undertaken over the last 4 years,
    including through some very important legislation passed by
    Congress.
        And I think you all have made clear that this is an area
    where smart policy is needed and that this committee and this
    Congress have an important role to play in setting that policy.
        It is kind of contrary to the efforts underway to take a
    chain saw to the Federal Government. This is precisely where we
    need smart policy and nationwide coordination and sharing of
    knowledge.
        This is really core to what government is about, right,
    pooling our resources and our expertise to keep us safe, right.
    To make sure that the lights come on 24 hours a day, 365 days a
    year, to make sure that we have power when we need it. It is
    important to our safety. It is important to our national
    security. It is important to our ability to grow our economy.
    It is important to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
        And so, before we look forward to some of the issues that
    have been raised, I want to look back on one thing, Chairman
    Latta, just to touch on this. I understood you to say something
    in your opening statement about wind and solar not being as
    reliable during weather events. And I just want to point out
    that, during Winter Storm Uri, we actually found that solar
    generation was the only one of the resources to outperform, or
    cuts worst-case scenario expected output. So I do think that
    there are lessons to be learned from our experience in Texas,
    and I would be glad to share them when we have more time on
    this committee.
        But I do want to talk about this energy demand and growth.
    I know it varies by region. And in Texas, we are already home
    to 330 data centers, approximately 60,000 Texans employed
    there. More on the way. And I understood that ERCOT is
    forecasting nearly 76 percent load growth by 2030. And while we
    have seen commitments to build a variety of generation, we know
    that demand is going to exceed current generation capacity
    without continued investment.
        So Mr. Vegas, I want to ask you: Last month, ERCOT released
    its capacity to demand and reserves report for 2025 through
    2029, and it indicates that, absent major changes, ERCOT's
    reserve margins will drop to negative values within 2 years.
        Can you just explain what that means for consumers? In real
    terms, does that mean rolling blackouts, higher energy bills?
    How are you protecting ERCOT customers from the market shock
    that the large data centers might bring in this increased
    demand?
        Mr. Vegas. So I think it is helpful to set a little context
    on that report. That report is a very rigidly structured report
    that requires us to report effectively the amount of generation
    that is in our queue that we expect to come online, the amount
    of load that is expected to be built based on the rules in how
    we count load.
        And so, what it does not reflect is as important as what it
    does. What it does not reflect is the response of the market to
    the conditions as they evolve over time. So what we would
    expect to see as we get to a condition where demand is growing,
    supply needs to keep up, we would expect to see prices start to
    be more elevated on a consistent level in the wholesale market
    that would send signals to developed resources. It would also
    send signals to slow down load growth. Load is very responsive
    to prices. And so it doesn't reflect those dynamics of the
    market working.
        And so I don't want consumers to think it is forecasting
    blackouts or brownouts in the future. What it is forecasting is
    that there needs to be a concerted effort to match the demand
    growth with supply. The market economics should deliver that.
    But without that market dynamic, we are looking at shortfalls
    in the future.
        Mrs. Fletcher. OK. Well, I think that that is helpful so
    that folks aren't too worried. But I do know that there are
    proposals in the legislature, for example, that would sort of
    hamstring ERCOT's ability, I think, to quickly add some
    renewable assets to the grid and that, you know, you are forced
    to pair them with natural gas and/or coal plants.
        So I think, you know, from your perspective as a grid
    operator, do those kinds of policies that limit the development
    of certain energy resources help or hurt your ability to meet
    demand?
        Mr. Vegas. Right now, we need policies that support the
    growth of all the resources that can come onto the grid. And I
    emphasize, again, the balance of those resources is so critical
    to meet the future demand that is coming, because it is such a
    large growth. We need to have a balanced portfolio going
    forward.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much. I have gone over my time.
    But, again, thank you all, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
    yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
    expired, and yields back. The Chair now recognizes the
    gentleman from South Carolina's Seventh District for 5 minutes
    of questions.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate that.
    This issue is especially critical for South Carolina in the
    Seventh District, where economic growth and energy security
    really go hand in hand. As we continue to witness rising energy
    demands with manufacturing, with data centers, and
    electrification efforts, we have to be prepared to ensure our
    grid remains reliable and resilient. Your testimony has talked
    about that a lot.
        South Carolina has faced fewer reliability risks thanks to
    our strategic decisions. But they still do exist.
        Ms. Curran, as we have discussed today, it is unclear
    whether the generation expected to come online will be enough
    to meet future demand and replace retiring resources.
    Developers seeking to enter the market are hampered by
    permitting delays, supply chain issues, and overly burdensome
    environmental regulations.
        Are there changes to market rules or new technologies that
    can help us maximize the capacity and efficiency of our current
    grid to improve reliability over the next few years?
        Ms. Curran. Sure. So having some of those new technologies
    or other changes are one of the pieces of the portfolio we will
    have to do maximizing our existing system is important. One of
    the most important tools from the MISO perspective is actually
    the operations of the MISO market. One of the things we do is
    seek to actually get the most out of the existing assets we
    have within the constraints of reliability, which means we are
    not leaving excess capacity on the system, be that generation
    or transmission capacity. And I think that is a model for all
    electricity operation.
        Mr. Fry. Do you find that model duplicated across other
    sectors? I mean, like with your neighbors here, do they do the
    same thing roughly?
        Ms. Curran. So we have and do that maximization, for
    example, with our neighbors, PJM and SPP. It is not
    necessarily, though, the same across the country, including in
    those areas that don't have a regional transmission
    organization.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you for that. Is MISO currently utilizing AI
    models to improve operational efficiencies and system
    management? And if so, can you expand on how these tools are
    enhancing your ability to forecast demand, manage resources,
    and mitigate reliability risks?
        Ms. Curran. Absolutely. As we have talked about a lot
    today, there are a lot of new variables in the system. You have
    this intermittent generation, you have changing load patterns,
    be it from data centers or just consumer changes, weather
    impacts, and the like. There is a lot more uncertainty in the
    system.
        We use in our operation something we call an uncertainty
    management model, where we leverage artificial intelligence to
    better forecast what the next day might look like with all of
    that variability, though taking in all of those very hard-to-
    forecast variables, and trying to come up with an impact.
        We have seen tremendous results both in reliability, but
    probably more importantly getting that reliability more
    affordably. So we have been able to plan better, and that
    results in lower cost for customers from using that technology.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
        Mr. Asthana, your testimony highlights the importance of
    reliability must-run, RMR, agreements as a critical tool for
    ensuring short-term reliability as plants retire and new
    resources come online. Can you describe how PJM utilizes these
    agreements to maintain grid reliability during those
    transitions?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes, we like to use reliability must-run
    contracts as little as possible. They are really only used for
    local transmission constraints. So when a generator wants to
    retire and submits that request to us, and we feel like we need
    that generator to keep the grid reliable for local transmission
    constraints until we can build the transmission system, then we
    enter or seek to enter into a reliability must-run agreement
    with that generator. But we want to use it as little as
    possible and let the markets work as much as possible.
        Mr. Fry. You want to build new plants, or a new generation,
    right?
        Mr. Asthana. We definitely want new generation, yes.
        Mr. Fry. Are there ways in which these agreements can be
    improved to offer additional flexibility, particularly in light
    of the supply chain challenges and infrastructure delays that
    we have?
