[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ASSURING ABUNDANT, RELIABLE AMERICAN
ENERGY TO POWER INNOVATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 30, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-18
[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
60-382 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
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......................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Witnesses
Michael Goff, Acting Under Secretary of Energy, Department of
Energy......................................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Answers to submitted questions............................... 196
David L. Morenoff, Acting General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Terry L. Turpin, Director, Office of Energy Projects, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Answers to submitted questions............................... 199
Jim Matheson, Chief Executive Officer, National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association........................................ 88
Prepared statement........................................... 90
Amy Andryszak, President and Chief Executive Officer, Interstate
Natural Gas Association of America............................. 97
Prepared statement........................................... 99
Kim Smaczniak, Partner, Roselle LLP.............................. 108
Prepared statement........................................... 110
Todd Snitchler, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electric
Power Supply Association....................................... 121
Prepared statement........................................... 123
Legislation \1\
H.R. ___, the Reliable Power Act
H.R. 1047, the GRID Power Act
H.R. ___, the Power Plant Reliability Act of 2025
H.R. ___, the Electric Supply Chain Act
H.R. ___, the Reliability Protection for States Act
H.R. ___, the State Planning for Reliability and Affordability
Act
H.R. ___, the Hydropower Relicensing Transparency Act
H.R. ___, the National Coal Council Reestablishment Act
H.R. ___, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act
H.R. ___, the Researching Efficient Federal Improvements for
Necessary Energy Refining Act (REFINER) Act
H.R. ___, the Promoting Cross-border Energy Infrastructure Act
----------
\1\ The legislation has been retained in committee files and is
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118171.
H.R. 1949, the Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act of 2025
H.R. ___, the Improving Interagency Coordination for Review of
Natural Gas Pipelines Act
H.R. ___, the Expediting Generator Interconnection Procedures Act
of 2025
Submitted Material
Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record....................... 159
Letter of April 30, 2025, from Desmarie Waterhouse, Senior Vice
President, Advocacy and Communications, and General Counsel,
American Public Power Association, to Mr. Guthrie, et al....... 160
Letter of April 30, 2025, from Gabriella Hoffman, Director,
Center for Energy and Conservation, Independent Woman's Voice,
to Mr. Guthrie, et al.......................................... 165
Letter of April 30, 2025, from Gabriella Hoffman, Director,
Center for Energy and Conservation, Independent Woman's Voice,
to Mr. Guthrie, et al.......................................... 167
Letter of April 30, 2025, from Roger Martella, Chief Corporate
Officer, GE Vernova, to Mr. Latta and Ms. Castor............... 169
Letter of April 30, 2025, from T. Lane Wilson, Senior Vice
President and General Counsel, The Williams Company, to Mr.
Guthrie and Mr. Pallone........................................ 173
Letter of April 24, 2025, from Paul N. Cicio, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, to
Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Pallone.................................... 176
Letter of April 30, 2025, from 350.org, et al., to Members of
Congress....................................................... 180
Letter of April 30, 2025, from Thomas O'Keefe, Pacific Northwest
Stewardship Director, American Whitewater, to Mr. Latta and Ms.
Castor......................................................... 184
Letter of April 14, 2025, from Oklo Inc., et al., to Chris
Wright, Secretary of Energy.................................... 186
Letter of April 29, 2025, from Talia Calnek-Sugin, Senior Energy
Policy Advocate, Sustainable FERC Project, Natural Resources
Defense Council, to Mr. Guthrie, et al......................... 189
ASSURING ABUNDANT, RELIABLE AMERICAN
ENERGY TO POWER INNOVATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 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, Allen,
Balderson, Pfluger, Harshbarger, Miller-Meeks, James, Bentz,
Langworthy, Rulli, Evans, Goldman, Fedorchak, Guthrie (ex
officio), Castor (subcommittee ranking member), Peters,
Menendez, Mullin, McClellan, DeGette, Tonko, Veasey, Schrier,
Fletcher, Ocasio-Cortez, Auchincloss, and Pallone (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Joyce.
Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations; Clara
Cargile, Professional Staff Member; Jessica Donlon, General
Counsel; Andrew Furman, Professional Staff Member; Sydney
Greene, Director of Finance and Logistics; Emily Hale, Staff
Assistant; Calvin Huggins, Clerk; Megan Jackson, Staff
Director; Adam Joseph, Digital Director; Sophie Khanahmadi,
Deputy Staff Director; Mary Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy; Joel
Miller, Chief Counsel; Ben Mullaney, Press Secretary; Seth
Ricketts, Special Assistant; Jake Riith, Staff Assistant;
Jackson Rudden, Staff Assistant; Chris Sarley, Member Services/
Stakeholder Director; Peter Spencer, Senior Professional Staff
Member; Kaley Stidham, Press Assistant; Matt VanHyfte,
Communications Director; Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff
Director and General Counsel; Kristopher Pittard, Minority
Professional Staff Member; Emma Roehrig, Minority Staff
Assistant; Kylea Rogers, Minority Policy Analyst; Andrew
Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach, and
Member Services; Caroline Wood, Minority Research Analyst; and
Tuley Wright, Minority Staff Director, Energy.
Mr. Latta. Good morning. I call the Subcommittee on Energy
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
Again, welcome to today's legislative hearing, ``Assuring
Abundant, Reliable American Energy to Power Innovation.''
Today, we will hear from representatives from the Department of
Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and
industry stakeholders as we consider 14 bills that span the
needs of our energy sector. The legislation before us seeks to
address systemic issues that are holding back our country's
economic and technological potential.
The prosperity and security of our Nation has always been
linked to abundant, reliable, and affordable energy. Today's
challenges are no different. We need reliable and affordable
energy to fuel developments in artificial intelligence, reshore
domestic manufacturing facilities, support the agricultural
industry, and lower costs for hard-working Americans. All the
while, abundant energy resources can reduce the influence of
adversarial nations like Communist China, protect against
foreign subterfuge, and support our allies abroad.
This year, our Energy Subcommittee has heard extensive
testimony from grid operators, utilities, and co-ops, energy
sector experts, and leaders in the AI community regarding the
needs of our energy industry. Simply put, we need more energy
and we need it fast to put the country back on a path towards
prosperity. Many of the bills before us today will do just
that.
At our recent hearing with all seven regional grid
operators, we heard about the growing reliability crisis being
caused by Federal policies like the Clean Energy Plan 2.0 that
are driving out base load power and threatening the reliability
of the grid. This sentiment is shared by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC, who have been
raising red alarms about the growing reliability crisis for the
last 5 years. Importantly, the Reliable Power Act will task
FERC as the rightful reliability watchdog against unreasonable
Government overreach.
We know that dispatchable generating resources provide the
necessary stability, inertia, and spinning mass to maintain
frequency and voltage support of the electric system. The GRID
Power Act will ensure that these resources are prioritized and
added to the system in a timely manner.
As we have also heard from regional grid operators and the
experts in the power sector, misguided State actions that limit
dispatchable resources are having an outsized impact in the
growing reliability crisis. Two bills under consideration
today, the State Planning for Reliability and Affordability Act
and the Reliability Protection for States Act, will encourage
States to take a greater role in protecting reliability and
affordability and hold States accountable for the impacts of
policies that could undermine an efficient electric system.
Additionally, this committee has continued to observe
supply chain constraints for critical grid components that are
slowing generation and development at a time where demand is
projected to skyrocket. The Electric Supply Chain Act, which I
intend to introduce, takes a proactive approach to identifying
and addressing emergency issues that affect the power sector. I
know we have reached out with my staff to the minority staff
about working on this bill together, and I hope that one of our
Democratic colleagues will join me in this effort.
Similarly, I know that Republican staff has offered to work
with the Democrat staff on the Hydropower Relicensing
Transparency Act and even have a Democrat Member lead on that
bill. We hope to find bipartisanship together to preserve this
important generating resource.
Alongside these efforts, several bills under consideration
today will improve the Federal permitting process to unleash
our abundant natural resources and fuel economic development.
At our hearing with a local representative from the
pipefitters union and oil and gas industry earlier this year,
we heard about the economic benefits of energy infrastructure
development and family-sustaining careers for union members.
Consideration of the Improving Interagency Coordination for
Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act and the Promoting Cross-
Border Energy Infrastructure Act could greatly improve our
permitting processes and ensure that our Nation can lead in the
next-generation economy.
Given our Nation's role as a premier energy producer on the
global stage, the Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act will
unleash exports to support our allies and leverage American
energy dominance to advance our national interests.
We have also included, at our Democrat colleagues' request,
legislation from my ranking member colleague on the
interconnection queue. While I may not agree with everything in
the bill presently, I look forward to working with the
gentlelady from Florida to see if we can land on an agreeable
position.
Altogether, the bills before us today represent an
opportunity for this committee to refocus the Federal
Government's approach to the energy sector to ensure abundant,
reliable, and affordable energy to power innovation in the
future. The Nation and the world are safer when the United
States is energy dominant.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. And, with 1 second and zero right there, I yield
back the balance of my time.
And at this time I recognize the gentlelady from Florida's
14th District, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Latta. Thank you for
calling this hearing. Thank you for including the Expediting
Generator Interconnection Procedures Act, a bill to direct FERC
to make commonsense updates to speed up interconnection and
give grid operators more flexibility and proven tools like
automation.
You know, as policymakers we have a responsibility to do
all that we can to ensure that electricity is affordable and
that our energy system is reliable, and our challenge is
greater now due to rising electricity demand driven by the
economic growth and the manufacturing boom of the past few
years, driven by broader electrification and the way we live
our lives and by AI data centers.
We also cannot become complacent to the higher costs and
harm caused by the climate crisis. The climate crisis is driven
by the burning of coal, oil, and gas, and my neighbors back
home in Florida are rebuilding their lives after the worst
hurricane season ever, where the hotter temps and hotter ocean
waters supercharged Helene and Milton into superstorms, and we
are not alone when you look out across America with devastating
fires, floods, and other catastrophes that hit everyone's
wallets and drive up the cost of insurance and government
disaster aid outlays.
But we can be encouraged by good news. Cleaner, cheaper
energy and the good-paying jobs tied to it are lifting
communities and hard-working Americans like never before. In
2022, Democrats advanced policy that unleashed American energy
dominance, leading to more than 400,000 new clean energy jobs
and over $422 billion in investments. One recent report
highlighted the substantial economic benefits, noting that the
clean energy tax credits will grow the economy by $1.9 trillion
over the next 10 years. And the benefits extend out beyond the
energy sector, positively impacting transportation,
manufacturing, and more.
Among the most significant impacts in the last 2 years is
the substantial increase in domestic manufacturing. That is a
bipartisan goal, for sure, as is countering China's predatory
behavior, and Congress now is considering how to move forward.
Unfortunately, many of the bills being discussed today miss
the moment entirely and clearly would raise costs on consumers
and businesses back home, like the bills that give FERC
unilateral power to force utilities to keep unprofitable,
polluting generators like aging coal plants online, or like the
bills that give FERC--excuse me--the bills that are also trying
to make it easier to export natural gas to foreign adversaries,
which also will raise costs on American consumers and possibly
divert energy away from U.S. power needs, and bills to
reestablish a National Coal Council, which the Trump
administration already did 3 weeks ago.
Costs are rising, too, due to the illegal delays and the
outright cancellation of key energy projects and Elon Musk's
nonsensical chainsaw firing of American energy experts, 3,500
at the Department of Energy. Trump has frozen cost-saving
energy rebates for our neighbors back home while instituting
the highest taxes on everything imported into America since the
Great Depression. If my Republican colleagues wanted to build a
stronger, more reliable energy system, they would stand up to
the illegal interference in these key energy projects.
The offices established to modernize the grid, reduce
energy demand, and get power projects online faster--they have
lost half of their experts. That is not smart. That is not
wise. That is not how we operate in this great Nation.
Surveys report that 73 percent of Americans are concerned
about rising electricity bills, a problem energy experts say
will only be worsened by the Trump administration's policies.
Earlier this month, Trump administration officials gutted the
Low Income Home Energy Assistance initiative which helped 6
million Americans afford their heating and cooling bills, and I
hope my Republican colleagues won't make it worse.
Businesses large and small are advocating for a Republican
reconciliation bill that keeps energy costs low and keeps our
domestic manufacturing boom going so that all Americans can
benefit rather than providing a massive tax cut for the wealthy
and well-connected.
I believe this committee can work together to advance
policies that deliver more affordable energy to our neighbors
back home with a modern grid and a reliable system. This
requires real solutions that meet the magnitude of the
challenges we face today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Castor. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back,
and the Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. And I appreciate that. And I
appreciate my friend from Florida. I think we can find some
common ground on this, at least I certainly hope that we do.
I had the opportunity a couple days ago to speak to--our
electric co-ops are in town. And Kentucky is a very co-op-heavy
State, so I have a lot of good friends here in town that are
looking to provide electricity. And I said to them, I said, you
know, it is kind of interesting. I guess there couldn't be a
more exciting time to be a member of a co-op than the 1930s
when you first started out, when you were providing electricity
to everybody. If you think about it, that is what the co-ops
are for.
But now we know that, throughout the course of particularly
the last generation, we have had kind of flat--because we have
become more energy-efficient--which is absolutely important--
but, unfortunately, the demand didn't increase as well because
of some of the deindustrialization that has gone on.
But the times have changed. So what I have tried to do--and
I think, hopefully, in a responsible way--somebody even
commented in our last full committee hearing that our witness
didn't say a lot of Republican things. Well, that was on
purpose. I didn't ask for one who is going to come and talk
about Republican issues. I wanted to talk--frame the issue in a
way that both sides would listen to.
And so I think Mr. Smith said that technological revolution
and prosperity promises to depend entirely on a modern,
resilient, vastly expanded energy infrastructure. And he also
talked about--if you look at some of his records, particularly
his foundation, they focus on climate change as well.
So how do you put these two together? I am not dismissing
anything that my good friend from Florida said, but we have to
realize we are in a colossal battle. The colossal battle is
with China. Europe has chosen not to--we had in our hearing--
chosen not to participate in this by their energy policies and
their regulatory policy.
So what I would love for us to be able to do--both sides of
the aisle--to come up with a responsible energy policy where we
have--we meet the current demand, the demand that is coming in
the next few years, but also know that we have to have cleaner
demand as we go forward. But we have 152 gigawatts of power
expected to come online in the next decade. We have 112
gigawatts of power expected to go offline at the same time. And
so, to me, it seems the easiest thing to begin to address is to
make sure we don't take power out of commission, and then we
look at how do we bring other power into commission.
Wind and solar is part of it. If you look at the supply
chains, it is harder to build natural gas plants quicker
because of some of the supply chain issues, and so wind and
solar and increase in demand--that has to be part of the
solution. But, when you subsidize it to the point where people
don't build broad-based dispatchable power because they can't
compete with it--because of the subsidy, not because it is more
competitive--then we have to be mindful of that policy because
then it ends up distorting the market where we don't get what
we need.
So kind of, as I sat down with my good friend Mr. Latta, as
chairman, and Morgan Griffith, who is Environment--we have got
to figure out how we tie these two things together. We have
people passionate about expanding Americans' energy
infrastructure so we can beat China. We have people passionate
about--I think all of--actually everybody on this panel and
both sides on the dais--both sides of the aisle--I don't know
of 435 people here who don't think that beating China to AI is
important. The question is how do we do it and how do we do it
responsible and what tools do we need. We know we need energy.
And we know we need energy.
And I would really like people--as I talked about the co-
ops, they have to figure out what they are going to invest and
how they are going to invest. And an energy infrastructure
takes 30 years to pay back sometimes. It is a 30-year
investment. And when the policies seem to change every 2 years
or 4 years based on a congressional election or Presidential
election, it is difficult to do that.
So my hope is, over the course of--if you looked at the
hearings we have had and the big hearing we had, we laid out
the challenge. If we don't meet the energy demand, we are not
going to win the battle for AI, and that is catastrophic, I
think, for our country. I think it is catastrophic for the
world.
And so how do we do it that satisfies a broad group of
people so that people can say, ``Hey, this isn't just going to
come with a change in political winds, it is going to be here,
so we can invest our money. We can invest to produce the power
so that people will have it that will defeat China to AI.''
I think it is critically important. That is the theme of
all these hearings we have had. That is going to be the theme
of the hearings we will have. And I really am optimistic that
we can work together to be responsible but also provide the
power that we need to win this battle, because it is a battle,
and we are going to win it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, and I will yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
of his time.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are now 100 days into the second disastrous Trump
administration, and the economy is reeling. Trump's tariffs
will cost American families nearly $5,000 per year. The economy
actually contracted the last quarter and continues its downhill
path under the President. Yet Republicans in Congress just look
the other way, instead focusing on moving legislation that will
make America's power grid dirtier, more expensive, and less
reliable.
Five of the bills before us today are simple retreads from
H.R. 1, Republicans' failed bill from last Congress that put
polluters over people. These bills represent various handouts
to Big Oil and Gas. They come at the expense of higher, more
volatile energy prices for hard-working American families and
more pollution in our communities.
Some bills that were not included in H.R. 1 contain
proposals that would let gas generators jump ahead in the
interconnection queue. One would stick Americans with the cost
of an uneconomic coal plant, regardless of whether these plants
are actually needed for reliability. And I think these bills
have serious flaws, and I look forward to hearing more about
them today.
I wanted to once again note that my constituents in New
Jersey are facing a triple-digit annual increase in their power
prices. Just yesterday, I sent a letter to the Chair of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission backing up a request from
New Jersey's Governor Murphy that FERC investigate the most
recent capacity auction that is at the root of New Jersey's
price increases.
The price increases facing New Jerseyans are due to the
incompetence of PJM, the region's grid operator. PJM has simply
been too slow to hook up new energy to the grid. Once PJM has
installed its new leadership, it needs to explicitly focus on
getting as much power onto the grid as quickly as possible.
And that brings me to Ranking Member Castor's Expediting
Generator Interconnection Procedures Act, which would have FERC
push beyond the interconnection reforms it made 2 years ago.
The bill would address quicker and innovative ways to study
grid impacts and allow generators flexibility in the type of
grid connection they want to receive. In short, the bill would
allow more power to connect to the grid faster, which is what
we have heard stakeholders demand in four hearings just this
year, and I certainly hope we can continue to move forward with
that bill.
I think it is ridiculous that Republicans are trying to
grant additional authorities to FERC when the Trump
administration unleashed an unprecedented attack on the
Commission last week by forcing out Commissioner Willie
Phillips. Just last month, we heard every single grid operator
plead with us to make FERC less politicized and maintain its
independence from the President, and I guess Republicans think
that Donald Trump knows better than our Nation's grid operators
about how to make a reliable power grid.