        Mr. Asthana. Are you asking about reliability must-run
    contracts, or just in general?
        Mr. Fry. Right. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Asthana. Yeah, we are working with our members right
    now on ways that we might improve our reliability must-run
    process.
        Mr. Fry. And how would that look? Just curious.
        Mr. Asthana. We haven't decided. But some of the things
    that we are thinking about are whether we have a standard
    contract with every generator that wants to--or that ends up
    needing to sign up, or with the spoke contract. So that is an
    example. But there's a host of issues that are on the table and
    being considered.
        Mr. Fry. OK. Thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And the
    Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York's 20th
    District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I associate myself with
    the consensus that we have heard from our witnesses--and thank
    you all for being here--on the importance of building new
    transmission for improving reliability and bringing new
    resources online. But I would also like to hear more about how
    New York is pursuing other strategies for addressing
    reliability challenges.
        So, Mr. Dewey, first let me thank you for your leadership
    at my home ISO. I appreciate the work you and the team at the
    ISO do each and every day and respond to New York's needs.
        We know New York is dealing with increasing electric
    demand, especially chip manufacturing upstate, and an aging
    generation fleet. For the past several hearings, I have been
    trying to highlight the role that demand management, including
    energy efficiency and demand response can play in reducing peak
    demand, improving system reliability.
        So can you discuss what New York is doing to simultaneously
    support grid reliability and energy-intensive economic
    development? And do you see a role for demand-side policies to
    contribute to New York ISO's efforts?
        Mr. Dewey. Thank you, Congressman. I would say that the
    ability for demand to be flexible and to recognize the
    opportunities for flexibility in demand--whether it be demand
    response, whether it be load shifting to different hours of the
    day--is going to be absolutely crucial to maintain reliability
    in this modern grid, where the intermittency of variable
    resources like wind and solar can vary a lot over time. We are
    going to need to have that flexibility in the load profile. We
    are going to need to be able to recognize which loads can be
    flexible.
        Some of the data center loads, and some of the chip
    manufacturing, which is so crucial to both jobs and national
    security issues to onshore more of that processing, they have a
    very constant fixed demand, and they can't be as flexible. So
    we have got to look for opportunities that other loads that can
    participate in that way can do so and coming up with the
    appropriate market mechanisms in place to provide the right
    kind of incentives and provide the right kind of revenues to
    recognize the willingness to do that.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And part of the challenge of meeting
    this new demand is certainly interconnecting new resources. So
    what changes have you made to your interconnection process, and
    have they been working?
        Mr. Dewey. So we have reformed our interconnection process
    really three times over the last 6 years. Most recently, the
    reform process culminated in our filing. We mentioned--I think
    the gentleman from New Jersey mentioned for a quarter 2023, we
    have issued and filed our compliance filing to be completely
    compliant with that new rulemaking from FERC. And we have
    initiated our transition cluster that does the combined study
    of all the resources in that mix.
        We have the largest interconnection queue that we have ever
    seen at the New York ISO. And we are proceeding along a
    timeline that will allow us to finish it quicker than we ever
    have.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And if the overwhelming majority of
    projects in the queue today are battery and solar and wind
    projects, is it fair to say these technologies are important to
    future reliability in New York?
        Mr. Dewey. I would clarify that the entirety of the New
    York ISO queue is wind, solar, and storage. So it is crucial
    that we bring these resources online, that we locate them and
    site them at the right location so they maximize the benefit
    and reliability of the system, and we come up with the
    necessary upgrades, including transmission expansion, that
    would enable that reliable operation, yes.
        Mr. Tonko. There has been much talk in Congress about
    repealing Federal tax energy incentives like the ITC and PTC
    through the reconciliation process. If those credits were to
    disappear, I think it is pretty safe to assume it will be, you
    know, a huge implication for the wholesale market. Project
    developers may need to bid into the energy market at higher
    prices to make their projects economically viable. Capacity
    payments may need to be higher to introduce, or to induce a
    stronger investment signal that fewer projects are going to be
    developed.
        So, Mr. Dewey, I realize you may not have done independent
    analyses on this issue yet. Maybe you could just talk in
    hypotheticals. Does what I am suggesting check out? What could
    be the impact on energy prices and investments in the ISO
    market if these tax incentives go away?
        Mr. Dewey. In a hypothetical sense, I would expect that
    some of the viability of these projects, generally, would come
    into question based on the financing arrangements that they
    have to develop and construct them. At a minimum, I would
    anticipate higher costs when they come, interconnect into the
    system, which would ultimately result in higher costs passed
    down to consumers.
        Mr. Tonko. And we know that there have been considerable--
    much considerable confusion about how tariffs on Canadian
    energy might affect New York's electricity. Our systems are
    interconnected, and New York has long benefited from that
    importation of clean, reliable Canadian hydropower. We also
    know that Ontario has considered imposing a surcharge on its
    electricity exports.
        How is the ISO prepared for the possible imposition of
    tariffs and export charges on Canadian power?
        Mr. Dewey. I would say that the interconnection between New
    York ISO, and really, the whole northeastern United States and
    Canada is mutually beneficial from both the reliability and an
    economic standpoint. And I say mutually beneficial because it
    works both ways across the border with tremendous benefits
    throughout the region.
        We have put in mechanisms to collect and remit those
    tariffs if we need to. And we are working closely from a
    reliability standpoint to make sure that at least on an energy
    basis, but hopefully on an economic, day-to-day basis that
    power will continue to flow. Thank you.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much. And with that, Mr. Chair, I
    yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired, and
    yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida's 15th
    District for 5 minutes of questions.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this
    important hearing. And thank you to all of our witnesses for
    being here today to testify.
        As our energy demand continues to rise due to growth in
    manufacturing, advances in technology, like artificial
    intelligence, and increasing electrification, it is critical
    that our electricity production and transmission are prepared
    to meet these needs.
        Alarmingly, in their 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment,
    the North American Electric Reliability Corporation found that
    most of the continent is at risk of experiencing electricity
    shortfalls within the next 5 years. Considering these
    developments, I look forward to speaking with our witnesses who
    represent regional grid operators from across the country on
    how we can best strengthen our electric grid, prevent
    shortfalls, and meet this growing demand for power.
        Mr. van Welie, in your testimony you mentioned that
    independent system operators in States play a joint and
    complementary role in resource adequacy. I am interested in
    discussing further the role that state policies can have on
    reliability and affordability of the electric grid. The Trump
    administration recently discussed moving forward with building
    national gas pipelines across New York and into New England to
    help supply energy to that region.
        What would additional natural gas capacity mean for
    reliability in the New England area? And what impact do you see
    winter weather conditions having on consumer demand for natural
    gas?
        Mr. van Welie. So I will start at the end of your question,
    which is New Englanders have lived with a natural gas pipeline
    constraint for 20 years. So we know what happens. When it gets
    cold, it will switch to burning other stored fuels, typically
    oil and imported LNG. So the question, you know, with regard to
    the benefits of relieving that pipeline constraint, clearly the
    region recognizes, and I think the States understand that
    additional pipeline capacity would be beneficial. But they have
    made very distinct policy choices over the last several decades
    to work around that issue. So there are workarounds. But,
    ultimately, this decision about fuel infrastructure is really
    in the States' hands.
        Ms. Lee. And if you would tell me about some of those
    workarounds. And as lawmakers seek to address the growing
    electric demand, what factors are the most important for them
    to be considering?
        Mr. van Welie. Well, I think in New England what
    policymakers are generally doing is trying to weigh
    affordability versus decarbonization objectives. And so, as
    they think about the relative weight of those two objectives,
    they tend to steer the policies one direction or the other,
        Ms. Lee. In my home State of Florida, a recent report from
    Tampa Electric found that 70,000 Florida businesses are
    directly fueled by natural gas. Would more natural gas capacity
    drive investments into economic development projects, like
    manufacturing facilities, that require significant amounts of
    affordable energy?
        Mr. van Welie. I think it is--there is a complex answer to
    a simple question in the sense that ultimately to build new gas
    infrastructure into New England, you need to have a custom for
    that. So the pipelines will not build on speculative need. They
    need customers to do this. And, ultimately, the customer
    decision rests with the States ultimately. And we had this
    conversation about a decade ago. So I think the prevailing
    policy wisdom has been to rely on stored fuels and imported
    LNG. I think the conversation is starting to turn to whether or
    not it makes sense to relieve those constraint directly.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you. And Mr. Asthana, you mentioned in your
    testimony that PJM facilitates the transfer of power to and
    from interconnected neighboring systems, including the
    Midcontinent Independent System Operator and the Southwest
    Power Pool to help meet electricity demands. Can you elaborate
    on how PJM works with neighboring jurisdictions to coordinate
    operations?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes, thank you. We have joint operating
    agreements with our neighbors. So when we export to the
    Southwest Power Pool, they are not an immediate neighbor, w go
    through the Midwest ISO. But, particularly, with the Midwest
    ISO and with New York, we are continuously coordinating power
    flows back and forth. And then with Duke in the Carolinas and
    with TVA also, all of their operators are talking between our
    systems. Because our systems impact each other. It is actually
    one big electrical system. And so you do have to coordinate at
    the seams.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 33rd
    District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think everybody
    knows, and it has been briefly talked about--Mr. Vegas knows
    this very well--that Texas is growing very, very rapidly. We
    are having record-setting growth. We are also having record-
    setting heat. And every now and again we will have some record-
    setting cold. And demand is likely to continue growing. And as
    I stated in our last hearing in the subcommittee, ERCOT does a
    great job in enabling new generation in its interconnection
    process. And to its credit, ERCOT vastly outpaces other regions
    in bringing new generation online, but that is only part of the
    question.
        You know, we are constrained by our grid infrastructure.
    And our failure to invest in grid infrastructure is a threat to
    our economic and national security. And unfortunately, I don't
    think that we are doing enough.
        There has been a lot of talk today about generation and
    load growth, and rightly so. But today, I would like to hear
    from Mr. Vegas about a couple of other things focusing on Texas
    and our grid, and that is ERCOT's transmission planning and its
    demand response initiatives.
        And, Mr. Vegas, how is ERCOT considering transmission
    planning, given ongoing congestion issues around the State?
        Mr. Vegas. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
    Transmission planning is absolutely one of the critical legs of
    the stool to ensuring the reliability, resiliency, and to
    enable the growth that we have been talking about.
        We have recently actually published a new regional
    transmission plan which lays out what the grid in ERCOT needs
    over the next 10 years, and it has new elements in it.
        Today, the ERCOT transmission system operates at a peak of
    345,000 volts. We have laid out a plan that continues that
    strategy, but also one that adds a new extra high -oltage
    network at 765,000 volts. That is helping to address the large
    power flows that are going to have to move around the State. It
    helps with congestion management, could eliminate a lot of the
    congestion constraints that we have, and will support the kind
    of growth that we are talking about.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes, I also wanted to ask, too, when we had the
    Winter Storm Uri that, you know, we were, what, 1 minute and 30
    seconds away from the entire grid crashing down, you know, one
    of the things that hasn't been talked enough about that I think
    we should talk more about is the winterization of Texas'
    infrastructure. You know, we saw failures in both renewable
    and, you know, natural gas components during that storm.
        And I want to ask you, in a State like Texas it would be
    fairly inexpensive to do things like winterize, you know, wind
    turbine blades, but you wouldn't want to spend a lot of money
    enclosing, for instance, outdoor, you know, gas facilities and
    things like that. That could end up being very, very costly.
        And in a State like Texas, what can they do to protect
    those larger, older platforms that are going to be much, much
    tougher to winterize?
        Mr. Vegas. Yes, the kind of tactics that they are using are
    putting in wind breaks, putting in thermal heaters near where
    there's critical components and valves, compressors, elements
    that when they are exposed to the wind typically are the ones
    that are at highest risk.
        Historically, Texas has always been--weatherized their
    system for the heat of the hot summers so that they could run.
    So enclosing, it was never really a strategy. So that now we
    are seeing more significant cold winter weather, what we need
    to do is deal with the changes that that brings in, and that is
    what they are doing to those gas plants as well as to the
    natural gas facilities, is managing the wind chills, the
    weather breaks, and things like that.
        Mr. Veasey. If we have another storm like Uri next winter,
    has enough already been done to prevent those older, larger
    platforms from crashing again?
        Mr. Vegas. I think the weatherization measures we have in
    place today are very good. During any extreme weather event,
    there is always a risk of impact. Remember, these are 40-, 50-,
    60-year-old machines that we are talking about. They do fail
    under duress and extreme conditions. But we are much better
    prepared today than we were during Winter Storm Uri.
        Mr. Veasey. And also, too, I wanted to just ask very
    briefly in the last remaining seconds here. Everybody is always
    concerned about reliability and affordability, and not just the
    large industrial loads that we talk a lot about here. What
    strategies are being implemented to increase demand response
    participation among our residential and small-business
    customers?
        Mr. Vegas. Thank you for that question. We actually have
    initiated a strategic program this year to initiate a new
    Consumer Residential Demand Response Program that is going to
    be financially supported by ERCOT. That work is going to be
    done in conjunction with the Public Utility Commission. And our
    goal is to have that meaningfully advanced throughout this year
    and available for residential consumers soon.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you.
        Mr. Vegas. I would like to also add, we do have good
    residential programs in place today, but we want to grow them
    even further.
        Mr. Veasey. Right.
        Mr. Vegas. I think it is a great opportunity.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
    yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
    time.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas'--oh, I
    am heading that way. OK. Let's see, we have the gentleman from
    Texas for the next 5 minutes for his questions.
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all very
    much for being here and for your time.
        Mr. Vegas, just for the record, so everyone knows, you were
    not there during Winter Storm Uri?
        Mr. Vegas. That is correct.
        Mr. Goldman. And have done a remarkable job since then.
    ERCOT has, the entire team has, the entire new team that has
    been put there.
        It was a perfect storm. It was extremely unique, as people
    said, 100-year storm. And just for the record as well, have
    y'all had to shed load at all or request a shedding of load in
    the State of Texas since you have been in power?
        Mr. Vegas. No, we have not.
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you very much. I kind of rest my case
    with that. It is my opinion that there certainly was human
    error involved during the record storm. And I just want to
    thank you for your leadership and all of ERCOT for what you
    have been able to accomplish and do in the last several years.