I am also deeply disappointed that Republicans are leading
off this Congress with tired reruns of ideas that, in some
cases, they have been trying to pass for a decade. All year, we
have heard numerous energy industry leaders beg us to take a
radically different view of the power grid in light of the
coming power demand. We must get resources hooked up to the
grid as fast as possible, and we must build out and enhance our
grid so it can deal with the increased demand for electricity
that we know is coming.
This subcommittee has held multiple hearings this year
where we have heard testimony saying that we can't afford to
disincentivize energy development in the tax code, that we
can't gut the offices at the Department of Energy that are
responsible for enhancing our grid, offering financing to
energy products like the restart of the Palisades Nuclear
Plant, and ensuring that our energy supply chains are stable,
and yet Republicans and the Trump administration are doing all
of these things despite warnings that those actions would be
catastrophic from their own witnesses at hearings that they set
up.
If Republicans cared about meeting low growth and competing
with China, they should be fighting to strengthen Department of
Energy, restore vital Federal funding to enhance our Nation's
grid, and ensure that our tax code encourages building out
power generation. And if Republicans are serious about dealing
with the challenges of the 21st century grid, they need to be
prepared to discuss 21st century solutions and not just double
down on trying to drag us back to a power grid from the 1920s.
As you can tell, Mr. Chairman, I am not too happy, but we
will see what happens at the hearing. I think it is an
important hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. The gentleman yields back the
balance of his time, and this concludes Member opening
statements.
The Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to committee
rules, all Members' opening statements will be made part of the
record.
Again, the Chair and the committee want to thank our
witnesses for appearing before us today and taking that time to
also testify--not only just testify but also answer questions.
Each witness will have the opportunity to give an opening
statement followed by a round of questions from the Members.
Our witnesses for today are Dr. Michael Goff, the Acting
Under Secretary of Energy at the United States Department of
Energy; Dr. David Morenoff, the acting general counsel at the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and Mr. Terry Turpin, the
Director of the Office of Energy Projects at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
And, before we get started, just some quick housekeeping.
If you want to pull those mikes up close to you and just press
the button, and you will see it goes on. There are three lights
that will go there. It will be green for 4 minutes, yellow for
1 minute, and red is when that time has expired.
So, again, we appreciate you all being here today. And, Dr.
Goff, you are recognized for 5 minutes to give your opening
statement.
STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL GOFF, Ph.D., ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF
ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; DAVID L. MORENOFF, ACTING GENERAL
COUNSEL, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION; AND TERRY
TURPIN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS, FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GOFF, Ph.D.
Dr. Goff. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Latta and
Ranking Member Castor and distinguished members of the Energy
Subcommittee. It is an honor for me to testify before you today
on the proposed legislation and represent the Department of
Energy at this hearing. I was specifically asked to testify
related to five different proposed acts.
First, on critical minerals. To maintain America's national
security, it is imperative that we strengthen our energy
security by promoting the production of domestic resources and
by securing their supply chains. To that end, the draft
legislation Securing America's Critical Mineral Supply Act
mandates that the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with
appropriate agencies and stakeholders, proactively conduct
ongoing assessments of critical energy resource supply chains
and our reliance on imports. Additionally, the bill mandates
efforts to facilitate the development of strategies to
strengthen critical energy resource supply chains in the United
States.
Second, on refining. Petrochemicals play a critical role
not only in America's energy supply but also in the
manufacturing of hundreds of thousands of essential items we
use in our everyday lives, including medical supplies,
refrigerants, fertilizers, and clothing. Each one of our
Nation's refining facilities is critical to ensuring affordable
energy and economic prosperity.
Currently, the United States is overly reliant on aging
infrastructure, with the last significant new refinery built in
1976. The Researching Efficient Federal Improvement Acts for
Necessary Energy Refining, or REFINER Act, mandates that the
National Petroleum Council submit to the Secretary of Energy
and to Congress a report containing an analysis of
petrochemical refineries in the United States and their
contributions to American energy security. A comprehensive
analysis would provide valuable insight necessary to lowering
costs for millions of American energy consumers.
Third, on LNG. America has been blessed by an abundance of
natural resources. At the forefront of this is our supply of
natural gas, which fueled America's energy independence under
President Trump's first term. Under the leadership of President
Trump and Secretary Wright, the Department of Energy has
officially ended the freeze on LNG export permits, approving
four export projects or project extensions since January. These
total more than 9.5 billion cubic feet per day of LNG.
The Unlocking Domestic LNG Potential Act would provide the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the authority to approve
or deny an application for authorization for the siting,
construction, expansion, or operation of a facility to export
or import natural gas. The Department would like to work with
the sponsor and the committee regarding the implementation of
the bill's provisions.
Fourth, on supply chains. Our energy system is the backbone
of our country, and our electrical grid is an essential
component. Currently, we rely on other nations for many of our
critical energy resources. Shoring up the materials and
production of these resources is critical to the security of
our energy system.
The Electric Supply Chain Act would mandate the Secretary
of Energy to conduct regular assessments of the supply chain
for the generation and transmission of electricity. This report
would provide opportunities for the Secretary to conduct a
wholesale assessment of the Nation's electric system and to
provide recommendations that reduce vulnerabilities.
Finally, on the National Coal Council. The National Coal
Council, or NCC, was originally established in 1984 as a
Federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy. The
purpose was to provide private-sector input on policies that
would affect the coal industry as well as to provide scientific
and strategic advice on coal production and use. The previous
administration did not renew the charter for this committee in
2021.
The National Coal Council Reestablishment Act directs the
Secretary of Energy to reestablish the council and allow coal
experts to sit at the table on energy policymaking. The
Secretary of Energy supports the goal of this legislation and
is moving forward to implement it.
Finally, in conclusion, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before the subcommittee today. I am eager to discuss
ways we can work together to ensure American energy dominance
and lower costs for the hard-working families of our country. I
look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Goff follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you for your testimony.
And, Mr. Morenoff, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DAVID L. MORENOFF
Mr. Morenoff. Good morning, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member
Castor, and members of the subcommittee. My name is David
Morenoff. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today as a member of the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
I currently serve as the Commission's acting general
counsel. I am honored to have served in senior roles in the
Commission's Office of the General Counsel since 2010. The
views I express today are my own and are not necessarily those
of the Commission or of any individual Commissioner.
The Commission's jurisdiction covers a range of vital
energy-related responsibilities. For example, pursuant to the
Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act, it is the
Commission's responsibility to ensure that rates for the
wholesale sale and transmission of electricity, as well as the
transportation of natural gas by pipeline and interstate
commerce, are just and reasonable. The Commission also is
responsible for overseeing the reliability of the country's
bulk power system.
In addition, the Commission is responsible for siting
needed energy infrastructure, including natural gas pipelines
and liquefied natural gas and hydroelectric facilities. Through
these authorities, the Commission helps to ensure that our
country has a reliable and affordable supply of energy. These
statutory responsibilities align with the themes of the
proposed legislation that is the subject of today's hearing.
My colleague, Terry Turpin, Director of the Commission's
Office of Energy Projects, is addressing the subset of those
bills related to infrastructure permitting. I am addressing the
subset of those bills related to the reliability and
affordability of electric power.
Driven in part by the demands of emerging large loads such
as data centers, our country is experiencing rapid growth of
electric load unlike anything seen in at least several decades.
To not only meet that growth but also to do so in an affordable
manner, it is important to both interconnect new-generation
resources expeditiously and retain existing generation
resources that are needed for reliability but considering
retirement.
Commission Chairman Mark Christie, who President Trump
designated as Chairman in January of 2025, has emphasized those
trends and related concerns throughout his tenure at the
Commission. He began in January 2021.
The Commission is taking action on these pressing
issues.For example, in January 2023--I am sorry--in July 2023,
the Commission unanimously approved Order No. 2023, which
reformed the rules governing the interconnection of new
generation resources. More recently, the Commission approved
proposals from grid operators for several regions to expedite
the interconnection for generation resources that are more
likely to be constructed and that will meet a region's needs as
well as proposals to account for how various types of
generation resources contribute differently to a region's
electric capacity.
The Commission also has announced the technical conference
for June 4 and 5, 2025, to discuss the resource adequacy
challenges facing several regions and constructs by which those
regions address those challenges. Additionally, the Commission
continues to protect the reliability of the bulk power system
by fulfilling its statutory obligation to oversee development
of and compliance with mandatory reliability standards.
Several bills that are the subject of today's hearing
address similar reliability challenges, ranging from the
premature retirement of existing dispatchable generation
resources without sufficient time to ensure that adequate
replacement solutions are in place, frustratingly slow
interconnection to new generation resources, to the potential
for Federal agency actions that do not adequately account for
reliability concerns. If Congress determines that such
challenges warrant providing further direction and tools to the
Commission, then the Commission stands ready to take on those
additional responsibilities.
Thank you for the invitation to testify before the
subcommittee today. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morenoff follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Turpin, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF TERRY L. TURPIN
Mr. Turpin. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Latta,
Ranking Member Castor, and members of the subcommittee. With 14
bills and two panels, I will keep my opening remarks brief.
My name is Terry Turpin. I am Director of the Office of
Energy Projects at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The Office is responsible for taking a lead role in carrying
out the Commission's duties and siting infrastructure projects,
including those from nonfederal hydropower projects, interstate
natural gas pipelines and storage facilities, and liquefied
natural gas terminals.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss current legislative efforts regarding infrastructure
permitting as well as the Commission's processes and conducting
environmental reviews required under the National Environmental
Policy Act. The Commission's statutory responsibilities under
the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act align with the
themes of the proposed legislation that is the subject of
today's hearing.
My colleague, David Morenoff, acting general counsel at the
Commission, is addressing those subsets related to reliability
and affordability of electric power, and I am addressing those
related to infrastructure permitting. As a member of the
Commission staff, the views I express today are my own and not
necessarily those of the Commission or any individual
Commissioner.
Under the Federal Power Act, nonfederal hydropower projects
must be licensed by the Commission if they are located on a
navigable waterway, occupy Federal land, use surplus water or
water power from a Federal dam, or are located on certain
waters subject to the Commerce Clause. Under the Natural Gas
Act, the Commission is responsible for siting interstate
natural gas facilities under Section 7 and under Section 3 for
the construction and operation of facilities used for the
import or export of natural gas.
In both hydropower and natural gas proceedings, the
Commission acts as the lead agency for the purposes of
conducting--of coordinating the Federal authorizations and for
purposes of complying with the National Environmental Policy
Act. This environmental review is carried out through a process
that allows cooperation from numerous stakeholders, including
Federal, State, local agencies, and the public.
The Commission's current approach has allowed for--allows
for a systemic and collaborative process and has resulted in
substantial additions to the Nation's infrastructure. Over the
last 10 years, the Commission has issued 175 hydropower
licenses, authorizing approximately 11 gigawatts of generation
capacity. We have also authorized over 8,100 miles of
interstate natural gas pipeline, which totals more than 132
billion cubic feet per day of transportation capacity.
The Commission has issued orders authorizing--issued 44
orders authorizing LNG facility constructions, expansions,
modifications, and capacity uprates. In addition, we have
issued 23 Section 3 authorizations specific to natural gas
border-crossing facilities.
Commission staff remains committed to working with Congress
and with all agencies to ensure the most effective processing
of energy infrastructure matters before the Commission, and we
would be happy to provide technical assistance as you move
forward.T
Thanks, again, for inviting me today, and I would be happy
to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turpin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
And that will conclude our witness' statements, and we will now
proceed to the Member statements or questions to our witnesses.
And, again, thank you very much for appearing before us today.
You know, one of the first questions I have been asking for
the last several years here on this subcommittee is a very
simple one: Do we have to have more power or less power being
produced in this country? And just a simple more or less. If I
could just go right down starting with Mr. Goff, if you would
like to start.
Dr. Goff. Clearly, we need significantly more.
Mr. Morenoff. Mr. Chairman, I agree. We need new generation
resources at present.
Mr. Turpin. Same. More.
Mr. Latta. OK. Well, thank you very much. You know, we had
a few weeks back the RTOs and the ISOs here before us, and they
said the same thing. And the other question that they also
brought up and said was that we can't be taking off--generation
offline.
And I know that you mentioned, Mr. Morenoff, in your
statement about retaining existing generation resources. And
what happens if you don't do that? What happens if we start--
you know, if we continue on the course that we have had, taking
off the generation we currently have and not replacing it?
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Commission
Chairman Christie has stated repeatedly for several years,
including before--in testimony before this subcommittee, there
is a pressing need to both be interconnecting new generation
resources and to be retire--preventing the retirement of
generation that is needed for reliability, and I think he has
rightly pointed out that there could be real reliability
concerns if we don't hit both sides of that dynamic.
Mr. Latta. And, also, you mentioned in your testimony--and
I believe also, Mr. Goff, you did, too--when you were talking
about, you know, our base load needs going up, and a huge part
of this is because of the data centers coming online.
But, you know, you also said, Mr. Morenoff--if I could
continue real quick on--you know, we have to interconnect new
generation expeditiously. How would you define expeditiously?
Mr. Morenoff. I think expeditiously would be as quickly as
we can do so while ensuring we are maintaining the reliability
of the system.
Mr. Latta. And, Mr. Goff, if I could just go to you
quickly. Again, certain things we have to have, you said on the
critical minerals side. Are we doing our part in this country
to get the critical minerals here instead of relying on
countries like Communist China who not only have certain
critical minerals but are also refining those critical
minerals?
Dr. Goff. No. We do need to increase our capabilities in
that area to be able to meet a number of demands across a
variety of sectors.
Mr. Latta. When you were talking about--on the refining
side, you mentioned that we have--you know, we have an aging
infrastructure which is really--it is true because when you
look at what you mentioned in your testimony that we have not,
you know, constructed a new refinery in this country since
1976.
You know, you also brought out that, of the hundreds of
thousands of different products that petrochemicals are needed
for, what would happen if our refining capability keeps
decreasing? And you mentioned that since we have had 600,000
barrels per day less being produced since 2020.
Dr. Goff. On the bill that was put forward, we think that
is an important thing to be able to identify what those
vulnerabilities would be. So get that feedback, that data, and
identify what those critical vulnerabilities are and make sure
that we can take action to make sure that we do have the
supplies and the capabilities we need for the country.
Mr. Latta. And, you know, that is one of the reasons I am
going to be reintroducing--and we have the REFINER Act because,
again, we have got to be getting this done. And so it is very,
very important that we don't--because, as you mentioned, you
know, we are losing the refining capacity going down. We can't
have that happen.
And I would also like to mention that, you know, when you
look at the Electric Supply Chain Act--which I also am looking
at reintroducing, or introducing--it would ensure the
Department remains in a proactive posture to identify and
address emerging issues as they impact the supply chain.
I would like to submit, without objection, a letter from GE
Vernova, a leading company in the production of power-sector
equipment, who committed to take new turbine orders for 2028, a
3-year timeline that aligns with historical norms. Without
objection, we will include that in the record.
But, you know, we are looking at a lot of different issues
out there that we are having a real--we are all concerned
about. And one of the things that we have also been talking
about is--you know, when we are looking at the generation needs
that we have to have--is making sure that, you know, we are
retaining that.
You mentioned, Mr. Morenoff, how important that is because,
as we have seen the numbers on the AI and the data centers
looking at 4\1/2\ to 6 to 8 percent more this year and it just
keeps going up--that we are going to have a great need out
there.
And my time has expired, and I will submit my other
questions for the record to our witnesses.
So, at this time, I would recognize the gentlelady from
Florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes
for questions.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Morenoff, you mentioned in your testimony--you talked
about the implementation of Order 2023. In her concurrence to
that order, Commissioner Clements expressed support for more
deeply exploring the range of options available to use
automation to facilitate more efficient interconnection. More
recently, Commissioner Rosner wrote a letter to the ISOs and
RTOs highlighting recent successful initial deployment. My
Expediting Generator Interconnection Procedures Act would help
FERC take those next steps.
Can you speak broadly to what FERC is seeing in Order 2023
compliance filings and what opportunities could exist for grid
operators to use automation and AI technologies in
interconnection?
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Castor,
for the question. We are both very optimistic about the impact
that Order No. 2023, including our processing of compliance
filings, will have with respect to the expeditious
interconnection of generation, and we very much agree that
there is great potential for steps beyond what the Commission
has required in Order 2023.
As to the former, the Commission to date has processed over
80 percent of the initial round of compliance filings that were
submitted in response to Order No. 2023 within the first year
of the middle of those filings, and as that compliance is a
vital step to transmission projects across the country,
beginning their implementation of those vital reforms--we think
we will see substantial progress there.
As you noted also, in both Commissioner Clements'
concurrence and, more recently, Commissioner Rosner's
statement, things like additional automation have great
potential to further expedite those--the same goals, and I
think that that is something we are very excited to see and
that transmission providers are looking at themselves as well
in addition to what nudges may come from FERC or could come
from this committee.
Ms. Castor. Expediting energy sources that we are going to
need?
Mr. Morenoff. Correct.
Ms. Castor. Yes.
Dr. Goff, you recently took on the new role as Acting Under
Secretary of Energy, which oversees the Offices of Clean Energy
Demonstration, Grid Deployment, Manufacturing and Energy Supply
Chains, State and Community Energy Programs, and Loan Programs.
That is a large portfolio. But I am very concerned with the
layoffs. The reports are you have lost half of the personnel
there.
How is that going to impact the ability to distribute
congressionally directed funds for projects such as hydrogen
hubs, carbon capture, battery manufacturing, all of those
important partnerships with the private sector?
Dr. Goff. I guess the key thing I wanted to state about
that is the Department does remain committed to making sure
that we do carry out our critical missions of strengthening
Americans' energy dominance and safeguarding our nuclear
security activities as well. So we are working through those
various reorganization-type activities, but we are committed to
making sure we still deliver on those key missions going
forward here.
Ms. Castor. So how is that really impacting? Do you have a
list of how many projects have been frozen or canceled?
Dr. Goff. Right now, the Department is performing a
departmentwide review of all the different activities and
looking for and doing an assessment of them and making sure
that the activities are, you know, following the law, comply
with applicable court orders, and align with administration
priorities. That is an ongoing activity, so I don't have a list
of all those activities.
Ms. Castor. I am certainly following those court orders,
too, that direct you to follow the law and constitutional
precepts.
Dr. Goff. Yes.
Ms. Castor. When it comes to critical minerals right now,
who is in the lead? The former administration had an
interagency critical minerals work group. On the China Select
Committee, we have done some bipartisan work there, but we are
kind of at a loss now on who the point person is on strategy
when it comes to critical minerals. Who can you point us to?