    So thank you very much.
        Mr. Vegas. Thank you.
        Mr. Goldman. With that, I will turn to a little bit of the
    panel.
        Mr. Asthana, you talked about permitting reform. What
    reform needs to happen in permitting? I am sorry if these
    questions have been asked and we are here at the end, get the
    very last questions. And so I am sorry if that was asked
    earlier.
        But if you don't mind, what kind of reforms need to be put
    in for permitting?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes, I mean, there was bipartisan permitting
    reform that was being advanced in Congress before, and we were
    supportive of that. But I think the broader point is, it is
    taking too long to build new generation and very difficult to
    build new transmission, and there are good reasons for that.
    People don't want large infrastructure on their property and
    near them, and we need to respect that.
        But I think we are going to have to solve this issue. And I
    think giving authority to--and there are various bodies you
    could give authority to--but giving centralized authority to
    approve permitting, I think, is one idea.
        Mr. Goldman. Something like the nuclear modular reactor,
    does that excite you or concern you?
        Mr. Asthana. I think it is exciting. Definitely exciting.
        Mr. Goldman. Good. OK.
        Mr. van Welie, you said there was new supply coming online.
    What type of new supply is coming online in your area?
        Mr. van Welie. Well, sir, so the proposed new supply was
    offshore wind. So as I mentioned in my testimony, given----
        Mr. Goldman. Sorry to interrupt. You said the new supply is
    wind coming offline?
        Mr. van Welie. Offshore wind.
        Mr. Goldman. Offshore wind.
        Mr. van Welie. Yes.
        Mr. Goldman. What happens if the wind doesn't blow?
        Mr. van Welie. I think the region is going to have to--
    well, your question is whether the wind doesn't blow or whether
    the offshore wind comes online.
        Mr. Goldman. So you said the new generation is offshore
    wind coming online.
        Mr. van Welie. Right.
        Mr. Goldman. What happens if the offshore wind doesn't
    blow?
        Mr. van Welie. I think you have to have enough resource on
    the system to back that up.
        Mr. Goldman. So will you have enough? If that is the new
    coming online, what is the backup to that if the wind doesn't
    blow?
        Mr. van Welie. Well, sir, the good thing about offshore
    wind in the wintertime, it actually helps with the gas
    constraint that we have on the system because the wind profiles
    in the winter are actually quite favorable. So it helps
    displace the use of stored fuels.
        Of course, there will be times when an offshore wind does
    not blow, and at those times, you have to depend on other
    resources like natural gas or oil resources.
        Mr. Goldman. Do you have enough natural gas?
        Mr. van Welie. Now modeling, we have enough in combination
    with the offshore wind to make it work.
        Mr. Goldman. Right now?
        Mr. van Welie. Right now.
        Mr. Goldman. So what is the solution moving forward?
        Mr. van Welie. The solution moving forward is that the
    region is going to have to deal with the energy constraint. It
    really comes down to storage of energy in some form. The
    question is, what does that look like? Or you could solve this
    problem through moving to other technologies like small modular
    reactors. So there's a variety of options, and the States are
    going to have to think about where they want to see a policy to
    address this over time.
        Mr. Goldman. And what is your personal position on the
    modular reactors?
        Mr. van Welie. I am in favor of them.
        Mr. Goldman. OK. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I will yield the rest of my time. Thank you,
    panel, very much for your time.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California's 50th
    District for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had to step out a
    little bit. I didn't hear and I don't think there has been any
    discussion whatsoever of conservation as part of this
    conversation. The idea that you don't even think about not
    burning energy as part of this approach to supply, I think we
    are letting it get away from us.
        And, in fact, this week what we are voting on, the business
    of the House of Representatives is to overturn efficiency
    standards for refrigeration that would help us save energy and
    make us have to produce that much less energy. And I just think
    it is crazy.
        The other thing I still recommend and I am still interested
    in is the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, which is a
    way to price carbon and then return the dividends to people so
    that their overall tax burden doesn't go higher but they have
    an incentive to conserve energy. We should provide that
    incentive from every economic decision maker in the economy,
    from a household to the biggest corporation. It just makes
    sense to me.
        As we face a challenge which is really unprecedented, I
    certainly think we ought to build everything we can. We ought
    to build as much generation and transmission as we can. And for
    years, I have said I have sounded the alarm that our energy
    grid is too small, it is too old, and it is done. And we have
    to do better.
        But the construction of new high-voltage transmission in
    the U.S. which allow us to send energy from where it is
    abundant to where it is needed is slowed to a trickle. In 2023,
    we built just 55 miles of new high-voltage transmission.
        At our current pace, we will build in this decade a fifth
    of the transmission we did a decade ago. The truth is that
    building big projects in America has become extraordinarily
    difficult. Our agencies don't have enough people who are
    funding to permit these projects in a timely manner. Large-
    scale projects also face litigation, complex environmental
    review, bureaucratic delays. And we all ought to be about
    fixing that. And certainly, this committee knows that I have
    been working on permitting reform to the displeasure of some of
    the incumbents on the environmental side, because we have to
    get this done. But I think conservation ought to be something
    that we think about as well.
        Let me just ask--you know, Mr. Asthana, you were asked for
    some specifics on permitting reform. I am going to just say,
    what I would ask for all of you, and maybe you can provide this
    in writing, is if your companies have experiences that they
    have--you can go to your lawyers about this, if you need to--
    but if you have got experiences that this committee should
    understand that you think don't make any sense, that could be
    improved, just specific recommendations on laws that could be
    changed, I would love to hear them. I think we are ready for
    that here. And I think all of the above means all of the above.
        You know, credit to Texas, by the way, which has the
    closest thing to a free market in energy that we have. They are
    building more wind than anybody, because that is what the
    market demands. And good for them. You know, they deserve our
    congratulations. And I think in some ways we could learn some
    lessons from them.
        Mr. Mainzer, I know in California we have been working hard
    on interconnection as a priority for years. California has
    added 20 gigawatts of new resources, 11 gigawatts of storage
    while investing in transmission. Can you talk about how grid
    capacity is a barrier to getting new resources on the grid and
    how CAISO is trying to interconnect in smarter ways that we
    might learn from here?
        Mr. Mainzer. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman. So we have
    also been, just actually just last year submitted very
    significant package of reforms to our interconnection community
    process to FERC that were fully approved. We have already put
    them into place. Last fall, we have seen a 67 percent reduction
    in requests in queue in our current cluster.
        So we are absolutely taking friction out of the system
    there. We need to keep moving. We need to keep going. And that
    process is grounded in the coordination that we have with the
    State agencies to on-board up to 85 gigawatts in new resources
    over the next decade.
        Mr. Peters. I put forward a number of bills to help
    efficiently plan and permit transmission projects. And one of
    them is my bipartisan Speed and Reliability Act, which
    streamlines permitting for lines that significantly relieve
    grid congestion and improve reliability.
        Ms. Curran, you say in your testimony that approving and
    building new high-voltage transmission lines is a complex and
    lengthy process. Congratulations on that. That is well stated.
    But maybe you could give me a little bit of color on that.
        What do you find is a challenge for you? And what is the
    complexity you think doesn't need to be so complex?