Dr. Goff. It is actually now, I think, still divided
between--the Department of Energy and Department of Interior
have different roles on identifying critical materials versus
critical minerals. We are, though, working together, and I
think we are looking at doing an update this year in 2025 on
that critical minerals materials list. So it is still going on
and coordinated between the two different agencies.
Ms. Castor. Is that in your shop, or is there an
assistant--another Secretary?
Dr. Goff. It is in the Manufacturing and--yes, it is in
MESC, one of our areas within the infrastructure area of the
under secretary.
Ms. Castor. Have you met with other agency partners on this
topic recently?
Dr. Goff. I have not recently, but I will note I have been
in the position right now for 3 days.
Ms. Castor. OK. Will you follow up on that?
Dr. Goff. Yes.
Ms. Castor. And, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of good
bipartisan work. Congressman Wittman and I have taken a deep
dive on some of that, and I wonder if we can work together as
we develop the legislation out of this committee to help move
some of those ideas forward.
Mr. Latta. Well, and this committee has always had a number
one--and we were talking about bipartisanship and new bills
through. So we are always willing to sit down and get to work.
Ms. Castor. OK. Terrific. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Thank you.
At this time, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Ohio's--let's see. I don't think Mr. Allen is here.
So Mr. Balderson of Ohio's 12th District for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here today.
I am going to start with Mr. Morenoff. Good morning, sir.
Based on our committee work, I believe FERC should be empowered
to bring its reliability perspective when necessary to Federal
rulemakings that would have significant and negative impacts on
reliability.
Congress established that NERC, the electrical reliability
organization, should provide FERC with authoritative views on
grid adequacy and reliability. In the Reliable Power Act, NERC
reliability assessments provide the basis for FERC review of
other agency rulemaking. In addition to NERC, the transmission
organizers, including the RTOs and ISOs, have engineered a
modeling capability that could inform understanding of resource
and reliability risk.
If Congress provides FERC additional authority over other
agency rulemakings, would FERC's review and advice benefit from
consolidation with transmission organizations, the grid
operators, to identify potential reliability risks in Federal
rulemakings?
Mr. Morenoff. Congressman, thank you very much for that
question. The answer is yes. I think that if Congress were to
grant FERC that additional authority, of course FERC would
stand ready to implement that. At present, FERC does not have,
I think, the depth or extent of computing resources to do the
extent of analysis that might be required as to some of those
other agencies' actions that might be subject, and I think our
being able to lean towards either NERC or towards transmission
providers could be very beneficial.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you. I will stay with you, Mr.
Morenoff. I would like to follow up on a conversation I had
with PJM during an Energy Subcommittee hearing earlier this
year.
Unlike traditional thermal generation, renewable resources
do not provide certain essential reliability services that are
necessary to balance and maintain the power grid. Do you have
concerns with the lack of dispatchable power generation
entering operators' interconnection queues, and are there
enough of these projects to offset premature retirements and
meet the rising demand growth?
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you, Congressman. I think that is an
``and'' that it is crucial to be getting as much generation
resources of a variety of types as we can interconnected
expeditiously. We also recognize that different regions are
facing different challenges, and the Commission is currently
reviewing filings, including recently acting on a filing from
PJM, to address the specific needs and the proposed solutions
that PJM brought to the Commission to ensure that they have the
resources they need.
Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you. Earlier this year, sir, FERC
approved PJM's Reliability Resource Initiative, or RRI. This
initiative will provide an influx of reliable generation needed
to help meet demand growth. Last month, PJM announced they had
already attracted 94 applications, totaling 26.6 gigawatts of
nameplate capacity for the RRI. Can you discuss FERC's decision
to approve PJM's RRI?
Mr. Morenoff. Congressman, thank you. Yes, I think that the
Commission's action on PJM's RRI filing is a good illustration
of how the Commission is both taking actions on a generic
basis, such as through Order No. 2023, while also recognizing
that each region may have its own challenges, and we were
pleased that PJM brought a filing to us and that we were able
to approve that filing consistent with our governing statutory
standards.
Mr. Balderson. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Goff, I do have a couple more minutes left, so I will
switch over to you. Thank you for being here and the work that
you and Secretary Wright and the Department of Energy are doing
to unleash the American energy dominance.
In your testimony, you discuss the work you are doing to
strengthen the American supply chain, increase the production
of domestic resources, and approve permits for energy projects.
As you are working to expand our energy systems, do you think
it makes sense that we are also focusing on the reliability of
the electric grid to ensure constituents have access to
affordable, reliable, and secure energy to keep the lights on?
Dr. Goff. Yes. It is critical that we maintain the grid to
be able to get that power to the different--you know, to the
communities, to the people, to the businesses as well. And a
lot of those businesses, especially as we talk more and more
about AI, are requiring it to be very firm, reliable power, you
know, delivered 24/7.
Mr. Balderson. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's
50th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morenoff, I think you said something about the amount
of power that is in line to be constructed. Was that in your
testimony?
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you, Congressman. I did not cite to a
specific number, but we do have very large currently
interconnection queues in regions throughout the country.
Mr. Peters. Do you have a sense of the quantity of that?
Mr. Morenoff. I am sorry?
Mr. Peters. Do you have a general sense of the quantity of
it?
Mr. Morenoff. Oh, I do not offhand. It is a very large
number, I think roughly equivalent to the amount of power that
is already used in the country.
Mr. Peters. Right. And this is power that wants to be built
and interconnected, right?
Mr. Morenoff. That is correct.
Mr. Peters. Do you know what portion of that is oil and gas
and what portion is sort of nonemitting?
Mr. Morenoff. Currently, the interconnection queues are
overwhelmingly intermittent resources, whether that is
predominantly but not exclusively wind and solar.
Mr. Peters. My understanding is it is close to 90 percent.
I don't know if you know that is right or not.
Mr. Morenoff. I do not know that for sure, but I think that
is at least correct as an order of magnitude.
Mr. Peters. Right. And so I would just raise two issues for
that. One is that there is a lot of talk in this building about
cancelling some of the text incentives that make those deals
possible. And I just want to say, if we are all on board with
the notion we need a lot more power, it seems to me that would
be an extremely unwise thing to do, because the testimony we
hear from the industry is that that would kill all those deals
and set us back.
The other thing I would suggest is there is an idea on
these pages that we would have oil and gas jump the line over
other forms of energy. One of the things we learned at the
recent energy conference that some of my colleagues and I
attended is that it takes about 5 years to do a gas project
now, where solar and wind can be available in about a year. So,
if we are really talking about meeting the demand, maybe
jumping the line for something that is not ready isn't the
smartest thing.
But the other thing I would say, too, is one of the big
problems with interconnection is that there is nothing to
connect to. I have often said that the energy grid is too
small, too old, and too dumb.
And what I am frustrated with here a little bit, Mr.
Chairman--and this was happening in the last Congress--we
didn't really take on the problem of the capacity of
transmission in a bipartisan way. And I am hopeful that with a
new Chair and a new Congress and, actually, I think,
appointments by the President in this field that are folks we
can work with--that we do that because--you can decide what
order people can connect to, but if there is nothing to connect
to, there is not going to be any connections. We have to build
out the grid.
And maybe, Mr. Morenoff, you can speak to some of the
benefits of the unanimous Order 1920-A, which is a forward-
looking planning process for reliability and affordability
around the grid.
Mr. Morenoff. Congressman, thank you for that question. The
Commission agrees that it has been crucial to take steps not
only with respect to reforming the interconnection rules but
also to be looking in a proactive manner with respect to
improvements to the transmission grid.
In that respect, last November the Commission, as you
noted, unanimously approved Order No. 1920-A, which largely
reaffirmed the Commission's prior rule from earlier last year,
Order No. 1920, addressing a variety of reforms as to long-term
transmission planning and, in Order 1920-A, had particular
emphasis on the role that States need to play in that process,
recognizing how important it is to having States supportive of
planning as well as cost allocation in transmission--
Mr. Peters. And not just within regions, right? Also among
regions, because there are benefits for reliability and
affordability. Isn't that right?
Mr. Morenoff. Yes. That is right. It is also very important
to look for the interconnection as between regions, and we are
currently reviewing a congressionally directed report from NERC
going to the transfer capability between regions.
Mr. Peters. Right. I called to the committee's attention
last year when there was a bipartisan agreement led by Senators
Manchin and Barrasso called the Energy Permitting Reform Act--
Mr. Chair, that we should be starting with that, I think. We
are not even talking about it. It included a couple of my
ideas: The BIG WIRES Act, which would provide for interregional
transmission, and the SPEED and Reliability Act, which would
provide streamlining for large transmission lines that
demonstrably improve grid reliability and reduce congestion. We
are not even talking about that here. And, to me, I think it is
a missed opportunity.
So there is a lot of--there is only one Democratic bill. I
think there are some study bills that I could be willing to get
on. But we have got to broaden this net a little bit if we are
going to get a deal on permitting reform and on transmission
and on generation because all those things go together, and
that is the point I have been trying to make for a long time. I
think that is what we heard from the industry at a recent
conference, and I just want you to know that that is where I am
at and hoping we can do more in the next hearing.
And I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
expired and yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee's
First District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the panel here today.
And I will start with Dr. Goff. At a recent hearing with
the regional grid operators, we heard about the impacts that
power plant retirements are having on their bulk power system,
and these concerns were shared by NERC, who identified upwards
of 115 gigawatts of power could leave the system over the next
decade.
You know, a lot of these plants are retiring prematurely
and are assets that should have several years, if not decades,
full of useful life. In the midst of the global AI arms race
with China and efforts to reshore domestic manufacturing
capacity, we shouldn't be leaving these stranded assets just
sitting idly by.
Can you talk about what the Department of Energy is doing
to ensure that the U.S. maintains a leadership position in AI
development?
Dr. Goff. As Secretary Wright has noted, he does really
believe we need to be focusing on energy addition, not
subtraction, and take advantage of the innovation capabilities
of the Department of Energy to enable us to be able to deploy
advanced energy technologies here in the very near term.
As you note, with AI, you know, the projection right now is
we may double or triple the AI energy uses between now and
2028, which can get us up to around 12 percent energy needs for
AI. So, yes, we do recognize that it is critical. From a
national security perspective, we have to keep the AI
activities on shore and be able to provide the energy for them.
So we are looking at all type of energy sources to make sure
how do we keep those assets going.
I will note my background. I have worked primarily in the
nuclear space and am duel-hatted right now in the nuclear
energy role. We have done a significant effort to make sure
that we do keep the existing nuclear power plants continuing to
operate. You know, it was--10 years ago, we were forced with a
lot of early premature closures of nuclear power plants. We
have now been able to turn that around where we are not only
talking about--not closures, but actually talking about
restarts of power plants.
So that is why, yes, we are working through our Loan
Programs Office to help restart on the Palisades Nuclear Power
Plant in Michigan and also looking at restarting the Three Mile
Island reactor as well. So we are trying to take proactive
steps to make sure that we can make additions of energy and to
make sure that we do have the energy needed in the United
States to on-shore the AI technology and all the advanced
manufacturing and other activities that are coming on as we
continue to electrify more and more----
Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, we see the need increasing, not
decreasing at all. And I am from Tennessee. Of course, you have
TVA, and we look at nuclear with small modular reactors and how
that asset--that is going to be a huge asset to help with our
energy needs. And, if they want clean energy, it is going to be
hydro and nuclear. And that is not just my opinion. You can ask
anyone about that.
And, you know, in your testimony, you talked about the
electrical grid and the vulnerabilities that we have. And I
understand that, you know, and I have talked to many people.
And I remember reading the first articles with the EMP
Commission and things of that nature.
What can we do to put that in check and make sure that
those--you know, I go to TVA dams and I look at your safety
protocols, and it is interesting. I was just there. And we had
Hurricane Helene in my area, and it devastated a lot of east
Tennessee, but those dams held because their safety protocols
were so up to speed. But talk to me about the vulnerabilities
with the grid system.
Dr. Goff. Yes. We do need to make sure that we do have a
very reliable grid. We have done a lot of lessons learned from
my colleagues at FERC and the Department of Energy looking at
how do we learn from those various events that have occurred,
and how do we apply those going forward? You know, how do we
get more dispatchable electricity onto the grid to ensure that
reliability is there, and how do we operate more as we are
having more and more penetration of renewables as well?
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Dr. Goff. So there have been extensive studies, but a lot
of that is still focused on we need more capacity added to the
grid as well and additional transmission and all as well to
make sure that we can manage that.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Absolutely. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Morenoff, I would like to follow up with you on power
plants that are retiring prematurely. And over the past year,
we have seen a number of closed power plants seeking to reopen
to meet the historic projected demands. Your testimony
discusses the need to retain existing generations as well as
the need to interconnect new sources of generation. Given the
timeframe of projected demands from critical industries such as
AI and manufacturing, how important is it to retain as much
dispatchable energy generation as we can and stop the bleeding
of premature retirements?
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. I agree
it is very important for us to be careful in considering what
existing generation that may retire is needed for reliability
and to take steps to prevent those retirements.
Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. Thank you, sir.
And my time is up, so I yield back.
Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New
Jersey's 8th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman.
This is our fourth hearing on meeting energy demands. And a
recurring theme we discussed today and at previous hearings and
with our industry experts later this morning, is providing
certainty for the energy industry.
Dr. Goff, just yes or no, from your perspective at the
Department of Energy, is providing certainty for the energy
industry important for planning and investment purposes?
Dr. Goff. Yes. I mean, there is critical--as companies are
looking to try to come up with investment scenarios, knowing--
you know, knowing how long things are going to take from a
regulatory perspective and all as well, having that certainty
is very important.
Mr. Menendez. These are capital-intensive projects that
take a long time to fully bring online and see the return on
these investments. Is that correct?
Dr. Goff. Some of--yes.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you. Yes. I think Chairman Guthrie
mentioned 30 years in his opening statements. So predictability
certainty is important. Would anybody disagree with that? Yes.
Again, Dr. Goff, does certainty for industry support our
ability to plan for meeting future energy needs and demands?
Does certainty for industry support our ability to plan for
meeting future energy needs and demands?
Dr. Goff. Does----
Mr. Menendez. Certainty.
Dr. Goff. Certainty. I mean, knowing some--having some
level of certainty on what your investment plan is and what
your return is is very important.
Mr. Menendez. Yes. And Federal programs that enable
generator energy providers to do so is helpful.
Again, yes or no, would you agree that consistent policies
and priorities at the Federal level help for planning purposes?
Dr. Goff. In general, yes. Assuming they are good,
consistent policies, yes, they are.
Mr. Menendez. I agree. And I agree it is important for the
energy industry to have consistency and reliability at the
Federal level for long-term planning purposes. Unfortunately,
that is the exact opposite of what we have seen from this
administration.
Since he took office, President Trump has done nothing but
serve chaos for the energy sector. In New Jersey, he has halted
offshore wind projects, and he has halted other clean energy
projects across the country. And not only are Republicans
sitting here and letting it happen, they have made it clear
they plan on unwinding the Inflation Reduction Act, our biggest
investment, clean energy, and any tools we need to meet
increasing demand as quickly as possible.
It has been made clear by witnesses, even several of our
Republican witnesses, that the Inflation Reduction Act is
essential to our future energy reliability.
Mr. Morenoff, your testimony states that we need to
interconnect new generation services to meet growth. That
includes renewables such as solar, wind, and batteries, is that
correct?
Mr. Morenoff. Yes, it is, Congressman.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you. And our only realistic source of
energy growth is solar, wind, and batteries, which is being
blatantly ignored by the Trump administration. And we have
heard that Trump's pausing of Federal permits for renewable
projects and imposing tariffs on grid components will hurt our
long-term interests. Again, this goes back to the consistency
and reliability.
The previous administration was focused on clean, renewable
energy sources. That focus should continue to promote because
they are additional sources of capacity. Does anybody disagree
with that? All right.
Most of the bills we are discussing here today are on the
exact same thing. They shift focus away from long-term
reliability and prioritize gas projects despite the
unreliability in extreme weather events and in complete
disregard of State laws that seek to prioritize clean energy
products.
Again to you, when I go back home, our constituents are
looking for clean, renewable sources of energy because they
have to live with the harm of previous sources of energy. All
the while, we already have the means to meet growing energy
needs through clean, renewable sources. And we should be
encouraging grid operators to clear the interconnection backlog
which primarily consists of clean energy projects and building
on IRA investments. This back and forth between administrations
will only hurt us in the long run.
Quickly, does anyone disagree that this change between
administrations is harmful to long-term planning of our energy
production?
Dr. Goff. I think it is critical that we look at the
conditions that we are in right now. We are, right now, facing
a time of very high growth in electricity, which we really
didn't have 5 years ago. This is a change in dynamics right
now. We do need more electricity now than we thought we did 5
years ago.
Mr. Menendez. And so we need energy from all different
sources, is that correct?
Dr. Goff. I agree. We do need all sources of electricity,
but that does include some of the dispatchable systems that we
have online now.
Mr. Menendez. So if I grant you that, would you say it is
ill-advised to unwind some of the progress that we have made on
clean, renewable energy under the Inflation Reduction Act?
Dr. Goff. I think, again, we need to make sure that we have
all type of energy sources out there in making additions.
Mr. Menendez. Including clean and renewable energy. And we
should utilize existing legislation that encourages the
development of clean, renewable energy.
Dr. Goff. That encourages the development of all types
energy sources.
Mr. Menendez. Including clean and renewable energy. Yes or
no?
Dr. Goff. All type energy sources. That would be a type in
there as well.
Mr. Menendez. I will take that as a yes, sir, because I
have to yield back.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks [presiding]. The gentleman's time has
expired.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Allen for 5 minutes
for any questions he may have.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairlady. And I want to thank Chair
Latta for holding this important legislative hearing.
I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony, your
expert testimony, in this first panel.
I mean, we just finished the conversation. Energy security
is national security, and it is critical that we look to enact
meaningful policies that will ensure our grid's reliability.
And a big part of ensuring grid reliability is making sure we
have the energy needed to meet our growing demand. Building up
energy infrastructure is critical, and something I would like
to focus on is building our pipeline capacity.
Natural gas pipelines are key to providing reliable base
load power. We need to address permitting for natural gas
pipelines.
Mr. Turpin, from a reliabilities perspective, is it
concerning that only one interstate pipeline was completed in
2024?
Mr. Turpin. I think from the liability perspective, it is
concerning when there is only one source of energy path on any
infrastructure.
Mr. Allen. Are Clean Water Act Section 401 permits a
significant challenge to pipeline development in certain
regions of our country?
Mr. Turpin. I think, historically, we haven't seen much
problem with the 401s. I think there have been, in the last,
probably, 5 to 7 years, a few States that have used them or
just haven't issued them or denied them on certain pipeline
projects. But nationally, I haven't seen it as a larger trend.
Mr. Allen. And the reason I bring this up is that in
talking about base load, converting our power plants to natural
gas burns 42 percent cleaner. I mean, it is the largest reason
we have reduced our carbon footprint by, I don't know, 1,400
tons in the last 10 years. Nearest nation to us is Japan at 200
tons. So we are doing our part.
But, again, we--you know, right now, if I had three
pipelines out of Pennsylvania to the coast of Louisiana, we
could power the entire Continent of Europe and probably end the
war in Ukraine and Russia, just based on the fact that we could
power that entire continent. Forty-two percent cleaner than
they are currently burning the heavy crude over there.
So thank you, all of you, for your expertise. And with
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back--Ms. Chairman.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes Representative McClellan for 5
minutes for any questions she may have.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank
Chairman Latta and Ranking Member Castor for planning this very
important hearing.
As you heard, I am from Virginia. We are both the data
center capital of the world and the clean energy capital of the
South. And I am very proud of both, particularly since I led
the fight to make us the clean energy capital of the South. And
I know firsthand how important it is for us to meet our
exploding energy needs and that clean energy is going to be
critically important to that.
I also want to thank Ranking Member Castor for her
leadership on the Expediting Generator Interconnection
Procedures Act, which would take meaningful steps to modernize
the way grid operators handle interconnection requests.
In Virginia, we have almost 30 gigawatts of solar and 5
gigawatts of wind stuck in the interconnection queue. And if we
could get that capacity online faster, we would be in a much
better position to meet our growing demand in a way that is
affordable, reliable, and sustainable.
In 2024, U.S. developers added nearly 9 gigawatts of
battery storage capacity, which they plan to double this year,
with over 18 gigawatts of new storage expected. But President
Trump's Liberation Day tariffs have thrown those plans into
uncertainty.
His new policy includes a nearly 65 percent tariff on
lithium-ion batteries from China, which are needed for grid-
scale energy storage projects. And at the same time, he is
attempting to roll back investments in domestic battery
manufacturing which were made through the Inflation Reduction
Act.
So, Dr. Goff, I would like to start with, what impact will
these new tariffs have on utility costs and, ultimately, the
energy bills that struggling American families pay?
Dr. Goff. I will note one of the items that--one of the
bills that are being considered today is a supply chain
activity. So one of those activities would really focus on
addressing--looking at the supply chain and looking at the
vulnerabilities associated with that, which that would include
any impacts of tariffs and all as well. So that would be
critical to be able to do that, to be able to look at those
analyses to know what the impacts are because, like I said, the
Department is really committed to trying to move forward and
making sure that we do have secure, reliable, and affordable
energy for the American people.
Ms. McClellan. And in your opinion, how are tariffs,
combined with canceled investments, going to impact our
national competitiveness?
Dr. Goff. Again, we are focused on trying to make sure that
we can make energy addition. So we will have to be assessing
how the tariffs will--how tariffs will impact. But again, we
are committed to trying to make sure that we can move forward
and make sure we have, again, secure, affordable, reliable
electricity for the American people.
Ms. McClellan. But would you agree that, if there is a
tariff on components that are critically important for clean
energy--battery storage--and we are removing investments in
domestically produced clean energy, that is going to be a
challenge in using clean energy to meet our growing energy
demand? Would you agree with that?
Dr. Goff. Again, would have to assess how those individual
tariffs would be applied to those items, whether there's
exemptions, whether there's carve-outs.
You know, I know on some of the tariffs that were imposed,
say, within the nuclear space, some of them did not include
uranium and all as well. So it would depend on how those items
are applied.
Ms. McClellan. But right now, are lithium-ion batteries
included?
Dr. Goff. I am sorry, I am not a tariff, you know, expert
right now.
Ms. McClellan. OK. Currently, it can take up to 5 years for
regional grid operators to approve interconnection requests for
new power plants, according to Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. So, Mr. Morenoff, do you think that kind of delay
is acceptable, and how can we bring resources online as quickly
as possible?
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you, Congresswoman.
No, it is not. I think that, given the exceptional growth
we are seeing in demand particularly, we need to be
interconnecting new generation much more quickly. I think that
some of the steps FERC has taken already will help to ease
those burdens and move that more quickly. And I think that
there are more steps to come, including the potential for
further technological deployments.
Ms. McClellan. And you would agree that one of the ways to
meet those demands more quickly is if we could get clean energy
projects like wind and solar that are already in the pipeline
going and online?
Mr. Morenoff. I agree. I think that being able to move
expeditiously through the existing interconnection queues is
part of that solution.
Ms. McClellan. And would you agree that it would be much
faster to get those clean energy projects that are already in
progress online, it is going to be much quicker than trying to
get a brand-new natural gas power plant online?
Mr. Morenoff. I think, in general, that is correct. I think
that one of the challenges some of the queues have faced is the
individual challenges faced by particular generators, and that
may be true regardless of the resource type.
Ms. McClellan. OK. Thank you.
And this one I am not going to have time to get an answer,
so I will just ask on the record. Last year, the Department of
Energy created a transmission interconnection roadmap outlining
solutions to speed up the interconnection of energy onto the
grid, but since January that web link has been pulled down and
I am not sure if it is up. When I checked last this morning, it
wasn't up.
Dr. Goff, do you know whether these resources will be put
back up?
Dr. Goff. I do not know but can look into it.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you. Because I think it is going to be
kind of hard to do what we need to do if we are silencing
information and research.
And with that, I yield back.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. The gentlewoman's time has expired, and
she yields back.
The Chair now recognizes herself for 5 minutes for any
questions she may have.
I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee,
Chairman Latta, and also Ranking Member Castor for holding this
important hearing on ensuring abundant, reliable American
energy to power innovation.
The massive power outage that paralyzed Spain and Portugal
on Monday underscores the critical importance of our work
today. This incident, which affected millions of people,
disrupted transportation systems, healthcare services and
businesses, demonstrates the vulnerability of even
sophisticated electrical grids and is a stark reminder of what
is at stake when we discuss grid reliability.
Like our last Member who spoke, I agree that projects that
have already started should be allowed to continue, such as the
canceling the Keystone pipeline 4 years ago, which caused the
loss of 11,000 American jobs and energy to our refiners here in
the United States.
The last administration was all about energy subtraction,
as we know, from the Power Plant 2.0 rule, from increasing the
mandate for electric vehicles, even though we didn't have the
electricity to power them. And we saw that play out in
California.
We are facing unprecedented growth in electricity demand,
and this administration is all about energy addition and
homegrown energy addition. And it is driven largely, as we have
said, by AI data centers and advanced manufacturing. We must
ensure that our policies support a diverse and resilient
portfolio that maintains reliability while fostering
innovation.
In my district, we have seen firsthand the benefits of an
any-of-the-above energy approach. Wind energy powers generates
59 percent of our electricity, significantly reducing our
dependence on coal, while maintaining some of the lowest
electricity rates in the Nation. However, this success has been
achieved by complementing all of our renewable sources, our
carbon-based fuels, our liquid fuels, with flexible natural gas
generation and our historic hydroelectric facilities that power
essential reliability services.
The loss of our only nuclear plant at Duane Arnold and 20--
was a 22 percent--and a 22 percent decrease in the share of
coal in the last 5 years highlights a concerning trend
nationwide. We are retiring dispatchable base load generation
even as demand accelerates. NERC's recent assessment found that
over the next decade, 115 gigawatts of dispatchable generation
is scheduled for retirement while demand may increase up to 151
gigawatts.
As we confront these challenges, we must ensure our
policies ensure and enable adequate supply and distribution of
all energy resources that provide abundant power--carbon-based
fuels such as natural gas, coal, hydroelectric, wind, solar,
biofuels, biomass, compressed renewable and natural gas, most
of which we actually have in Iowa--while continuing to promote
the innovation that has made American energy the most
sophisticated and efficient in the world. And most importantly,
we have to pass thoughtful legislation that prioritizes
affordability, abundance, reliability, and security.
Mr. Goff, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply
Act builds on DOE's current efforts. Could you elaborate on the
landscape of critical minerals for the committee, which
resources are most critical to energy supply and who supplies
them, and what actions the DOE is taking to secure these supply
chains?
Dr. Goff. Well, first, I think the present bill looking at
the supply chain for critical minerals is a good step. It is
doing an assessment, looking at vulnerabilities and looking at
how we need to move forward.
We do have--like I said, working with the Department of
Interior, we are looking this year at doing an update on the
critical minerals and critical materials list, which, again,
identifies which items we should be focusing on. So like I
said, we hope to be updating that this year, which, again, will
identify additional focus. Because, yes, a large fraction of
these we do not produce domestically and need to look at how
can we onshore that or ensure that we have reliable allies
providing those type of materials.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. The loss of nuclear plants like Duane
Arnold in my district represents a significant challenge from
maintaining carbon-free base load generation. What is DEO's
assessment of the potential for restarting recently closed
nuclear facilities, and what supply chain factors might affect
these efforts?
Dr. Goff. We are very excited about the potential restarts.
We are excited in looking at Palisades in Michigan moving
forward on a restart and have moved forward with the Loan
Program Office loan going to that plant for its restart.
Similarly, we are excited about the Three Mile Island restart
with Constellation and moving forward on that. Hear rumbling
still with Duane Arnold and look about some potential, but,
yeah, we look forward to seeing what kind of options they are.
As far as supply chain, we--the supply chain is not a major
issue in that. It is mainly just making sure that we have
maintenance updated and the fuel set up for those material--for
that plan as well. So, yes, we are very excited about those
options to get that firm power back online.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you. My time has expired. I will
submit some questions for the record.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Representative Pallone, for 5 minutes for any
questions he may have.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am going to start with Mr. Goff. Yesterday, the White
House called Amazon's plan to display the impact of Trump's
tariffs on prices a, quote, ``hostile and political act.''
Mr. Goff, if a gas station in the Midwest or the Northeast
decided to display the price impact of Trump's tariffs on
gasoline, would you consider that a hostile and political act?
Dr. Goff. If they displayed the impacts, I--that is not my
area of expertise to decide what a hostile act would be
considered.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Well, I think it is clear, because
we see a lot of this going on now. It is clear that Trump and
Republicans are scared of Americans understanding the impact of
their disastrous policies. and they are trying to hide the
impact that the tariffs are having on American families from,
you know, Home--whether it is Home Depot, Amazon, or the local
gas station.
But turning to some of the bills before us today. Let me go
to Mr. Turpin. I would like to discuss the draft bill on
natural gas pipeline permitting. As two witnesses on the next
panel are alluding to in their written testimonies--we haven't
heard them yet--when this legislation came before us last
Congress, the majority snuck in a provision that would make
FERC, not the States, responsible for compliance with Section
401 of the Clean Water Act. And frankly, I suspect that our
majority might try to include that provision in this bill
again, so I would like to get some things on the record.
So, Mr. Turpin, does FERC currently have any expertise on
the Clean Water Act as it applies to natural gas pipelines? And
if the language from the earlier iteration of this bill becomes
law, would FERC become legally liable for ensuring that its
pipeline certificates and the conditions in them complied with
the Clean Water Act? If you will.
Mr. Turpin. Thank you, Congressman.
At this point, FERC--my experience, we do not have the
experience with the breadth and depth of the Clean Water Act.
Certainly, we are versed in construction pipeline--construction
of pipelines and right-of-ways crossing water bodies, but that
is by no means--you know, that look at best practices is by no
means the same thing as the Clean Water Act compliance.
And so we would have to--if those responsibilities were
given to the Commission, we would definitely have to seek
additional resources, additional expertise.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Well, let me record my opposition
to such a provision on the record. I am very much opposed to
it.
I am going to go back to Mr. Goff. And I don't know, I
think I am making him uncomfortable here with these questions,
but I am going to try again.
In your written testimony, you said that it--quote, ``it is
the policy of the executive branch to ensure Presidential
supervision and control of ... independent regulatory
agencies,'' unquote. But do you think that the President should
be able to fire Commissioners, for example, from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission or the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at will? I mean, that is what he is doing in so many
cases, just doing this at will. And do you think that further
politicizing the NRC would make nuclear energy safer or more
dangerous, if you would?
Dr. Goff. Well, that is, again, not my expertise--
Mr. Pallone. I knew you were going to say that.
Dr. Goff. But I think the administration is still committed
to, as far as the regulatory agencies, making sure that they
can function to do, you know, the things that they are tasked
to do. I mean, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, want to make sure
that they still maintain the safety of the operation of the
existing fleet. So I don't think any action is looking at
trying to reduce the actions that they are supposed to be
moving forward but making sure that they are moving forward in
an efficient and effective manner.
Mr. Pallone. But you see, my point is--and I don't know,
you are probably not going to answer my question, and I am not
being critical. The point is, sure, there can be supervision
and, you know, investigations, but these are supposed to be
independent agencies. And the President takes the position that
he can just fire these Commissioners at will. To me, that has
nothing to do with ensuring that, you know, that the Commission
runs properly or procedurally, is operating in a right way.
Because if you just--if you say, ``Look, I can fire anybody
because I don't like them, because they are not following my
policies,'' then they are not independent anymore. But I guess
I can't get you to comment, right?
Dr. Goff. Again, that is not my area of expertise to
comment on that.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks anyway.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes Representative James from Michigan
for 5 minutes for any questions he may have.
Mr. James. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Today we have an opportunity to advance a transformative
vision for our Nation's energy future through my Securing
America's Critical Minerals Supply Act. This bill is a bold
step toward ensuring the United States leads in energy
innovation, security, and independence. Securing America's
Critical Minerals Supply Act redefines critical energy resource
to empower the Department of Energy with a clear mandate: to
secure the supply of minerals essential for our energy sector.
My legislation directs the DOE to conduct ongoing
assessments of supply chain vulnerabilities, develop strategies
to strengthen domestic production, and invest in innovative
technologies. It equips our Nation to counter anticompetitive
tactics and human rights abuses in global markets, ensuring
America's energy systems are resilient, self-reliant, and
humane.
Our State is home to the Palisades Nuclear Plant, which is
on track to become the first commercial nuclear facility in
U.S. history to be successfully restarted. With support of the
Department of Energy and under the ownership of Holtec,
Palisades is a flagship example of how public-private
partnerships advance U.S. energy resilience and reliability.
Michigan also has the industrial capacity, the workforce, and
research institutions needed to support domestic processing of
critical minerals used in advanced nuclear fuel and small
modular reactors.
The Securing America's Critical Minerals Act presents an
opportunity to align these capabilities with national policy,
to secure--to build secure regional supply chains, and advance
American energy security. This is about unleashing American
energy, powering our factories, fueling innovation, and
securing the future. The Securing American's Critical Minerals
Supply Act is a cornerstone for reshoring manufacturing,
reducing dependence on foreign dictators and despots, and
building an energy-independent America.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and unleash the
full potential of American energy.
So, Mr. Turpin, thank you for being here today. Michigan's
energy infrastructure, including grid upgrades and pipelines
needed to support nuclear fuel delivery and industrial energy
reliability, is key to maximizing the Palisades restart. How,
in your opinion, can FERC coordinate more closely with DOE to
expedite permitting for energy infrastructure projects critical
to Michigan's manufacturing base and Great Lakes logistics?
Mr. Turpin. So for the infrastructure that we have citing
authority--that would be natural gas pipelines in this case--we
have a process by which we reach out to all of the agencies
that could be involved for coordination and input into the
processes, we move through reviewing any of those proposals.
Mr. James. Thank you.
This is to Mr. Goff. As the Palisades Nuclear Plant has
already secured the fuel needed for restart--an important
milestone and testament to strong DOE private-sector
coordination--as we look ahead to long-term operations due to
deployment of SMRs at the site, how will DOE apply the tools in
this legislation to ensure resilient domestic supply of which--
in which--excuse me--enriched uranium and advanced fuels that
are critical to sustain nuclear production?
Dr. Goff. We are currently moving forward right now with an
activity to make sure we do onshore more of the uranium
activities as far as on the fuel domestically. So we are
looking to try to make sure that we have a--increase our
domestic enrichment capabilities so that we do have uranium to
provide that fuel. We have provided--roughly 20 percent of our
fuel for our existing fleet has come from Russia. Recognize
they are not a reliable source of supply, so thanks to
investment provided from Congress, we are moving forward on
establishing additional low-enriched uranium capacity for the
existing fleet.
Should also know we are working, again with funding
provided by Congress as well, to move forward and also
establish a high-assay low-enriched uranium supply capability
that is needed for many of the advanced reactors that we would
like to deploy as well.
So like I said, we are taking positive steps right now to
incentivize that build-out of enrichment capacity in the United
States, and also should--should be supportive of the mining and
the conversion type activities as well so, again, we have a
reliable fuel supply for the Palisades.
And also let me commend you. We are also very excited about
the Palisades restart here in the near future.
Mr. James. Very quickly, sir. Can you identify any gaps,
where they are, and for how long between America's ability to
be self-reliant on these particular fuel sources and our
dependence on outside fuel sources? What is the potential risk
that we face at this point?
Dr. Goff. The central risk that we face right now is the
time it takes to get that new capacity online, which we expect
that to be somewhere in the order of 3 to 4 years to get that
new capacity. Congress did pass a ban on the importation of
Russian-enriched uranium. We can have waivers, I have been
told, through 2027. So that should be able to get us to the
point where we can continue to move forward.
And I should stress, on those waivers, we want to make sure
we are only using waivers when they are needed to make sure a
plant continues to operate. We don't want any existing fleet to
shut down because we can't get fuel. So it is critical that we
manage that supply of material until we can get that new
capacity online.
Mr. James. Thank you, sir.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for your patience. I yield.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Tonko for 5 minutes
for any questions he may have.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you and the
ranking member hosting this hearing.
Mr. Morenoff, I start by asking you to give us a bit of
history--of a history lesson given your many years of service
at the Commission. Do you recall in 2017 when, during the first
Trump administration, the Department of Energy submitted a
notice of proposed rulemaking to FERC on grid reliability and
resilience pricing?
Mr. Morenoff. Yes. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Tonko. And am I correct that the gist of that proposal,
in simplified terms, was that coal and nuclear generation
facilities are the basis of having a 90-day onsite fuel supply
would have received additional payments under the presumption
that these facilities were critical to maintaining grid
reliability?
Mr. Morenoff. Yes, Congressman, that is correct.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And this turned out to be quite a
controversial proposal. A bipartisan group of former FERC
Commissioners assessed that it would inevitably raise prices
and break from FERC's historic fuel-agnostic approach.
So, Mr. Morenoff, can you tell us what was the result of
that NOPR?