        Ms. Curran. Sure. So really, I think about the length of
    time and the complexity in three phrases: first planning, then
    permitting, then actually building it. And the role of the ISO
    is really on the side of the planning. We have been successful
    in taking an approach where we look at multiple values for
    transmission--not just economic but also reliability, also
    enabling whatever the State or member needs are and have gotten
    a fair amount of transmissions built. Our States have really
    leaned in on the permitting questions. But we have also made
    decisions like trying to utilize existing transmission.
        The key in our world is, who pays for it? And so having a
    business case that shows benefits well in excess of cost has
    been, I think, the secret to getting that transmission
    approved.
        Mr. Peters. OK. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. But I would
    ask that I be permitted to ask that those questions be
    submitted in the record, answers on specific ideas from the
    operators on permit reform, and I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North
    Dakota for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you all for
    being here. I have said to a few of you that this panel is the
    most powerful panel of people in our whole country. And I mean
    that sincerely. Because at this table--and I hope my colleagues
    appreciate just how much, experience and technical expertise
    exists at this table--you have the power to pretty much bring
    us all to our knees and shut our whole country down. So thank
    you for everything that you do every day to keep our economy
    going and our communities safe.
        So a couple of questions I would like to dig into here.
    First of all, are government incentives affecting what types of
    resources are coming into the market and getting into the
    queue? And if you could each just kind of say, like, either in
    your view, in your market, the impact that the government
    incentives are having on what resources come would be either
    significant, modest, minimal, or any qualification you want to
    say. Starting with you, Mr. Asthana.
        Mr. Asthana. Yes, I would say they are significant and the
    incentives from the Federal Government are significant, and
    then our different States have different incentives that make a
    difference as well.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. OK.
        Mr. van Welie. I would agree with that point.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Significant?
        Mr. van Welie. Significant, yes. State and Federal.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent.
        Ms. Curran. Yes, also significant. We have seen over a
    number of years that, depending on what the incentive is, the
    makeup of our queue and the volume of generation in it does
    change fairly dramatically.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. OK.
        Mr. Dewey. It is a very significant driver in New York,
    yes.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. OK.
        Mr. Nickell. I agree with everything that has been said so
    far. Significant.
        Mr. Mainzer. I would probably characterize it as modest to
    significant only because the major driver of our queue is
    really State policy at this particular juncture, so--but it is
    certainly an impact.
        Mr. Vegas. And in Texas it is significant impact as well.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. OK. And so across the board significant,
    and State policy also being significant. What I didn't hear, or
    what I think is missing in there, is that it is market forces
    that's driving what comes into the queue or even like the
    demand--what you need, what the markets need doesn't seem to be
    factoring in there. That to me is a pretty significant problem
    that we all ought to be thinking about moving forward.
        There is a lot of talk about costs. And, you know, what is
    low cost? You know, everyone wants low costs. Everyone wants to
    keep the cost down for consumers.
        Mr. Nickell, in SPP--and I am going to ask Ms. Curran, too,
    in MISO--what costs are often not included in this calculation
    of different comparisons between fuel, you know, in terms of
    their total cost to the grid? What costs are not included in
    that often, in your opinion?
        Mr. Nickell. I think, you know, the cost of reliability
    risks are often not included. We know from Winter Storm Uri--at
    least, reports have indicated--$200 billion-plus of cost just
    as a result of that one event. And I think we oftentimes too
    quickly forget about the cost of not being able to provide
    reliable electric service. We think all too often about the
    cost of investment.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Yes.
        Mr. Nickell. The cost to invest new transmission, the cost
    to invest new generation. We forget about the benefits of
    resilience, and we forget about the cost of not having reliable
    service.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. OK. Very good. And, Ms. Curran, I am going
    to skip you for now and ask everybody one quick question.
        If you could tell us--if you could pick one thing--I know
    there's many things you have highlighted today that you want us
    to take away--but what is the one thing--if you could pick one
    thing that we need to correct to meet and maintain reliability,
    meet the demand, what is the sort of one thing you would say we
    need to do quickly or first?
        Mr. Asthana. I think hang onto the generation that we have
    already to start with.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. OK.
        Mr. van Welie. I will add the paying attention to the gas/
    electric interdependency because we need to view this as one
    system, not separate systems.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent.
        Ms. Curran. I will also say hold onto the generation we
    have, slow down those retirements of existing units.
        Mr. Dewey. I would say hold onto the generation, but also
    make sure that the market signals and the development of the
    markets align with the type of reliability attributes that you
    need so we attract the right kind of investment.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent.
        Mr. Nickell. Only because I want to be a little different.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. It is OK to be the same.
        Mr. Nickell. I think we need to more effectively use the
    grid we already have.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. OK.
        Mr. Mainzer. I would say we want to ensure we have strong
    accountability mechanisms to resource adequacy.
        Mr. Vegas. I agree with all of my peers. And I will just
    add, incentivizing reliability discretely and explicitly will
    be very helpful.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent. Thank you all. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired, and yields
    back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts'
    Fourth District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Chairman. Before I begin the
    questions, I do want to dig into the concept of the market for
    energy production, because Democrats actually really agree. We
    want competition in the market for energy generation, because
    as the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pfluger, said earlier,
    different types of generation portfolios make sense in
    different States. And we want low cost and reliability to be
    rewarded, which is why we passed the Inflation Reduction Act,
    which said (1) there is an overall negative externality
    associated with fossil-fuel-emitting types of generation, and
    so we are going to issue a tech-neutral tax credit to all clean
    sources of generation that don't have greenhouse gas emissions,
    which have a negative externality. But we are not going to pick
    winners or losers in that form of clean energy generation.
        The IRA was an energy pro-market piece of legislation. And
    it is, in fact, the Trump administration who is picking winners
    and losers and distorting energy markets. They are doing so
    with tariffs on electricity from Canada. They are doing so by
    canceling offshore wind contracts, despite the fact that in
    some States offshore wind is an important part of that
    generation portfolio. They are doing so by trying to get fossil
    fuels to jump the queue.
        So when we talk about energy markets, it is Democrats who
    are supporting well-functioning energy markets, and it is the
    Trump administration that is impairing them.
        Let's talk now about how this is affecting Massachusetts,
    Mr. van Welie. First of all, tariffs. New England is a net
    importer of electricity, correct?
        Mr. van Welie. Correct.
        Mr. Auchincloss. And we get that from Canada?
        Mr. van Welie. And from New York.
        Mr. Auchincloss. But New York gets some from Canada too?
        Mr. van Welie. Correct.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Now, under chapter 27 of the Harmonized
    Tariff Schedule of the United States, electrical energy is
    identified as a good but has a, quote, ``free tariff
    designation that is not subject to the border entry procedures
    through which custom duties are imposed.''
        Public statements have suggested that it would not be
    tariffed, but do you know?
        Mr. van Welie. We do not know. We have asserted what you
    have just said, but we have also put in a backstop, which is to
    ask the FERC to give us the permission to allocate the cost if
    we need to collect those monies.
        Mr. Auchincloss. And what is the cost of that uncertainty
    to New England ratepayers?
        Mr. van Welie. It depends on the level of the tariffs. At
    the level of 25 percent, there is probably of the order of
    about $160 million a year.