Mr. Morenoff. Yes. In, I believe, January of 2018,
consistent with the timeline that had been established by the
Secretary of Energy in submitting that proposed rule to the
Commission, the Commission unanimously rejected that proposal,
finding that it did not satisfy either part of the relevant
provision of the Federal Power Act. The Commission also at the
time, then, opened a new proceeding with respect to a variety
of resilience-related issues.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. So there was a bipartisan consensus,
then, that we shouldn't discriminately favor certain types of
generators when it comes to meeting our reliability needs.
The reason I bring this up is because many of the same
policy preferences and talking points from 2017 are back in the
proposals before us today, which can be boiled down to Members
putting a thumb on the scale for certain types of generation at
the expense of the people that will need to pay for those
assets.
I see some similarities with the goals of that NOPR and the
Power Plant Reliability Act, which would allow the Commission
to compel uneconomic generators into what would essentially be
a 5-year reliability must-run contract.
I also want to mention that at least two of the proposals
under consideration today define the term ``reliable generation
facility'' to mean having onsite fuel storage and being able to
generate electricity during emergencies and severe weather
conditions, again, very similar to how the 2017 NOPR was
framed.
Now, I recall, during the polar vortex a decade ago, that
there were reports of coal piles freezing, rendering those
units useless. And in November of 2021, in the aftermath of
Winter Storm Uri in Texas, FERC issued a staff report that
identified a litany of reasons that generators failed,
including freezing issues, mechanical issues, and fuel issues.
Mr. Morenoff, hopefully you can recall that review. Is it
fair to say that having an onsite fuel supply did not guarantee
a generator's ability to operate during Winter Storm Uri?
Mr. Morenoff. Congressman, that is correct. I think it is
also worth noting that, in part, learning from events such as
those that you just described, FERC has since that time working
with NERC, the electric reliability organization, put in place
standards for generator winterization, which we have seen
significant benefits from the placement of those standards.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And were there failures for a variety of reasons across all
types of generators, be they coal, gas, nuclear, or renewables?
Mr. Morenoff. Yes. I believe that is correct as well, that
generators of a variety of types encountered difficulties
associated with those winter weather conditions.
Mr. Tonko. So trying to statutorily define reliable
generation facility as having characteristics that were proven
to not be reliable in recent years, again, seems to be putting
a thumb on the scale. This is a common theme across these
proposals, whether it is finding new ways to compel uneconomic
generators to operate or giving preferences for certain fuel
types even if they don't guarantee reliability.
I believe we are taking the wrong approach here today, and
we should return to the bipartisan work done by FERC for better
fuel-agnostic ideas to maintain reliability. Does that resonate
in a sensible manner to you?
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you, Congressman.
I think it is very important at present to be looking at
how we can expedite the interconnection of all types of
generation, as well as recognizing that individual regions may
have particular challenges, which FERC should consider as well.
Mr. Tonko. OK. I appreciate it.
And with that, I thank you and yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Latta [presiding]. Well, thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's 6th
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Rulli. Thank you, Chairman.
My question would be for Mr. Goff. Can you tell us more
about why the Department of Energy supports the reestablishment
of the National Coal Council and why we need coal now more than
ever to get involved in the energy mix?
Dr. Goff. On the--right now, coal still does provide a
significant fraction of our electricity in the United States,
you know, somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Establishing--
and we are looking at--as we said, we are needing more and more
electricity, not less electricity.
So to me--I should note I am an R&D-type person even though
I am sitting here as a policy-type person. To me, having more
data is always important when you are looking at different
topics. So establishing the National Coal Council provides
additional input to the Department of Energy on how to manage
the assets of coal, including the mining and the operation of
it. So I think it does still provide us that critical data,
additional data that we need to assess, again, how you do
continue to operate coal facilities. And again, because it is
kind of a--it is critical right now for our electricity
generation.
Mr. Rulli. I really appreciate that. You know, I was in the
Ohio State House for almost 6 years, and I sat on Energy and I
was chair of the Government Committee, and I noticed a couple
different things. I had a couple tours of the Cardinal Plant
down on the Ohio River, which has three generative plants that
has coal convert into electricity. I personally built three
plants with some investors in the Ohio State House for two
power plants in Lordstown and one in Wellsville. I have
experienced energy of all the above, but my opposition party
over there says that we have to have all of the above.
But the reality, the tangible reality of what is going on
in America, is three Christmases ago the American grid almost
melted down. Is that correct, sir?
Dr. Goff. We have had challenges at different--in different
winter events. Yes.
Mr. Rulli. All generated plants in this country were told
to go at full capacity and where we were within 3 hours of
turning into a Third World nation where we didn't have power to
support the Americans that we represent.
So let us go into the depth right now. When we have an
opposition party that allowed under the Biden administration
the celebration of brand-new coal plants being built in China,
being built in Germany and Russia and India when, in America,
we are closing our plants.
I had a plant, the Sammis Plant, which actually sits in my
district, I--sits right across the street from Riley Moore's
district in West Virginia. And we saw this plant, which was
perfectly good of putting energy back into the grid, dismantled
for no good reason when the administration that ordered their
removal and their complete destruction celebrated these
countries that are playing with dirty coal, with coal
development that is not done on to the standards of the
American system. So we saw that, and we saw the jeopardizing of
the American grid.
China uses seven to eight times more coal than us.
Oftentimes American coal is the only coal that you could
actually sort of support for this country and for the world.
Coal is still burning really strong right now in China as we
speak, and they are literally laughing at us because they are
building multiple different generated coal plants per year as
we are shutting ours down.
Now, I don't think anyone on my side of the aisle says we
want to make power plant--solar or wind extinct, but right now,
Greenpeace is fighting with the wind industry because actually
we have whales on Cape Cod that are washing up on shore and,
you know, we have to support the whales. And then we have solar
plants that are being--basically, a civil war with the
Agriculture Department right now because we are taking good,
tillable land and we are putting solar panels on it.
It is sort of a proven fact right now, solar panel, after
25 years of use is almost as toxic as a nuclear barrel of
waste. So we have all these different aspects. We should
actually--if we are going to have solar, we should have
incentives where we take stripped-out mine lands throughout
Ohio and this country and put the solar fields on there so we
have a path forward. But the path forward right now is
definitely natural gas and coal.
So I want your thoughts on this. Using American coal for
the American energy supports high-paying jobs, increased energy
supply for the grid that we are worried is going to go down,
cuts down on electric costs of Joe Bag of Donuts blue-collar
worker. So what are we here for? The populist movement, the
Republican Party is here for the blue-collar worker, the mom
and dad who cannot pay their bills every single month. And we
are going to explore solar panels that will never run a jumbo
jet, a train, a Mack truck.
Supporting American coal just makes sense to me. I am a
proud sponsor of H.R. 3015, which reestablishes National Coal
Council. And what I am understanding from my coal friends right
now, there is a vaporizing process that is a new process of
harvesting this energy that is inside coal which is so much
cleaner than even new coal.
So with all those thoughts I threw at you, I would love
your response to that.
Mr. Latta. Well, we have to do it in 4 seconds, but if we
could, if--if the gentleman would want to direct his questions
in writing to the witness, that would be great. So thank you.
Our gentleman's time has expired, and the Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas's 33rd District for 5
minutes for questions.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Goff, I ain't trying to mess with your ends, and I am
not--I know you have a job you have to do, and you have to be
very careful about things, right? So I am not--I am not trying
to knock that. But, you know, one of the things that frustrates
me about how we talk about energy on this committee is that it
turns into this whole versus deal, right. We have created this
versus universe here on Capitol Hill.
So instead of us being able to have real discussions about
energy security, affordability, how we make energy cleaner, all
of those things, it turns into the Cowboys versus the Eagles,
which is not healthy, right, because I am always going to root
for the Cowboys. So if that is the way we are going to frame
it, then we are not going to actually be able to come up with
energy solutions.
And I just want to know--and if you can't answer, I get it,
man. But why was it so hard for you to answer Mr. Menendez'
question? Because that is what makes this discussion so hard to
have on Capitol Hill. He was just asking you a simple question,
and you just--and you wouldn't answer it because you thought
that you weren't--you weren't toeing the line for your team.
Why didn't you just answer his question?
Dr. Goff. Well, thank you for your question. And maybe I
didn't understand his question, but let me make sure I was
clear. I think we need all energy sources out there--
Mr. Veasey. Including the renewables----
Dr. Goff. Including the renewables.
Mr. Veasey. OK. That is all he was asking you. And when you
don't answer questions like that, that is when this
conversation turns into this really black and white, where we
deduce this down to something simple. And there is nothing
simple about our energy security, the affordability, the
reliability, and the cleanliness of it, because all of it takes
sacrifices, all of it--if you take one from the other, then it
is going to make it harder.
Like, none of this is easy. There is no easy solution. I
had a kid tell me that we could be 100 percent renewable today
if we wanted to but the energy companies aren't letting us do
it. And I was like, that is not true. We can't be 100 percent
renewable today. That is a lie. And so when people come to me,
even if they are on my own side, I will say no, that is a lie.
And so we need to hear the truth from you.
And so I just want to ask you, can you speak to the impact
of the recent losses at DOE, particularly in offices
responsible for clean energy deployment and community programs,
and how this may affect grid reliability, transmission
modernization, and energy access? Can you touch on that?
Dr. Goff. I do not have numbers on losses or anything like
that as far as with the deferred resignation program. So I
can't speak to how those things--the numbers of people or
anything like that. I don't have those type numbers.
What the Department, though, is committed to do is to be
able to still move forward and execute our energy mission to,
again, make sure that we have affordable, reliable, and secure
energy for the American people. So we will be looking at--as
far as what the structure should be for doing that. So we are
committed to still moving forward on those type--on those
actions.
Mr. Veasey. Yes, yes, because we need to know that. I mean,
in Texas, we have the three largest wind projects in the world.
Everybody thinks, oh, Texas, oil and gas. We have the three
largest wind farms in the world, just west of me in Texas. And
so these are things that we need to know.
So have you all conducted any internal analysis of how
repealing the IRA's clean energy tax incentives would affect
power prices and reliability in fast-growing States like mine?
Dr. Goff. There has not been any analysis looking at how
any repeal would be done, as far as I am aware of, at this
point.
Mr. Veasey. OK. OK. Do you have concerns that the
politically motivated attacks on FERC, such as the recent
attempts to sunset all of its rules, could destabilize long-
term investment in reliable power infrastructure?
Dr. Goff. I am not aware of what the political, you know,
attacks were on FERC right now. So I would have to be more up
to speed on what that particular tack was. I am sorry.
Mr. Veasey. Right. As you know right now, if you look at
the price of WTI, the Trump tariff taxes are roiling the energy
market, so there has been a lot of disruption in the energy
market. And if the price goes much further, it is going to
disrupt future investment in oil and gas production in the
Permian Basin.
And I wanted to ask you, have you all started to do any
reports on how high the price of oil will go up, which would
make our gas prices a lot higher, if they have to ramp back up
all of a sudden because the economy picks back up? Have you all
looked at how that could really make prices sky high for
consumers?
Dr. Goff. I am not aware of any work that has been done at
this point in time. I am not aware of any.
Mr. Veasey. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado's 8th
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Thank you, of course, to our witnesses for coming today.
I think we have all heard the statistics that we need more
power, not less, just growing demands on the grid and all of
those uses. And so, with that, that baseline understanding in
mind, my first question would be to Dr. Goff. One of the pieces
of legislation that is listed here today is the State Planning
for Reliability Act, which seeks to leverage States' role in
effective long-term planning for resource adequacy by ensuring
that utilities consider the role of reliable power generation.
And during a recent hearing with some of the regional grid
operators, we heard how these State policies are having an
outsized impact on reliability. And in my State, we are having
issues with affordable and reliable power generation because of
some of the policies that are happening in Colorado.
And so my question to you is, what actions is your
department taking or can your department take to ensure that we
have reliable power generation that stays online?
Dr. Goff. The Department does do a significant amount of
work with a lot of the different State--you know, State
agencies. Like, we do a lot of work with, you know, NASEO, the
National Association of State Energy Officials; NARUC, the
national association of State regulators, to, again, work with
them to look at how they, you know, how they can deploy
different energy sources to their systems to make sure that
they do have a good, reliable grid.
Again, I will go back to my nuclear hat, where I have
worked primarily. We have done a lot of work and do studies
with some of those State agencies. In fact, there is one that
is going to be kicked off right now that NASEO is leading with
a number of different States looking at, again, how they can
look at accelerated deployment of nuclear to, again, help--you
know, help, again, maybe stabilize and provide additional
reliability to their grid.
So we do a fair amount of outreach to those States to look
at what are the different options they can deploy.
Mr. Evans. Thank you.
To kind of continue on that theme, Mr. Morenoff, as I
mentioned, during some of our recent hearings with regional
grid operators, we heard some concerns about the rate of
politically motivated premature retirements and the impact that
the retirements of those energy sources are having on
reliability. Does FERC share these concerns about State
policies that are driving out reliable power generation?
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you, Congressman.
While FERC very much respects the decisions that are made
at the State level pursuant to authority that is specifically
reserved to the States pursuant to the Federal Power Act, we do
take very seriously our responsibility with respect to reliable
and affordable power, and we work very closely both with our
State commissioners and then implementing FERC's authority with
those goals in mind.
Mr. Evans. And just following up on that. How important is
long-term planning when it comes to making sure that we have
reliability and affordability for our ratepayers? Kind of going
back to what you mentioned there, we know that the States do
have some leeway to be able to set that resource mix. But how
important is that long-term planning for reliability, for
affordability, and how can those States make sure that they are
working with our regulators like FERC to make sure that we are
meeting goals around reliability and affordability?
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you, Congressman.
I agree that long-term planning is very important, and
there are different ways that different regions of the country
approach that. In some regions of the country where there is an
organized market structure that is subject to FERC regulations,
there are different capacity constructs that seek to address
that issue.
And indeed, Chairman Christie, given his particular
interest and concern with some of the trends in those markets,
has called for a technical conference on June 4 and 5 of this
year. There are other regions of the countries that do not have
those same structures and rely on more of an integrated
resource planning model that tends to take place at the State
level.
Mr. Evans. OK. And Colorado, of course, is in that latter
category. And so four States that are in that category, how
much concerns do you have around--you know, the statistic that
we saw the last time we did this hearing as Colorado, I think,
is responsible for about 1.2 percent of the generation that
occurs across the country. but in the next couple years they
are going to be responsible for almost 10 percent of that base
load power that is actually dropping off the grid.
So do you have concerns when you see States, particularly
in less organized markets, that are taking directions like
that?
Mr. Morenoff. We think it is crucial to ensure that we have
the resources that are necessary to meet what is a rapidly
growing electric load, and that involves both new generation
and preserving the resources needed at present to avoid
reliability concerns.
Mr. Evans. Thank you. I yield back, Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington's
8th District for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
witnesses.
I want to emphasize the importance of making sure we can
provide affordable and abundant energy as demand increases. I
also really want to express my appreciation to the committee
for the interest in improving our interconnection queues around
the country.
In the Northwest, the bulk of transmission is managed by
Bonneville, a self-funded government agency under the
Department of Energy that operates and maintains the region's
grid. Representative Bentz in this committee, my colleague from
Oregon, and I are well aware of the interconnection queue
backlog that Bonneville is trying to address, which currently
totals 186 gigawatts over 272 projects. And that is a really
long line. And just to give you a sense of scale, the entire
State of Washington has a summer capacity of roughly 31
gigawatts.
And while we have seen this exponential growth, not all
these gigawatts are expected to actually come to fruition. Some
projects are definitely more viable than others, and some
serious reforms are needed to really put the potential ones to
the front of the line.
So that is why, among many reasons, any depletion of the
already understaffed workforce at Bonneville really kneecaps
the agency's ability to process this backlog, build out
transmission, and keep energy reliable and affordable as demand
spikes.
Under Secretary Dr. Goff, I would just like to get you on
the record here on behalf of my constituents and the entire
Northwest. I have been reassured that BPA would be exempt from
reduction-in-force plans at the Department of Energy. Will
employees of this agency that is not dependent on tax dollars
be subject to another round of layoffs in the RIF plan?
Dr. Goff. I am not aware of anything on another round. As
far as with the deferred resignation that has come in right
now, the Department does reserve the right to be able to tell
people if they are in a critical--you know, public safety,
national emergency--be able to not allow them to take the
deferred resignation program. And that was--we did look at
that, those critical needs, as far as what the power
administration authorities like BPA--to make sure that BPA is
still well staffed going forward.
I am not aware of any plans in the future that they would
be impacted by as well, as far as with BPA going forward.
Ms. Schrier. That is really interesting. It is like another
one of this administration's, you know, hack away and then
oops, right. They just sent out another letter offering early
retirement, early resignation, all across Bonneville. And now
you are saying you can actually rescind that offer.
But who is most likely to take that offer? It is people who
are close to retirement, who have the most experience, who
already built up their pension, who can get other jobs
elsewhere, who are now experiencing an increased workload
because other people have been laid off or taken retirement.
These are the people who train up the next generation of
engineers, line repairmen, et cetera, at Bonneville. And they
are the ones who are taking this offer, understandably.
I mean, wouldn't you, if you had an increased workload,
better opportunities that pay more, and you are being treated
like this by DOE, who could rescind this, and by this
administration?
So I just want to really double down on this, that there is
reduction in force, and there is, in some ways, even more
serious early retirements that totally kneecap the agency. And
here we are today. Most of the emphasis has been on new power
generation. But the way we can, in the quickest way, meet
demand is by this interconnection queue, by building on our
grid. And this is taking away exactly what we need to meet that
demand.
So I am worried, and the entire Northwest is worried as
well.
I also, you know, just wanted to double down on the need
for transmission. I would love to have that hearing in this
committee only because, you know, we had a good enough
compromise between both parties with the Manchin-Barrasso bill
in the last Congress that could have gotten buy-in. When a
thumb is on the scale for oil and gas projects, you are
unlikely to get bipartisan buy-in.
But if we can find that good compromise, if the real goal
is to move our country forward, build out that transmission,
and keep energy abundant, reliable, and accessible, that is
where we should be headed, not some of the CRAs we are
addressing today.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back
her time.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon's
2nd District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank all of you for
being here.
So, General Counsel Morenoff, I am particularly interested
in knowing what is taking most of the time in your department
when it comes to regulatory obstacles or barriers, so we know
where to focus our attention. Because there is no doubt about
the need. The transmission just referenced in the previous
questions is a great example of difficulty.
I mean, it would be one thing to have all kinds of people
ready to do stuff, but if there's regulatory barriers, good
luck. So share with us what we should be focusing upon to try
to reduce those barriers.
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you, Congressman.
I think that the Commission is focusing on very similar
issues, particularly on what needs to be done to ensure the
reliability and affordability of our electric supply across the
Commission's jurisdiction. In that respect, some of the issues
that we have talked about today, looking at ways that we can
increase the efficiency of the interconnection process in order
to ensure that needed resources are moving through
expeditiously.
I think it is also really important to be considering, as
we have talked about, if there are resources that are needed
for reliability but considering retirement, what are the steps
that we can take, whether that is through consideration of
market signals or other issues, other approaches. And we also
continue to look actively, as my colleague Mr. Turpin has
described, about what we can be doing to be moving
infrastructure permitting as promptly as we have.
Mr. Bentz. OK. Let us go to permitting, because what I am
most interested in is how we can speed up what FERC has to do.
And in my dealing with FERC, which had to do with relicensing
of hydropower projects across the Northwest, I noticed that
FERC was just as apt to be stalled out as any other
organization by virtue of some of the laws that we have and
some of the regulations under them.
So which one of those regulations, in your opinion, is the
most time-consuming for your department?
Mr. Turpin. I can address that on the permitting side. I am
not sure that I could identify a single one. I mean, the U.S.
has decentralized permitting. There are a myriad of statutes
that every project has to comply with. And depending upon the
circumstances and the scope of what is being looked at, any one
of those could become sort of a long tent in the pole.
Mr. Bentz. Well, I am just thinking, when I think about the
need for transmission and I think of the need for generation
and then I think about the need for permitting reform, it seems
to me that permitting reform is the most important thing,
because that is what is standing in the way of our actually
getting those other two things done. So if I can't turn to you
guys to tell us where the barriers are, who do I turn to?
Mr. Turpin. Well, again, I am not sure I can say there is a
single--permitting is something that takes a good while to do.
Mr. Bentz. It certainly does, but tell me, why is that?
Mr. Turpin. It is because of the issues that have to be
looked at and because of the panoply of Federal statutes that
exist for any kind of----
Mr. Bentz. So I read the testimony, and I saw references to
the Endangered Species Act and to other similar environmental
protection statutes. Is that what you are talking about, or is
there something more?
Let me just share with you this. There are certain
requirements that States weigh in on the relicensing of dam
process. And I saw Oregon and Idaho held hostage by a State,
Oregon, under those opportunities. How is that? Is that
something you see often, where States using the consultation
requirements under the ESA delay things?
Mr. Turpin. I haven't seen that, I think, with the ESA. We
have seen relicenses that have been delayed while waiting on
State 401s, and while that delay occurs, then new species might
be listed or a new critical habitat identified, and so then the
ESA process has to be refreshed.
Mr. Bentz. Mr. Goff, there is much talk about how we are
going to be held hostage and probably are being held hostage by
virtue of foreign countries controlling the types of uranium
and other rare earth minerals that we absolutely need and don't
have.
Is it your thought that we actually can somehow overcome
this without protecting those who invest billions of dollars in
the processing plants? Because when I have talked to people who
are in that space, they are scared to death of dumping all this
money in and then having the protections that tariffs and other
things provide evaporate, and suddenly they all go broke. So
how do we address that?
Dr. Goff. On the example of uranium that you brought up,
one thing that I think was critical to make sure we have that
investment--that the Government provides some incentive for the
companies to move forward, but they also need assurances that
the adversarial entity that is providing the material doesn't
come back into the market.
So that was very--you know, we were very thankful that
Congress did pass a ban on uranium as well, because it would
probably be hard for companies to invest even if the Government
is putting in money if they don't know that they are not going
to be undercut later on in the future if another country
basically dumps material in that. So it is those types of
actions that will help enable to have that investment going
forward.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
expired and yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York's
14th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to all of our witnesses who are here today.
I would like to zoom out a little bit for the public and
folks who are following from home trying to understand a lot of
the technical conversation that we are having here today.
Mr. Morenoff, you work and are the acting general counsel
at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, which is
what we are talking about today. And FERC oversees our entire
country's national electric grid.
And one of the things that I am increasingly concerned
about as our summers get hotter and hotter is the reliability
of the U.S. electrical grid as we start increasing the
electrical load on our grid. As summers get hotter, people use
more electricity to keep their homes cool, and similar things
during the wintertime as well as we start moving towards heat
pumps and other kinds of energy and climate technologies.
Now, Mr. Morenoff, does extreme heat increase the chance of
large-scale power outages in the United States?
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you, Congresswoman. So, while, as you
noted--I am an attorney, not an engineer--I do think it is--I
agree with the premise that, under those extreme circumstances
and the extreme demand associated with it, there are greater
challenges with respect to reliability.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And, Dr. Goff and Mr. Turpin, would you
agree with that conclusion?
Dr. Goff. Yes, I would agree.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
Mr. Turpin. Yes, me too.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. And it strikes me that
changes to our grid will be--will need to be made in order to
adapt to these changes to our climate.
Mr. Morenoff, is it true that FERC's mission includes
maintaining a reliable, safe, and secure grid for the country?
Mr. Morenoff. Yes, Congresswoman. That is correct.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And I think it is important for us to
delve into some of the real human consequences of this, too.
When the power goes out on large--especially on a large scale--
we have seen this in Texas, we have seen this--although Texas
has a separate grid issue--but we have seen this, you know, in
Puerto Rico and in other places across the country.
When the power goes out because of a grid outage, say, due
to heat, we have seniors who are reliant on electricity-
dependent medical equipment. We have people with disabilities
who rely on oxygen and other kinds of medical devices. We have
people that require refrigerated medicines. And when the power
goes out, we are seeing people, especially medically vulnerable
people or people in rural areas, whose lives can literally be
threatened by a power outage, correct?
Mr. Morenoff. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Which brings me to some of the recent
announcements that the Trump administration has made around
sunsetting some of the rules and regulations regarding FERC.
They have recently announced almost a blanket 5-year sunset of
rules and regulations. And when we are talking about the
profound depth and intricacy of the technical rules governing
our electrical grid, these kind of blanket recisions or threats
can really threaten some of the reliability of our grid.
I wanted to ask about some of the specific rules. There is
one in particular, Order 1920--it was approved last year in
May--which adopted specific requirements for transmission
providers to develop 20-year transmission plans. And this was
actually the first time that FERC has addressed the need for
regional planning in over a decade. Would Order 1920 be subject
to one of these sunset type of provisions?
Mr. Morenoff. So we are still in the process of reviewing
the Executive order to which you refer to to ensure that we
have an understanding of the proper scope of what would be
covered. But I think, yes, potentially, Order 1920 could fall
within the covered regulations.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So we are talking about some of the
first stability provided in regional planning at risk of being
on the chopping block for here.
How about Order 1977, also approved last year, which
established a rule for FERC's backstop siting authority and
that enables FERC to issue permits for transmission in the
National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor that was
established by DOE? That, too, would be on the chopping block?
Mr. Morenoff. So, again, noting that we are still reviewing
what the Executive order and what might be covered, there is
the potential that that could be covered. The Executive order
also does include a potential exception for permitting regimes
authorized by statute, which may be applicable to either or
both of those examples.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And I would imagine that would also
apply to Order 2023, which requires all public utilities to set
deadlines for interconnection studies as well, correct?
Mr. Morenoff. With the same answer that we are continuing
to review, but potentially yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I do want to impress upon the point that
these rules and regulations--historically, FERC has operated
with a lot of bipartisan consensus, and I am quite concerned
about any potential partisan or political imposition on rules
that really govern the stability of the U.S. national grid.
And, particularly in an environment of increasing climate
change and increased load on our grid, we need to protect the
reliability of our grid. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the Chair
now recognizes the chair of the full committee, the gentleman
from Kentucky, for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Guthrie. Thanks. I appreciate you all for being here.
And I agree with my colleague from New York who just spoke
before me. When we talk about the demand for energy because of
AI technologies that are coming and--I mean, one answer is they
don't come, but if we don't come, they are going to go
somewhere, and they are going to go to China. So that is not an
option. But, if they come on and demand energy, it competes
with energy that is available for the people in their homes and
seniors in their homes and things. So we have to expand our
energy resources.
So, Dr. Goff, does the Department of Energy--are you
currently--do you recognize this unprecedented demand since--as
I said in my opening statement, this is probably the 1930s
demand just to have it--this unprecedented demand, historic
demand. Does the Department of Energy--do they recognize the
urgency of this and what it takes to expand our grid?
Dr. Goff. Yes. We definitely recognize the urgency of this,
and that is why the Secretary has really focused on, again,
needing energy addition as opposed to subtraction. We need to
make sure that we can get all the energy sources available onto
the grid as efficiently as we can. So there is that major focus
on how do we move forward on that.
Mr. Guthrie. So would you seek congressional clarification
on DOE's role to spotlight what inhibits energy expansion in
critical resources? Are regulations useful?
Dr. Goff. Yes. Do you mind repeating that again?
Mr. Guthrie. Yes. So would you seek congressional
clarification on DOE's role? What do you want from Congress--I
guess I will make it simple--to help you with this expansion in
terms of regulations and clarification of what we need to do
for you?
Dr. Goff. I think just continue to recognize the urgency of
it. As we are moving forward, again, try to set up various
programs to incentivize the deployment of new capacity, looking
at, again, how we can look at streamlining reform, permitting
reform, how we can make sure that we continue to move forward
on the innovation technology work that we are doing to, again,
help enable these new technologies. The continued support for
those type of actions, I think, are very critical as we move
forward.
Mr. Guthrie. The thing is I guess that--it is just what I
say the demand--as I said, we had Mr. Schmidt here. I have had
Bill Gates say that a Microsoft data center can consume as much
as power as the city of Seattle. So, if you build a Microsoft
data center next to the city of Seattle, you have to double the
power, is essentially what they are saying. And so, if you
don't double the power, it competes with people living in those
areas.
And so I just want to make sure we are all sincere. I think
we do here on our side of the dais--we are going to work--
figure out how to work together on some--maybe differences in
getting there, but I think we are absolutely united in beating
China.
And so, flipping over to Mr. Morenoff, does FERC recognize
this growth in demand, and what are you guys doing to get ready
for--I mean, I guess my point is it is not the next 10 years,
it is the next 3 to 5 years is when we absolutely have to have
increased demand. And so just keeping power from coming offline
and putting new power online, that is quick to do, and it has
to be all of the above. That is why I think we can find some
common ground here, because it has to be all of the above to
get it done, to make it work, to get what we need.
And so, Mr. Morenoff, is FERC positioned for this and ready
to----
Mr. Morenoff. Chairman, thank you. Yes. I think FERC is
intending and already using all of our authorities that we can
that may be relevant to that set of issues. I think that goes
to the issues with respect to ensuring expeditious
interconnection of needed resources. That also goes to
addressing what may be retirements that would cause reliability
issues.
And I think, more broadly, some of the FERC structures that
send market signals with respect to resources that may be
needed in trying to attract new entry are of particular
interest to Chairman Christie, and that is why he has called
for a technical conference in early June to address that very
issue.
Mr. Guthrie. All right. Thanks. I only have got a minute
left. I should have asked this at the beginning of the 5
minutes this would be my question.
So, around the panel--let me dive into you, Mr. Turpin. I
will do that. Knowing the energy demand we need in the next 3
to 5 years, what concerns you the most? What do you need the
most to meet the demand?
Mr. Turpin. So, from my role at the Commission, it is
reviewing what I understand from industry to be an enormous
amount of pipeline work coming our way, and so having the
talented and expertise staff to do that is what concerns me the
most.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Morenoff?
Mr. Morenoff. I would echo Mr. Turpin's answer. I think we
are doing a lot, and we need to preserve the staff in order to
be able to continue those efforts.
Mr. Guthrie. Do you have the statutory authority to--what
concerns you about--if you had the staff in place that prevents
pipelines from being built, is there something you would like
to see? Or I guess we can go to Dr.--I guess Mr. Turpin on
pipelines. Well, I am about out of time.
But what I would like to re-answer is, like, what are your
big concerns? I know we need the right staff, and that is a
fair point, but we also need--what limits can Congress do
besides providing you more staff--money for more staff to--what
do we need to fix so you can get things done?
Thanks. I appreciate it. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts'
Fourth District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And, in continuation of the chairman of the full
committee's remarks on a bipartisan path forward for energy
deployment that outcompetes China, that secures reliable, low-
cost energy for the grid and for consumers, I want to focus on
nuclear deployment, which really should be an area of
bipartisan momentum. It is clean. It is reliable. It is safe.
But we are not very good at building it in this country, and we
have got to get a lot better a lot faster.
Dr. Goff, this administration actually has professed to
agree with that statement, but President Trump and DOGE's
approach to efficiency is threatening lower-cost energy through
nuclear and particularly with their approach to the Loan
Programs Office.
And the other chairman had mentioned that we need staffing
to accommodate this. Well, the LPO is facing, according to the
Washington Examiner, a 60 percent reduction to its workforce.
These are very technically skilled financial and programmatic
analysts who help make loans that have basically crowded in
every single nuclear deployment that we have had in this
country in the last 25 years.
I have got here a letter from, really, the public policy,
finance, and industrial leaders across the landscape of
American nuclear power saying that is a really bad idea, to
summarize. And I am happy to introduce it to the record.
So what is the current staffing----
Mr. Latta. I am sorry. Did you say you want that in the
record?
Mr. Auchincloss. Yes, please.
Mr. Latta. OK. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you.
So, Dr. Goff, what is the current status of staffing at
Loan Programs Office, and how does the administration plan to
ensure that LPO has sufficient resources to continue its work
in advancing nuclear power in the United States?
Dr. Goff. Thank you very much for the question. Thank you
very much for the support for nuclear as well. It is something
I share very much with you.
With respect to the Loan Programs Office, I do not have the
current staffing numbers, you know, after the deferred
resignation program. But I should note the administration is
very committed to moving forward on nuclear. In fact----
Mr. Auchincloss. Dr. Goff, it is not committed to moving
forward on nuclear. You can say one thing, but if you fire all
the people who have been responsible for mobilizing nuclear
power the last 25 years, you are not committed.
So when can we get answers about what the current staffing
levels is and how this affects our ability to deploy nuclear?
Dr. Goff. Well, with respect to the Loan Programs Office,
the one thing that I will point out that is going on
currently--the current administration has moved forward on the
third payment for the Palisades restart. So the Loan Programs
Office is continuing to function and execute on the loans
related to nuclear.
Mr. Auchincloss. That is executing an already due diligence
work. I am talking about new work. If we have got to build five
Hoover dams' worth of nuclear power by 2030, which I think we
do--small, modular, micro, large, you know, I will let the
markets and the experts decide--but if we have got to build a
lot--10 gigawatts by 2030--we need to make new loans for
construction financing. Is the LPO equipped right now, after
being massacred by DOGE, to do that?
Dr. Goff. As far as I am aware, yes, they are able to
continue moving forward on----
Mr. Auchincloss. But you just said you don't have numbers
about their staffing.
Dr. Goff. Because we are committed to making sure that we
do have the staffing to move forward and execute the programs
that we have ongoing. And, with respect to nuclear----
Mr. Auchincloss. I know you are committed. Here is my
challenge, and this is going back to the points we keep on
making: I am hearing the right words, right? I hear the right
words from the administration on nuclear. I am hearing the
right words from you. But the words and the actions are in real
tension with one another.
And you are telling me, ``I don't know the status of the
LPO, but I am committed to using the LPO to deploy more
nuclear.'' Both things can't be true. If you are committed,
then you have to have answers about where do we stand with the
LPO and what are you going to do to make sure the LPO has the
workforce and resources necessary?
Dr. Goff. We are going to make sure that LPO has the
workforce necessary to move forward.
Mr. Auchincloss. So will you disagree with DOGE publicly if
you decide that you need more people than DOGE has decided that
they need, the people at DOGE who have zero expertise in
nuclear power? I mean, will you publicly disagree with them?
Dr. Goff. We will make sure that we have the expertise to
move forward on those missions, and we have continued with LPO
to execute on those missions.
Additionally, in the nuclear space, we have moved forward
on the solicitation for the Gen III+ SMRs proposal. That went
out a little over a month ago and solicitations were due on
that. We are continuing to execute on activities to move
forward and accelerate the deployment of nuclear.
Mr. Auchincloss. You may be moving forward. We don't know
how effective the execution has been, then.
When can we expect answers from you, Dr. Goff, about the
current status of LPO and how that tasked organization meets to
its mandate?
Dr. Goff. We can work to get back with you answers on that.
Mr. Auchincloss. But when?
Dr. Goff. Well, the deferred resignation program still is
ongoing right now to some extent, but we could probably in the
very near--we will get back with you expeditiously.
Mr. Auchincloss. Expeditiously. 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. Morenoff, in our recent hearing with grid operators, we
heard about the impact State policies are having on reliability
of the bulk power systems. This concern is shared by NERC who
has cited State policies as the reason for a growing
reliability crisis.
Has FERC seen evidence that increasing reliance on
intermittent resources as mandated by a State's own policy
targets can lead to capacity shortfalls or stressed conditions
in that particular State or across an entire region?
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you, Congressman. I think there are
many factors that go into why we are seeing the increased
reliance on a variety of intermittent resources. I think it is
very important for FERC to respect the policies adopted by
States pursuant to authority reserved to the States and also to
ensure that we are meeting our statutory responsibilities.
Mr. Langworthy. Well, we have certainly seen these problems
in real time in my own State of New York leading to widespread
affordability and reliability concerns, and it is time and
again one of the top concerns of my constituents as they look
ahead to what is in store for them in a State that is zealously
trying to end the perfectly good use of reliable natural gas in
our State.
And, just continuing on that, has FERC expressed any
concerns or signals regarding current State-level decisions,
you know, based on reliability?
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you, Congressman. FERC feels, as I
said, it is very important to respect the State policies. We
also need to ensure that our authorities with respect to just
and reasonable rates as well as a reliable bulk power system
are also maintained.
Mr. Langworthy. OK. Thank you.
And, turning to the Department of Energy here, Under
Secretary Goff, is the DOE engaging at all with the States to,
at the very least, encourage a balance between decarbonization
goals and maintaining dispatchable bulk power resources?
Dr. Goff. Thank you very much for the question. Yes. We are
engaging with the States at a number of different levels. We
work with a lot of the different State organizations like the
National Association of Governors, legislators, the public
utility commissions.
One in particular is with NASEO as well, the National
Association of State Energy Officials, which we had a lot of
collaborations with them, especially--you know, I fall back on
my nuclear background--in the nuclear space. Our Gateway for
Accelerated Innovation and Nuclear, or GAIN, is actually
working significantly with NASEO. And, in fact, NASEO is now
standing up a committee that New York is one of the cochairs on
that, to look at how they can accelerate deployment of reliable
energy technologies like nuclear.
So we are working to do different case studies with
different States to see, again, how we can help and analysis to
look at how you can deploy these technologies in an accelerated
manner.