        Mr. Auchincloss. And even the uncertainty is impairing your
    ability to run the grid?
        Mr. van Welie. Not at this point. So tariffs, you know,
    will affect price in some way, but they shouldn't--it shouldn't
    affect reliability.
        Mr. Auchincloss. But are you having to spend resources and
    time on figuring out how you would levy that tariff?
        Mr. van Welie. Yes, of course.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Yes. And that has an indirect cost.
        Let's talk about our reliance on liquefied natural gas.
    That is our sort of swing winter source of energy, yes?
        Mr. van Welie. Correct.
        Mr. Auchincloss. And it comes mostly from Trinidad and
    Tobago?
        Mr. van Welie. Correct.
        Mr. Auchincloss. And the Everett port terminal?
        Mr. van Welie. Correct.
        Mr. Auchincloss. And it is subject to global spot prices?
        Mr. van Welie. Well, I would say it is another major import
    point for New England, which is the same joint terminal in New
    Brunswick. Between that terminal----
        Mr. Auchincloss. Between those two.
        Mr. van Welie [continuing]. And Everett is where the gas
    comes.
        Mr. Auchincloss. But it is subject to the spot price
    globally, right, that LNG?
        Mr. van Welie. Correct.
        Mr. Auchincloss. So Massachusetts is at the whim of global
    movements in LNG prices, right? So when something exogenous
    happens like, I don't know, Russia invades Ukraine, we bear the
    brunt of higher LNG prices?
        Mr. van Welie. That is correct.
        Mr. Auchincloss. So Massachusetts is not in control of its
    own energy destiny right now?
        Mr. van Welie. Correct. I think Massachusetts can do some
    things to reduce those effects.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Yes. And those things could include
    offshore wind?
        Mr. van Welie. And--yes--or dual fueling, or relieving the
    gas pipeline constraints.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Let's talk about some of those in the next
    minute.
        Mr. van Welie. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Offshore wind, as you said--actually, the
    wind does blow in the wintertime pretty consistently, which is
    exactly when we have that peak LNG demand. So offshore wind
    would be very helpful in offsetting our vulnerability to global
    LNG spot prices.
        Nuclear. Would it help us if we built a nuclear power plant
    in Massachusetts?
        Mr. van Welie. It would, but I think that will be some time
    before that would be practically realized.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Well, the best time to plant a tree is 20
    years ago, but the second best time is now, right?
        Mr. van Welie. I agree.
        Mr. Auchincloss. And then tell me about dual use in our
    last 30 seconds.
        Mr. van Welie. Say again?
        Mr. Auchincloss. Dual use. The dual fueling.
        Mr. van Welie. Dual fuel. So that is really to allow--we
    have some 7,000 megawatts of gas on these resources that cannot
    access gas from the pipelines when it gets cold. So one way of
    working around the gas constraint is for the New England States
    to allow for permitting of dual fueling----
        Mr. Auchincloss. Dual fueling.
        Mr. van Welie [continuing]. Which would allow them to
    switch to fuel oil and utilize that fuel instead of gas.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Thanks for your time and your expert
    testimony, Mr. van Welie.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York's 23rd
    District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Dewey, the New York ISO has repeatedly raised strong
    concerns over our State's aggressive transition away from
    sources of energy like natural gas and towards, quote,
    ``renewables'' like wind and solar. In a 2023 report, the ISO
    stated, ``It is important to note that commercially available
    technologies to provide dispatchable, nonemitting supply do not
    exist at scale at this time.''
        Does the ISO's definition of ``dispatchable'' encompass the
    ramp-up time for this nonemitting supply mentioned in this and
    other reports?
        Mr. Dewey.Yes, it does. When we talk about dispatchable,
    emission-free resources, we are projecting the need and the
    necessity to have a resource that can both meet the State's
    climate legislation, which mandates a carbon-free electric
    system by 2040, as well as continuing to meet the
    dispatchability requirements of managing the grid. That gap,
    that resource, does not exist today. The technology does not
    exist today.
        Mr. Langworthy. What impact does a longer ramp-up time for
    these sources of generation like wind and solar have on grid
    reliability in a State, particularly when we experience weather
    events like Winter Storm Elliott that hit my district in the
    winter of 2022?
        Mr. Dewey. It requires extensive planning. It requires a
    lot of focused attention on the planning models so that we are
    not caught surprised by those swings in weather. It requires us
    to have additional and subsequent resources on standby in case
    we get those forecasts wrong so that we can quickly shift to
    fill in the gap that can sometimes surprise us if it happens
    too quickly.
        Mr. Langworthy. Thank you. As you point out in your
    testimony today, the 2024 to 2034 RNA directly implicates our
    State's own public policies in the concerns over declining
    reliability margins. Specifically, since the enactment of New
    York's Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, more
    than twice the capacity of generation has been deactivated than
    has been added to the system. You go on here in your testimony
    to mention how this transition is raising new challenges for
    grid reliability in the event of significant weather events.
        Mr. Dewey, has any oversight been conducted by the Federal
    Energy Regulatory Commission into these reliability concerns
    voiced by New York ISO, and has FERC given any warning signals
    to the State of New York based on what seem to be very
    consistent concerns with reliability resulting from public
    policy choices?
        Mr. Dewey. We had a lot of engagement and a lot of
    oversight with the North American Electric Reliability
    Corporation, or NERC, which is the reliability arm of the FERC.
    They are predominantly the enforcement arm to make sure
    reliability criteria is met. We work very closely with them to
    make sure that the market rules that we develop that we
    administer under the FERC tariffs contemplate some of the
    changes that we are going to see on the electric power grid.
        So, primarily, that engagement is with NERC on reliability
    and with FERC on the implementation of the market rules
    necessary to be able to meet those reliability criteria.
        Mr. Langworthy. OK.
        And on this subject of State-level policy choices impacting
    reliability and affordability, Mr. van Welie, in 2013, you
    testified before this committee that there were concerns in ISO
    New England that insufficient natural gas infrastructure would
    result in increased costs, increased emissions, and reduced
    reliability. You reiterated your testimony in 2017, and in
    today's testimony you stated that ISO New England gets more
    than 50 percent of its electricity from natural gas, yet it
    doesn't have enough natural gas pipeline capacity in the
    winter.
        With this history, Monday's Washington Post reports that
    electricity costs in New England are 40 percent more than in
    the rest of the country. Do you continue to have fuel security
    concerns, and would additional pipeline capacity sourcing
    domestic supplies to source efficient natural gas lower costs
    for consumers and address fuel security concerns?
        Mr. van Welie. So the actions that States have taken in the
    last decade have mitigated some of the price effects of the gas
    constraint by essentially taking demand off the system, and
    they have done that through investment in generation and demand
    response and energy efficiency, but the long-run concern still
    is there.
        And to your point, I think the gas constraints have
    resulted in big costs every winter when it gets cold and we
    have had to rely on LNG or oil. So I think the policy question
    for the States is how best to mitigate those effects.
        Their actions have also focused on trying to add offshore
    wind into the mix because that would be beneficial. To the
    extent offshore wind is delayed, I think the conversation will
    turn to what are the other possibilities. And so the options on
    the table would be additional pipeline infrastructure, the dual
    fueling that I mentioned, and I would say one thing Congress
    could help us with here is the Jones Act.