Mr. Langworthy. Now, in cases where State actions have
caused or contributed to near-miss reliability events in such
cases as a major weather event, what has the DOE learned and
how is it addressing those lessons as it is planning and giving
its guidance to States?
Dr. Goff. Yes. The Department of Energy but also FERC has
done a lot of those lessons learned on different types of
events. Some of our national labs and, I think, Lawrence
Berkeley Livermore put out a study in December looking at,
again, what kind of things we need to do to change the grid to
make sure we are more reliable. So providing those lessons
learned now but also, again, relying on our colleagues from
FERC on a lot of the studies they are doing to look at, again,
how can we improve the overall reliability of the grid.
Mr. Langworthy. OK. Thank you, Under Secretary, and thank
you to all the witnesses for being here today.
We have seen New York, California, and many other of the
Democratic-run States pursue policy choices that are directly
contributing to the reliability and affordability crunch our
Nation finds itself in today, and I appreciate that the
witnesses have said that because I think it helps demonstrate
the gaps in accountability that currently exist for these
policy choices that frankly affect residents beyond a single
State or locality, and they have consequences for Americans
across entire regions and across the entire country.
And, with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
of his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas' 7th
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairman Latta.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here today and for
your testimony. I think it has been very helpful for all of us.
And, as we are conducting this hearing on assuring
abundant, reliable American energy to power innovation, I, of
course, am proud to represent Houston, the energy capital of
the world, where we know something about that. And, in Texas,
of course, in 2023, we generated more electricity and produced
more oil and natural gas than any other State. Texas also led
the United States in wind power generation, and it was second
in solar generation and battery storage capacity.
So these are issues that matter to people in my district
and across our State. And, certainly, we are positioned a
little bit differently than my colleagues up here because of
ERCOT and because of our own grid system, but I think that
these issues about reliability are front and center on the
minds of Texans and Houstonians as we face extreme weather
events and as we see the real challenges coming from the data
centers. I know we have heard this from--some of my colleagues
have talked about a lot of these issues.
And I guess I am just a little bit disappointed that some
of the bills that we are discussing today are designed to limit
certain generation technologies and keep them--keep from
connecting them to the grid. For weeks, we have been hearing
from experts across the ideological spectrum, and I think we
have heard consistently again today that, you know, the U.S.
needs more--not less--energy coming online from various
sources.
And we also can't have this hearing without thinking about
the greater context in which it is happening. I know some of my
colleagues have raised issues with the tariffs that the Trump
administration is implementing and the impacts that is having
on our economy, on investments, on the investment environment,
and also as we see the efforts really to gut some of the
investments that we worked on in the last two Congresses to
spur energy investment. We have to take that into
consideration.
So I appreciate that we are having the hearing. These
issues are hugely important. And I think there is bipartisan
support for the kinds of things we are talking about. We have
been talking about them for a long time. But we can't move
forward in doing this policy without coming together and
addressing some of the real challenges that we are seeing in
this administration.
Oh, my gosh. I have taken a lot of my time already.
So, Mr. Goff, I am going to start with you. In February,
Jonathan Black from DOE's Office of Inspector General testified
before the Subcommittee on Oversight here on E&C about the
risks associated with conflicts of interest with the DOE's loan
program and in the Loan Programs Office, and in response to my
questions for the record about Elon Musk's clear and obvious
conflicts of interest, he confirmed that unmitigated conflicts
can impair objectivity and give particular parties an unfair
competitive edge.
Now, reporting confirms that Musk's DOGE team has developed
a list of energy projects funded by the Inflation Reduction Act
and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that we passed two
Congresses ago that they are planning to cut, and these
projects are disproportionately located in Democratic-leaning
States.
When we wrote and passed the IRA and the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, we weren't thinking about red States versus
blue States. You heard President Biden say that again and
again. We were focused on investment and innovation and
abundant energy and reliable energy for all Americans.
And so I know that you are not responsible for that, and I
know that you are not responsible for the actions of the
political leadership and the administration, but as you are
here discussing the importance of increasing our energy supply,
I just feel I have to ask you to explain to us how will
canceling these ongoing projects help accomplish DOE's mission
to advance U.S. energy innovation and success, or will it? I
mean, can it help advance that mission if we cut these
projects?
Dr. Goff. I should note I am not aware of any cancellation
of those projects. I mean, right now, the Department is doing
an agenctywide review of all the various programs to look at
and, you know, assess them and make sure that they are, you
know, consistent with the law, consistent with court rulings,
consistent with our mission to move forward on affordable,
reliable, and secure energy. So I am not aware of any, you
know, blanket cancellations like that at this point in time.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, I think there are reports that the
DOGE group as opposed to the Department is making--is
identifying those projects. And, certainly, we have a lot of
concerns here about the potential conflicts of interest and
other things, so I hope that we can continue to have an ongoing
dialogue about those.
I am going to run out of time. So I am going to have to
submit my questions for you all for the record, and I am sorry.
But I have got 18 seconds left, and I just want to raise this.
I don't think I missed it, but as I am sure you are aware, DOE
has lost 3,500 civil servants because of DOGE's efforts, and
that is leaving a lot of divisions like the Office of Clean
Energy Deployment with a tiny fraction of staff.
Now, we are excited about the programs we authorize like
the hydrogen hubs. Does DOE have the staff to implement these
huge new programs with these staffing cuts?
Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired. So, if you
want to submit that in writing----
Mrs. Fletcher. I can submit that for the record. And I
thank you very much. I thank all of you for your time. And
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Dakota
for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for
being here today. I appreciate your time. I am sure you are
excited to almost be done.
So, as we look at the challenges that our country is facing
right now, it feels to me like we have three big competing
needs. They are not mutually exclusive, but I would be
interested in hearing your thoughts on ranking them. There is
this desire to and need to meet the power demand of the
citizens in America today, there is the need to meet the demand
for AI, and there is the goal to transform our power supply
into carbon-free resources. Those are competing interests. They
are not mutually exclusive.
But how would you--I don't think you can meet them all at
once, personally. Twelve years as a utility regulator,
including time as the president of the national association, I
studied these a lot. I personally don't think you can meet all
of those at the same time. How would you rank them?
Let's start with you, Terry.
Mr. Turpin. Well, from my relatively narrow role at the
Commission, what I have heard sitting at the Commission
meetings every month is that is an enormous balance to try to
navigate those, and I think that is what the Commission is
working on. But, beyond that, I really don't have an informed
opinion.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK.
Dave?
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think it is
crucial to be achieving reliability and affordability first and
foremost. I think we can be making progress with respect to a
variety of electric generation types as we are doing that, but
I think those goals must be fundamental.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK. And meeting the AI demand, how would
you rank that?
Mr. Morenoff. Oh, I intended to include that within the
broader scope--V
Mrs. Fedorchak. Of the reliability?
Mr. Morenoff [continuing]. Of ensuring reliability and
affordability for that demand as well.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK.
Mr. Goff?
Dr. Goff. Yes. I agree that we do need to focus on all of
them to a large extent. We do need to move--but they are
challenging. We do want to make sure that the American people
do have affordable and reliable and secure electricity, but I
will lump in with the American people--you know, AI and all is
critical for our economy and the American people as well and
for our national security. We want to make sure that we have
those capabilities on shore in the U.S.
So they are all very critical, and that is why we do have a
major focus, again, on energy addition as opposed to
subtraction. We have got to make sure we move forward on all
the energy technologies to make sure that we can try to meet
all of those different goals there moving forward.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK. When it comes to public policy,
including incentives and penalties, they have a huge impact--
would you agree--because they direct action and investment,
where all the dollars go? In my opinion, it is vital right now
to align our incentives towards the things we need the most on
the grid.
Mr. Goff--and go down the line--what do you think are the
most vital things we need on the grid right now, and how do we
align our incentives to get those--to draw those things
forward?
Dr. Goff. We need to keep existing capacity on the grid as
much as we can and then, again, be able to accelerate
deployment of new capacity, again, of all energy----
Mrs. Fedorchak. Capacity?
Dr. Goff. Hmm?
Mrs. Fedorchak. Capacity?
Dr. Goff. Capacity. Yes.
Mrs. Fedorchak. You mean that term. Not energy, right?
Capacity?
Dr. Goff. Excuse me?
Mrs. Fedorchak. You mean capacity?
Dr. Goff. Yes.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Not energy?
Dr. Goff. Excuse me. New energy. Yeah.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK. There is a big difference. I was hoping
you would say capacity.
Dr. Goff. We need the addition of new energy--new
generation capabilities on the grid. We can look at what the
capacity factors are and all like that, but we need the
addition. So we need the policies that will incentivize both of
those, making sure we can keep existing assets running but also
accelerate either through, you know, incentives or permitting
reform as well to be able to move forward on deployment of new
generating capacity on the----
Mrs. Fedorchak. Great. All right.
Dave, how about you? Same thing?
Mr. Morenoff. Thank you. The point that I would add is to
say that I think it is important that FERC right now is looking
at whether structures that we had developed in what frankly is
a different type of environment--and particularly with respect
to the great increase in demand--are still serving their
purposes towards those crucial goals. And I think that, with
respect to looking at those resource adequacy and capacity
constructs, it is important to be considering whether further
changes may be warranted.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK. Very good. Just in my remaining 30
seconds, I just want to make a comment.
As it relates to the need for new transmission, I would
make a plug and extend my arm across to my Democrat friends. As
it relates to permitting reform and building new transmission,
we also desperately need new pipeline infrastructure. And that
is to help support the deployment of renewables. If that is
your goal, we have to have more gas to back that up.
And so we could make a lot of progress there if the focus
isn't only on power lines but if it is combined power lines and
pipelines together. That is the bipartisan way that we are
going to get this done. But you can't exclude one--you can't
have one without the other. It has to be both, both for
reliability and for politically just being able to get it done.
So I hope to work with my colleagues on that, and thank you.
Mrs. Fedorchak. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the
Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Texas, for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goff, I am going to jump to you. I know you haven't
gotten enough questions yet today.
My district along the Texas Gulf Coast is the home to some
of the largest refineries in the United States. In fact, the
three largest refineries in the U.S. are located in my
district, and they boast a combined nameplate capacity of
1,866,024 barrels a day.
As a side note, the Keystone Pipeline would have come into
my district in Port Arthur, Texas, and it carries 833,000
barrels a day. So we could have increased the capacity coming
out of southeast Texas--what would that be--one-third or one-
half or whatever it is. It is a bunch. So I just want you to
know what kind of district I am from.
I cannot tell you how important it is firsthand that, not
only for Texas but for U.S. global energy dominance, what we do
is extremely important. You know what they say: You can always
tell a Texan, you just can't tell him much. So we are going to
brag on Texas.
Can you speak to how a study such as the one directed by
the REFINER Act--and I am sorry I got here late. I was actually
in another energy subcommittee. I am the chair of the
Subcommittee on Energy in Science, Space, and Technology. Speak
to how the REFINER Act may benefit the United States' energy
security and dominance.
Dr. Goff. Yes. As I mentioned probably on one other
question--and, again, thank you for your question and your
comments with Texas and all as well--I am a research and
development guy from my history. So data and all and analysis
to me is important as you are going forward to making
decisions.
So, as far as the REFINER Act, tasking the National
Petroleum Council to look at the vulnerabilities that we have
with respect to refining is pretty critical because we do--as I
acknowledged in my testimony, our assets are aging assets out
there, and petroleum for both an energy source but also for
commodities is still very critical for our energy and our
economics and our energy security, so----
Mr. Weber. And would you add trade around the world to that
as well?
Dr. Goff. Oh, yes. Around the world as well, yes.
So I think having those studies done to really, truly
identify what vulnerabilities do we have and how we need to
address them is an important thing to do to look at, you know,
what the future is and what actions we need to be taking from
the Department of Energy or the U.S. Government as a whole, as
that report would go to Congress and to the Secretary of
Energy. That type of analytics is very important as we look at
our energy future.
Mr. Weber. Thank you for that. I am going to stay with you
for a minute.
H.R. 1949 would unleash American LNG to our allies across
the world. In my Gulf Coast district of Texas, I start at the
Louisiana border--that other foreign country--and I come down
the curve of the Gulf Coast of Texas four counties. We have
three LNG plants, and a fourth LNG is just across the Louisiana
border. We have the Sabine-Neches Navigation Districts, which
actually help Cheniere Energy move their ships out. So, in
essence, we have one Texas company that is helping four LNG
plants, and we have got two more on the drawing board right
now.
So we know that the export of LNG is in the public
interest. It is in the public interest to have billions of
dollars to flow into communities like Port Arthur, Texas, or
Freeport, Texas. We go from stem to stern all the way from the
southern half of the district over to the Louisiana line. It is
in the public interest for countries around the world,
especially our allies, to purchase LNG from us. So do you
believe that exporting LNG is in the public interest? It is a
simple question.
Dr. Goff. Yes. I think----
Mr. Weber. What is the holdback?
Dr. Goff. Well, I would say, right now, the administration
has released the freeze on, you know, looking at expansion and
type activities. The Department plays a role--major role with
FERC on that and doing analysis to look at the----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Dr. Goff [continuing]. Good of the country. We have
approved four of those actions already. So we are, in the
Department, moving forward.
Mr. Weber. Let's keep them rolling. I appreciate that.
I came in late. I got to see the comments from New York
Congressman Tonko talk about Winter Storm Uri in 2021, which--
you know, I live about 30 miles north of Galveston. I have
never seen Galveston Beach be 18 degrees. It was that February
of 2021.
But he also made a comment--he said, you know, they had a
bunch of energy on board, but it didn't really help those
plants. Well, look, it takes a lot more than just the source of
energy to run a plant. You have got to have transmission. You
have got to be able to move the products. It is like having a
car. You can have a full tank of gas, but if your belts are off
the car, the motor is not going to go.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania's
13th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking Member
Castor, for holding this important hearing, and to our panel
for testifying.
The legislation that is under review today represents a
strong slate of commonsense improvements to Federal regulations
in the energy sector. Because of the wealth of natural
resources in the U.S., we are well positioned not just to
deliver reliable and affordable power to the American people
but to the world.
After years of predictable energy demand, technologic
advancements in manufacturing and an increase in use of AI are
leading to a surge in the need for electric power. By the end
of the decade, the data centers necessary for this AI could
consume almost 10 percent of all electricity in the U.S.
In Pennsylvania, we have the necessary natural gas reserves
to meet this increased demand. We also have the resources
available to beat China in the AI race to provide abundant
power both for the consumers and for the industry that
continues to expand, and this will unleash incredible economic
growth. However, in order to recognize and realize this
opportunity, we need to ensure that Federal regulation doesn't
stand in the way of efficient construction of the
infrastructure and the new generation that is needed to meet
this demand.
Two pieces of legislation under consideration today, the
Unlocking Domestic LNG Potential Act and the Improving
Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines
Act, would help to streamline the regulatory process for
project sponsors seeking to build the natural gas
infrastructure.
Mr. Turpin, under both pieces of legislation, FERC's role
as the lead reviewing and permitting agency is strengthened.
Can you discuss some of the processes that FERC has implemented
within its current statutory authority to approve this
infrastructure in a timely manner?
Mr. Turpin. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Since
the Congress changed the Natural Gas Act in 2005 to the Energy
Policy Act, the Commission has been the lead agency for the
NEPA review and for coordinating Federal authorizations.
One of the things we have learned in that period is that
the single best thing--or the two best things you can have are
that early outreach and engagement to all of the permitting
entities that are going to be involved as well as a committed
project sponsor who is trying to get all the information needed
before those agencies.
Mr. Joyce. Would you agree, Mr. Turpin, that making it
explicit in the statute that FERC assumes the lead role in
authorizing these infrastructure projects both improves
certainty for the project sponsors that you just mentioned as
well as proactively avoids delays that might arise due to
process discrepancies between different agencies?
Mr. Turpin. Yes. That has been my experience over the last
15 years.
Mr. Joyce. I think that you recognize that ample energy
resources are the key to the future of success both
economically and for a stable energy market. We have an
advantage over our global competitors. This legislation that we
are considering today will allow us to leverage this advantage
to the benefit of my constituents and--even more than that--for
all Americans, and I look forward to advancing these important
bills through this committee.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the
Chair--not seeing any other Members here wishing to ask this
panel of witnesses any questions, that will conclude this
panel. We really appreciate you coming in, and we will begin--
pause briefly to begin the second panel of witnesses, but thank
you very much for your testimony today. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Latta. The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to
order.
And, once again, the Chair wants to thank our witnesses for
appearing and testifying before us today. And each witness will
have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a
round of questions from our Members.
And just, once again, a quick housekeeping. If you would
pull the mike as close to you as possible. And the lights--you
will see you have 4 minutes when they are green, 1 minute
yellow, and red is when you are out of time.
So, for our witnesses who are appearing on our second panel
today: the Honorable Jim Matheson, who is the chief executive
officer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
and also an alumni of this committee. So welcome back to our
committee. We really appreciate seeing you here today.
Ms. Amy Andryszak, the president and chief executive
officer at the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
Ms. Kim Smaczniak--did I get that right, ``Smaz-nee-ack``
'?-- who is a partner at Roselle, LLP.
And Mr. Todd Snitchler, who is the president and chief
executive officer at the Electric Power Supply Association.
So, again, we appreciate you all being with us today.
And, at this time, I will recognize the honorable Jim
Matheson for 5 minutes for your opening statement. And, again,
thanks for being with us today.
STATEMENTS OF JIM MATHESON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL
RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION; AMY ANDRYSZAK,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; KIM SMACZNIAK, PARTNER, ROSELLE LLP;
AND TODD SNITCHLER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF JIM MATHESON
Mr. Matheson. OK. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just
want to thank Ranking Member Castor and I want to thank all the
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
today.
As the CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association--and you will hear me refer to that by the letters
NRECA at times--I have the privilege of representing nearly 900
not-for-profit electric cooperatives across the country, and
they are owned and governed by the people that they serve.
Across the country, we know electric demand is surging. It
is driven by a number of things: Growing communities,
electrification of the economy, the power-hungry data centers,
and new manufacturing plants. And, according to the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation, electric demand
growth is the highest it has been in over two decades. And,
over the next 10 years, peak power needs are expected to rise
over 18 percent. And it seems like there is a new data center
being announced every day. That is going to drive that number
higher.
And, at the same time, critical always-available generation
is being retired faster than it can be reliably replaced. As
stated in the committee memo for this hearing, over 115,000
megawatts of base load coal, natural gas, and nuclear capacity
are slated for retirement over the next decade.
So let's be clear: Our Nation really is at an interesting
energy crossroads. Demand is growing and supply isn't keeping
up, and the electric grid's reliability is what is hanging in
the balance. Your leadership in our Nation's energy policy is
as critical as it has ever been.