        So I saw an article just earlier this week that Puerto Rico
    is now finally getting domestic LNG shipped to it, and it would
    be helpful if New England could access domestic LNG. We export
    it at $6 for million Btu, but we are having to import it at $35
    to $40 per million Btu. So I think Congress--that is something
    that could help.
        Mr. Latta. I am sorry. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Langworthy. My time has expired. Thank you, and I yield
    back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's 12th
    District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Balderson. Your colleague from Ohio. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Thank you all for being here today. I do have to--just in
    case, Mr. Vegas, I don't get to you, I have a question for you.
    But we miss you in Ohio. Good seeing you.
        My first question is for Mr. Asthana. I would like to start
    with you and follow up on a conversation I had with your
    colleague, Asim Haque, during a hearing this subcommittee held
    earlier this month.
        PJM's existing install capacity mix is overwhelmingly made
    up of dispatchable power generation such as natural gas,
    nuclear, and coal. However, as of a few days ago, only 5
    percent of the active projects in the PJM queue are thermal
    generation. Additionally, between 2022 and 2023, PJM saw over
    11,000 megawatts of generation deactivated, and only 4,000
    megawatts of new generation added to the grid.
        Do you have any concerns with the lack of dispatchable
    power generation entering PJM's interconnection queue, and are
    there enough of these projects to offset premature retirements
    and meet the rising growth demand?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes. We do have concerns with the lack of
    dispatchable generation in the queue, and we have taken
    significant action to deal with that, including our Reliability
    Resource Initiative. And I am happy to talk about that if you
    would like.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you. FERC recently approved PJM's
    Reliability Resource Initiative, or RRI, to allow shovel-ready
    projects that enhance grid reliability to get built and
    connected to the grid as quickly as possible. So I do want you
    to expand on it a little bit. PJM recently announced that the
    RRI received 94 applications, totaling over 26 gigawatts of
    nameplate capacity.
        Mr. Asthana, I understand PJM is actively reviewing these
    applications. Can you discuss how you will score or weigh these
    projects to ensure they will get built and online as quickly as
    possible?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes. Thank you for the question,
    Representative.
        So our goal with this initiative was to get shovel-ready
    projects that had certain attributes, and those attributes were
    really reliability-supporting attributes. We are really excited
    that we have gotten almost 2x subscription of this
    opportunity--27 gigawatts, almost--and now we are scoring them.
    We are scoring them based on 100-point scale based on criteria
    like ELCC and UCAP, which are technical terms for just firmness
    and reliability support, also on viability and project support
    and things like location. So if they are located--projects are
    located in a more constrained area, they will get extra points.
        So there is a set of criteria. It adds up to 100 points.
    And, really, we are looking for viability, constructability,
    how quickly they can come online, and how much they can support
    the reliability of the grid.
        Mr. Balderson. OK. A followup to that is how can grid
    operators, FERC, and Congress, build off this initiative to get
    more generation built and connected?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes. I am happy to ask my colleagues here.
        I know we have all talked about this, and some other
    systems are considering similar initiatives, but I think it is
    really important when we are facing a problem without a clear
    solution--which is generators are retiring--we need to serve
    more load and that we be creative and come up with ways to fill
    the pipeline with the type of generators that will serve that
    load, and that is what we are trying to do with this
    initiative. And we are happy to share our experience with
    others.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Vegas, I did have time for you, but it is also for
    Asthana. I would like Mr. Vegas to go first.
        Last year, PJM, ERCOT, SPP, and MISO jointly filed an
    amicus brief with the DC Circuit Court against the Biden EPA's
    Clean Power Plant 2.0. I am extremely grateful that, just a few
    weeks ago, Administrator Zeldin announced that EPA will be
    reconsidering the Clean Power Plant 2.0 along with dozens of
    other Biden-era rules and regulations.
        Since I am limited on time, Mr. Asthana and Mr. Vegas--and,
    Mr. Vegas, you go first--if the Clean Power Plant 2.0 were to
    remain in effect, would your service territory see an increased
    risk of rolling brownouts and blackouts?
        Mr. Vegas. Yes. That plan had risked more than 14,000
    megawatts of existing coal plants that are serving the grid
    today. They would be at risk, and that would be a significant
    reliability concern.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Asthana?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes. That plan would have increased the
    reliability risk and will in our region if it goes forward.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you both.
        Thank you, everybody.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        I will just let everyone know they did just call votes. It
    is the only way we will get through, we still have about six
    members that are still on the list.
        And so, at this time, we are going to go to the gentleman
    from Colorado for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
        Thank you, of course, to the witnesses for coming today.
        Mr. Nickell, my first question will be to you. We have
    heard a lot of conversation today about how we need more power,
    and I don't know that I have fully wrapped my mind around some
    of the nuances that I am sure you are much more familiar with,
    particularly when it comes to power versus dispatchable power
    and things like cost efficiency versus reliability in terms of
    actually obtaining that power.
        And so what I mean by that is I have been on the floor for
    some of my largest electric utility providers in Colorado where
    they are talking about not just what is currently powering the
    grid but looking forward into the future in terms of weather
    reporting to figure out what is the weather going to be. Is the
    wind going to be blowing? Is the Sun going to be shining? Where
    is not only the affordable power going to come from or
    forecasted to come from in the next couple of hours to days,
    but is it the most cost efficient? Is it the most reliable?
        So can you just speak a little bit to the complexities of
    managing a grid, understanding that not all power is created
    equal and drawing some of the distinctions between the
    dispatchable power and the variable power and also the most
    affordable power versus the most reliable power?
        Mr. Nickell. Sure. And thank you for the question. It is a
    difficult question to answer, but I will do my best.
        So, when I think of dispatchable power, that is generation
    that has fuel that can be stored. It is not weather dependent.
    And so, gas, for example, is a primary source of dispatchable
    generation today in SPP's footprint, as is coal generation.
    Nuclear as well is a dispatchable, although not as quickly
    dispatchable as gas and coal.
        So, when we have weather-dependent situations on the grid,
    we have to depend on dispatchable generation to show up in
    order to deal with that intermittent nature of renewable
    generation.
        I will give you an example. On June 6 of 2024, last year,
    out of 32,000 megawatts of nameplate wind capacity, only 100
    megawatts were produced. One hundred divided by 32,000
    megawatts is a really small number. It is practically zero. And
    that is across 14 States in the middle part of America, where
    wind is supposed to be at its strongest potential.
        So we have to have dispatchable generation that has fuel
    available to be able to offset the fact that that wind
    generation didn't show up.
        Mr. Evans. So, in that space, we talked about the
    dispatchability and the reliability. Can you also speak to the
    affordability? I am from a State that does wholesale power, and
    so I have had conversations with the folks that are looking to
    the next 24 hours and the next 72 hours for those bulk power
    purchases.
        Can you speak to the end impact for the consumer in terms
    of not only the reliability but the affordability in looking at
    the power mix that is going to supply the grid?
        Mr. Nickell. So affordability comes into play (1) at the
    State level. For SPP, we still have vertically integrated
    utilities, and the State regulators have jurisdiction over the
    affordability equation.
        I will say that if, for example, a power plant that is a
    wind generator only gets a certain amount of capacity credit
    and, for example, it only, let's say, on average is about 20
    percent--a gas generator gets about 90 percent capacity
    credit--it would take 5 times as much nearly of wind generation
    to offset the cost of a single gas plant.
        So that is the equation. That is the cost equation that
    each of our utilities and their States have to manage in order
    to figure out what is the most affordable plan going forward to
    serve demand.
        Mr. Evans. So, to your previous example, you were talking
    about 32,000 megawatts of wind generation, and you have seen
    that dip down to 100 megawatts of wind generation. You have
    still got to be able to fuel the grid.
        Mr. Nickell. That is right.
        Mr. Evans. Is it more or less expensive in those situations
    to have to go get power from a dispatchable source versus from
    a 32,000 megawatt facility that, at that particular moment, is
    only producing 100?
        Mr. Nickell. Well, it is not a matter of affordability at
    that point, it is a matter of keeping the lights on. So you
    have no other choice but to use what is available and what has
    actually already been paid for by the ratepayers in the
    footprint. So at that point, it is not a matter of
    affordability, it is a matter of reliability.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 5
    minutes for questions.
        And, again, we are about 5 minutes into votes right now.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Chair?
        Mr. Latta. I am sorry. I guess they had the order wrong on
    my sheet.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Joyce. First, I want to thank Chairman Latta for
    allowing me to waive on to this important hearing.
        When it comes to energy production, all energy is not
    created equal. The capacity factors of wind and solar are
    simply too small to provide the reliable energy that our grid
    requires today. What we need in plain terms is more baseload
    generation. We need more coal, more gas, and more nuclear.
        It does not matter how many gigawatts of wind and solar
    capacity are built if they are not generating them when you
    need them. Unfortunately, we are doing worse than not building
    dispatchable generation. We are actually retiring it. We are
    shutting it down.
        PJM--and I thank you for testifying here today--is the
    Nation's largest RTO, and includes my district in Pennsylvania.
    PJM released a report in 2023 projecting 40 gigawatts of
    reliable dispatchable generation will retire by 2030, roughly
    25 percent of the system's installed capacity at that time. PJM
    labels the majority of these retirements as policy-driven
    decisions.
        This is a time when demand is actually growing.
    Pennsylvania is in a great position to benefit from the
    investment in jobs of the AI revolution, but we need to have
    the energy available to build it. With Microsoft and Amazon
    poised to build colocated data centers in Pennsylvania, we need
    to steady the ship. We need to encourage investment to unleash
    the energy that is underneath the feet of my constituents.
        Mr. Asthana, do you agree with me that we need more
    dispatchable generation built within PJM?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes, very much so.
        Mr. Joyce. Mr. Asthana, PJM has a variety of tools to
    incentivize building new generation, and I am encouraged by the
    success of the Reliability Resource Initiative, but it is a
    one-time fix, and the potential 26.6 gigawatts of additional
    power is simply not enough. Holding consistent capacity
    auctions are critical to providing long-term solutions for the
    PJM market.
        Do you believe that the capacity auctions are working to
    incentivize building and retaining that generation, and if not,
    how can it be changed to attract new investment?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes. We are seeing the capacity auctions work.
    So we have seen multiple generators withdraw their retirement
    notices, for example. We have seen a nuclear power plant, the
    Crane Clean Energy Center--835 megawatts--announce that it is
    coming back. Homer City in Pennsylvania, the plant was
    demolished, but they are looking at repowering--using that site
    to build a very large gas generator. And, while the capacity
    market isn't the only reason, it is definitely setting the
    stage for these decisions.
        Now, I think the challenge that we are facing looking
    forward is that there is a big backlog for turbines. And so
    there is a big price premium for turbines. And so the price of
    the capacity market will have to ascend to incent new
    generation that is not already--beyond what is in the queue
    already is going to be really high, and I think it is going to
    create affordability issues that we are going to have to deal
    with.
        Mr. Joyce. Mr. Asthana, I am concerned that PJM gave into
    political pressure of some of the Governors of its member
    States, and this is a very distressing precedent. What are the
    dangers of Governors in the future influencing PJM's market to
    score short-term political points?
        Mr. Asthana. Yes. Thank you for that question. We did have
    fairly bipartisan support for instituting, I think, a short-
    term price gap, if that is what you are referring to. We had 11
    of our 13 States write to us and support that, and five
    Governors.
        But I do think it is important to let our markets work, and
    we are going to have to make sure that we really allow that in
    the future.
        Mr. Joyce. I think that the path that PJM currently is on
    is unsustainable. When some member States shut down baseload
    power plants and others harm investment in new generation, this
    is creating a situation that will make the grid unstable. If
    this continues, it will be blackouts during extreme weather
    events, and my concern is that this will ultimately cost human
    lives.
        I thank you, Chairman Latta, for holding this important
    hearing and allowing me to waive on. I yield the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
    of time.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for
    questions.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
    for allowing me to waive on. I will be very brief.
        I thank all of you for being here. This is extremely
    important, particularly in the State of Georgia, eleven years
    in a row the number-one State in which to do business. We have
    over 50 major data centers. So as you can see, we have a great
    need for electricity.
        We are very blessed to have providers in our State who
    have--Georgia Power and Oglethorpe Power have invested in a
    nuclear reactor. So that is very important, but delivery of
    that is extremely important, too.
        So, in the brief time that I want to ask you just a couple
    of questions. And I will go to you, Mr. Nickell. I will ask
    you.
        Tell me about the permitting process, because that is one
    thing that we really want to concentrate on in this
    administration and in this session and in this Congress, is the
    permitting. I don't care what sector of our economy you are
    talking about. Whether you are talking about energy, whether
    you are talking about healthcare, technology, I have people in
    my office all the time. Permitting. Regulations. ``It is
    crushing us. It is crushing us.'' All the same. So tell me
    about that.
        Mr. Nickell. So I think a bipartisan permitting process is
    absolutely fundamental and critical to support a quicker build-
    up of the resources and the transmission infrastructure that we
    need.
        We hear all the time about how projects have been slowed
    down because they can't get built for a various number of
    reasons, and I think that is the number-one problem that we
    have--that we have to deal with in order to speed up the
    construction of the actual infrastructure that we need.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Curran, would you have an
    opinion on that as well?
        Ms. Curran. I am sorry.
        Ms. Curran. That is fine.
        I think it is the same kind of answer. We have seen good
    work in our States to accelerate permitting, particularly of
    transmission lines, but there are still a number of roadblocks
    that we run into. We recently had a transmission line go into
    service after--I think it was about 13 years after approval due
    to permitting issues.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. Great. Again, I thank all of you for
    being here. This is extremely important, and we appreciate your
    attention to it.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
        Seeing no other Members wishing to ask questions, I want to
    thank our witnesses for appearing today. Members have 10
    additional questions--or may have additional questions for you.
        I remind Members they have 10 business days to submit
    additional questions for the record, and I ask the witnesses to
    submit their responses within 10 business days upon receipt of
    the questions.
        I also ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the
    documents included on the staff hearing documents list. Without
    objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        And, without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. I
    want to, again, thank our witnesses for their excellent
    testimony today.
        [Whereupon, at 1:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]