And, as you consider legislation that is going to affect
the electric sector, I urge you to keep three key things in
mind. First, electric reliability really is nonnegotiable. A
resilient, reliable, and affordable electric grid is the
mission of every electric cooperative, but it is also the
cornerstone of our Nation's economy and energy security. A
diverse energy portfolio but one that is anchored by always-
available power generation is essential to this commitment and
critical to meet skyrocketing electricity demand.
Second, critical generation resources are being retired
faster than they can be reliably replaced, and that threatens
reliability. Now, among the biggest drivers of this is the
power plant rule that the EPA finalized last year. This rule
targeting coal and natural gas power plants is going to reduce
available electricity at the same time demand is rising.
Even hydroelectric power, a reliable and abundant source of
carbon-free affordable energy, is under attack. As I testified
to this committee last year, the Biden administration
agreement, negotiated without any electricity provider in the
room--it aims to breach the four Lower Snake River
hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest which provide 3,000
megawatts of power and it underpins electric reliability of the
entire region. So Congress should support the efforts to repeal
the power plant rule and withdraw from the Lower Snake River
dam agreement.
These two actions I just mentioned were, in my opinion,
acted upon without any legitimate consideration about the
impacts of those actions on electric reliability. Someone or
some agency needs to assume the role of advocating for
reliability and performing as a watchdog that evaluates various
Federal actions like these and how they affect reliability.
So NRECA appreciates the committee's work on the draft
Reliable Power Act, which would be an important step toward
addressing this concern and providing accountability for agency
actions that could negatively affect grid reliability.
And the third item. New, reliable, always-available
generation needs to quickly come online to meet skyrocketing
electricity demand. Congress has got to improve and modernize
the outdated and, quite frankly, dysfunctional permitting
process for all types of projects with an eye towards the scale
and scope of what is going to be required to meet this
challenge, and Congress should support--continue to support key
programs of resources electric cooperatives use to build and
maintain infrastructure and invest in that infrastructure to
keep costs affordable for our consumer members.
Amid retirement of reliable generation, we also appreciate
the committee's consideration of ways to expedite the
interconnection of new dispatchable, always-available
generation such as the GRID Power Act.
Look, providing reliable, affordable, and safe
electricity--that is the shared commitment of all the members
of NRECA. Electric cooperatives are looking forward to working
with this committee and others in Congress as you advance
legislation to help fulfill this mission. Thanks again for the
opportunity, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Matheson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
And, Ms. ``An-drish-ee-ack,'' you are recognized for 5
minutes for--am I saying your name correctly?
Ms. Andryszak. It is ``An-dri-zack.'' You are close.
Mr. Latta. Andryszak. I am sorry. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF AMY ANDRYSZAK
Ms. Andryszak. Either way, long and Polish.
So, Chairman Latta, Vice Chairman Weber, Ranking Member
Castor, and members of this subcommittee, I am Amy Andryszak. I
serve as the president and CEO of the Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America, also known as INGAA, and it is a trade
association representing North American interstate natural gas
transmission pipeline and storage companies.
U.S. electricity demand is projected to continue growing
due to increased electrification and expansion of AI and data
centers. Estimates vary for exactly how many additional
gigawatts of power generation capacity will be needed. However,
the U.S. EIA projected that, by 2050, electricity net
generation will rise by more than 45 percent.
In addition to its other uses, natural gas is the largest
electricity fuel source, currently providing 43 percent of the
electricity generated in this country. Demand for gas has
continued to grow, and we are going to need more pipeline
infrastructure to meet that demand. Current estimates show an
additional 3.3 to 6 Bcf a day of additional pipeline capacity
will be needed by 2030. We need to build more pipelines to meet
the demand, but the status quo regulatory regime will not get
us there.
We appreciate the committee's efforts to provide reliable
and adequate base load power and necessary infrastructure to
meet these growing demands. INGAA supports and I am prepared to
discuss five of the bills being considered today. INGAA's
perspective on the proposals is included in my written
testimony.
While the legislation before the committee represents an
important step towards addressing the United States energy
infrastructure problem, we need additional action. Congress
should also enact comprehensive, statutory, durable reforms to
the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, or
NEPA, and judicial review of Federal permits.
The permitting system poses a particular challenge to
interstate natural gas pipelines which span multiple States
since they must obtain approvals from numerous Federal and
State agencies. The onerous, often duplicative review of
natural gas pipelines and the inevitable litigation relating to
permits often make projects unviable. My written testimony
details five projects that met this exact fate.
To address these issues, we call on Congress to enact the
following changes: First, restore NEPA to its intended role as
a tool for analysis. Despite Congress' clear intent to dictate
procedure and not outcomes, NEPA frequently creates unnecessary
delay and litigation risks which ultimately leads to the
cancellation of projects.
Second, establish reasonable guardrails against misuse of
Clean Water Act Section 401. The cooperative federalism
framework created by Clean Water Act 401 works well in most
States, but some States have misused section 401 to frustrate,
suspend, or outright veto critical energy projects, especially
interstate natural gas pipelines. Reforms should be made to
Clean Water Act reviews to protect against the misuse of water
quality certifications.
Third, promote certainty and durability in the Army Corps'
Nationwide Permit Program. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters
of the United States without authorization from the Army Corps.
Opponents of natural gas infrastructure have targeted the
nationwide permits as a means of blocking natural gas pipeline
projects. There are statutory changes which could be made to
help protect the nationwide permits and promote certainty.
Finally, decrease litigation risk. Many of the
recommendations highlighted in my testimony would provide
clarity on the scope of judicial review for Federal permits and
reduce litigation risk. Congress can further reduce or mitigate
this risk by requiring clear and convincing evidence to support
an agency's denial of a permit for any interstate gas pipeline
or LNG export facility as well as establishing a timeline for
agency action following a Federal court's remand or vacature.
INGAA stands ready to work in a bipartisan manner to enact
comprehensive permitting reform provisions, and I appreciate
the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Andryszak follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your statement.
And, Ms. Smaczniak, you are recognized. Am I saying that
correctly?
Ms. Smaczniak. ``Smaz-nee-ack.`` Perfect.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KIM SMACZNIAK
Ms. Smaczniak. Good afternoon, Chairman Latta, Ranking
Member Castor, esteemed----
[Switches microphone on.]
Very good. Thank you--esteemed members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this critical
topic.
My name is Kim Smaczniak. I am a partner of the newly
formed boutique energy law Roselle, but I am here in my
personal capacity, not on behalf of my firm or any client.
Prior to founding Roselle, I served as special counsel in the
Office of General Counsel of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, where I worked on, among other issues, FERC's
reforms of the interconnection process, and I am going to start
there with the critical importance of the interconnection
process to reliable, abundant, and I would emphasize affordable
energy.
At a time where we face tremendous growth for demand for
electricity, we need all the generation and storage we can to
move through the interconnection queue to deployment, but our
interconnection queues are clogged.
A project built in 2008 spent on average 2 years to get
through the queue, but by 2015, that rose to 3 years. And now,
by 2023, the project lingered in the queue for 5 years. It
doesn't take an engineer to tell you that math doesn't add up.
We can't afford to wait half a decade for the electric
infrastructure to power data centers, manufacturing plants, and
electrification.
Now, FERC took an important step forward to fix the queues
with Order No. 2023. I am proud of my role in supporting that
work and believe it will speed up the interconnection process,
but it is not enough. To meet the moment, we need further
innovation. I applaud PJM, the grid operator serving 13 Mid-
Atlantic States and the District of Columbia, for recently
announcing it will use AI tools to streamline its
interconnection process. At the same time, we need these kind
of streamlining tools to get deployed sooner and not only after
facing years of crisis.
FERC must do more through its power to convene the industry
and ultimately through rulemaking, as the Expediting Generator
Interconnection Procedures Act of 2025 would require. But it
would be a terrible mistake to only fix the interconnection
process for certain types of generators rather than advance
broad-based solutions that benefit all commercially viable
projects seeking to interconnect.
A technology-neutral and fuel-neutral interconnection
process is the foundation to the competition and innovation
that keeps energy abundant, reliable, and affordable. If we put
the Federal Government in the position of picking winners and
losers, we threaten all three.
I am particularly concerned by the approach offered by the
GRID Power Act to move dispatchable generation only to the
front of the interconnection queue. It is unnecessary, may well
exacerbate reliability concerns, and puts energy affordability
at risk.
First, FERC already has the power to approve changes to the
interconnection process that would prioritize some generators
over others, but it must do so subject to the constraints of
the Federal Power Act, which means the discriminatory treatment
of other projects in the queue must be justified. The GRID
Power Act lowers the bar for such discriminatory treatment.
Second, moving generators to the front of the line that
cannot be built quickly because of supply constraints will not
improve reliability. According to reports by some of the
Nation's largest independent power producers, gas turbines and
other equipment face constraints that will impact the ability
to deploy new gas plants prior to 2030. But even if these
resources could be constructed more quickly than projected,
more dispatchable resources are not a one-size-fits-all
solution to threats to grid reliability. Diverse and region-
specific solutions are needed.
Third, this approach undercuts energy affordability. We
need an abundance of projects to efficiently move through the
interconnection queue, not just a subset. But by picking the
winners, we also make all the other projects in the queue
losers. These projects face additional costs and uncertainty,
especially if the dispatchable resources linger long in the
queue, and then those costs are ultimately passed on to the
energy bills of American families and businesses.
I will stop there, and I look forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Smaczniak follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. And thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Snitchler, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF TODD SNITCHLER
Mr. Snitchler. Good afternoon, Chairman and Ranking Member
Castor. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee this afternoon. My name is Todd Snitchler, and I
am the president and CEO of the Electric Power Supply
Association, or EPSA.
EPSA is the national trade association that represents
America's competitive power suppliers that compete every day in
regions of the country that operate competitive wholesale power
markets. I would like to note that my testimony represents the
position of EPSA but not necessarily the views of any
particular member of the organization.
Our members own and operate approximately 175 gigawatts of
generating assets, both dispatchable and intermittent, and
storage resources which account for roughly 20 percent of the
Nation's installed capacity. While our members own a variety of
assets in different regions of the country, our members share a
deep commitment to electric grid reliability.
I would like to highlight four aspects of my written
testimony.
First, as the subcommittee has discussed at several
hearings now, we expect to see substantial increases in
electricity demand in the coming years. That seems to be
universally accepted. We have a good idea also of the
underlying drivers of that electricity demand, including data
centers and artificial intelligence. But when and how broadly
that demand will show up becomes less clear as forecasts extend
into the next decade. What we know for sure is that we will
need more electricity and more power plants to produce that
electricity.
Second, competitive power markets remain the most efficient
vehicle to meet reliability needs while protecting ratepayers
from unnecessary or imprudent investment. As I outline in my
written testimony, competitive markets have proven to be the
most efficient and transparent way to meet our Nation's
electricity needs at the lowest cost while fostering innovation
and reducing emissions. However, competitive markets also serve
as a vital protection for electricity customers from
inefficient investment.
If the variables underpinning expected electricity demand
growth don't evolve as expected, competitive markets do not
expose captive ratepayers to unavoidable charges. Markets put
the risk for investment on investors, like our members, and not
electricity customers, which helps to mitigate their costs.
Third, several of the bills before this subcommittee today
share a common thread of recognize the importance of
dispatchable resources. We don't see the possible solution as
an either/or. EPSA's members believe in the both/and approach
to solutions to achieve the optimal way to meet present and
future electric demand. However, dispatchable resources'
capacity that can respond to dispatch instruction and run
between economic minimum and economic maximum today play a
particularly important role. Grid operators value resources
that can ramp up and down quickly and whenever the weather is
not conducive to electricity generation.
Because these resources are so important, Congressman
Balderson's GRID Act is appropriately targeted in an effort to
provide flexibility and bring dispatchable resources online
faster when system operators require it. As the connection
queue process evolves in various regions, the need for
dispatchable resources continues to grow, and the GRID Act
appropriately creates the insurance policy that will prevent
queue backlogs from adversely affecting reliability.
As the subcommittee works through several bills assessing
the appropriate quantity of certain capacity resources, we
would urge members to be very specific about the definition of
the resource that you are trying to incentivize or encourage.
And while I am on the subject of reliability, the 118th
Congress, we endorse legislation that would have, under certain
circumstances, empowered the Nation's electric reliability
organization to assess possible impacts of proposed Federal
rulemaking on grid reliability.
In general, EPSA supports the concept of a process that
would empower an expert in the electric grid to render an
impartial assessment of potential adverse impacts of Federal
rules.
Fourth, when members consider policies to encourage
investment in the electric grid, the natural gas pipeline
system must also be included. Power generators are now the
largest customer of natural gas in the United States, and
natural gas generation accounts for roughly two-fifths of the
electricity produced in the country. We consider the natural
gas supply network in many ways to be an extension of the bulk
power system, and EPSA would urge members to remember that the
reliability of the electric grid will largely depend on a
robust natural gas supply network.
EPSA and our members maintain a strong commitment to
reliability, and we stand ready to help the Nation meet its
reliability goals in the growing electricity environment. And
we appreciate the committee's focus on this critical issue,
especially now.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Snitchler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
And that will conclude our witnesses' opening statements,
which will now bring us to our Mmbers' questions to our panel.
And I recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
And I am going to start with my standard question for
everyone. Do we have to have more power or less power being
produced in this country?
Mr. Matheson. We need more.
Ms. Andryszak. We need more.
Ms. Smaczniak. More.
Mr. Snitchler. More.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
And another question that is always coming right behind it
is always on the permitting question. And do we need to have
permitting reform in this country?
Mr. Matheson. Absolutely.
Ms. Andryszak. Absolutely.
Ms. Smaczniak. Yes.
Mr. Snitchler. Without question.
Mr. Latta. OK. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Snitchler, if I can start with my other questions. The
Electric Supply Chain Act, which I am going to introduce, will
leverage the Trump administration's work to secure our supply
chains and ensure DOE remains at the forefront of emerging
developments affecting the power sector. As I mentioned during
the first panel, GE Vernova, a leading producer of natural gas
turbines, continues taking orders for 2028, a 3-year timeline,
that aligns with historical norms.
Mr. Snitchler, how can DOE leverage industry expertise from
companies such as those you represent as required by my
legislation, and how can it better inform policy decisions to
keep the lights on or fueling innovation?
Mr. Snitchler. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
I think at the fundamental level, we need to remember a
couple of things, first of which is the supply chain issues
that are trying to be addressed are systemic and are not unique
to the restructure market portions of the country. They are
true for our vertically integrated. The public power and the
co-ops as well are facing many of the same issues.
How we address that, however, is critically important
because we want to make sure that we can deliver the
appropriate amount of energy and capacity when it is needed.
And I think we need to be careful about how we are approaching
this for two reasons. One, right now, we have a capacity
shortfall, but we have energy to meet the needs of the system.
So we need to be looking at how DOE can help identify
technologies and opportunities that will allow us to meet the
short-term time horizon of 1 to 5 years, let's call it, to keep
the system reliable, while at the same time working with
manufacturers and others to deliver the equipment that will be
needed for the 5- to 10- to 15-year period where we will need
both energy and capacity to power the system going forward.
So I think our members are committed to try and address
both the short and the medium and longer-term opportunities
that will exist, and I think DOE's ability to leverage the
power of the national labs and other innovative technologies
that can be deployed in the system, I think, are fundamental to
helping us get there in a reliable fashion that will allow us
to both achieve the national security objectives we have but
really the system reliability concerns that this committee is
here to talk about.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
Mr. Matheson, you know, we have been talking about base
load dispatchable resources and the challenges we are having on
the Federal and State policies that drive reliable and
affordable energy. You know, in your opinion, are we meeting
our needs for the future right now? Can we meet--if you see
what is happening out there today, can we meet the needs that
we are going to have in the future when it comes to power?
Mr. Matheson. There is no question we face a challenge
because, you know, last couple of decades, we haven't seen
significant electric growth in this country, and now we are.
And so we know it is right in front of us, and it is going to
take some real effort to build the infrastructure to meet these
needs.
And when I say ``infrastructure,'' it is not just
generation. As the first panel also--we need to enhance our
transmission system as well to better move electrons around the
country. That increases reliability. There is going to have to
be investment at the distribution level in terms of more
substation infrastructure as well. So there is a significant
investment needed in terms of meeting this new demand that we
are facing.
What we shouldn't do is dig ourselves in a deeper hole by
shutting down already existing plants when they are still
economically viable and we don't have reliable replacement. We
need to take a portfolio approach. This is not an all or
nothing. I thought Congressman Veasey did a good job in the
first panel talking about that. There is a portfolio approach
to how we should do this in terms of the type of resources that
are going to contribute to reliability in this country. But
this is an all-hands-on-deck situation in terms of the demand
we are facing right now.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
And the pretty much same question, Ms. Andryszak. You cite
in your testimony an EIA study that, by 2050, electricity needs
are going to rise by 45 percent in the country. Where we are
today, do you think we can meet those needs?
Ms. Andryszak. No. I think we are going to need
significantly more infrastructure of all types to be able to
meet those needs. Obviously, my expertise is within pipelines,
but we need all different fuel sources, and as has already been
noted on this panel, we are going to need different ways to
move those fuel sources around the country, both pipelines and
power lines.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Well, it has been mentioned not only in this panel but in
the last, you know, when we are looking at not only needing to
have more power in this country but also on the permitting, we
got to get this done because time is really of the essence, and
so it has got to get done.
And my time has expired. And I will now recognize the
ranking member, the gentlelady from Florida, for 5 minutes for
questions.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Smaczniak, I so appreciated you starting off with
emphasizing affordability, because when I talk to my neighbors
back home, the cost of living is just--it is just knocking them
backwards. And it looked like the economy was coming for a soft
landing after we had been through this inflationary period, and
now it is just, gosh, socked with tariffs, like, these import
taxes that are causing additional chaos and raising costs. And
then the Trump administration freezes the important rebates for
many neighbors to afford their electric bills. And even going
after LIHEAP that--for working-class people just to afford
their A/C bills or their heating bills.
But most consumers don't understand--OK. Traffic jam at the
interconnection queues is a big issue for them as well. Could
you put it in context for the everyday American why it is
important to address these barriers to getting energy onto the
grid?
Ms. Smaczniak. Yes, absolutely. And I think of my parents
as the audience who are the everyday American retirees
struggling to pay their bills.
And the simple answer is you need to be able to build very
quickly and without an extra expense. The supplies that you
need--if you don't have the supplies--you know, if you don't
have enough eggs, they cost more. It is the same thing when you
build generators. And we have a process that has layers of
complexity because we haven't invested in transmission
infrastructure.
So that is--fundamentally, we have a shortage in the
ability to interconnect power plants very quickly and in a way
that is clear what those costs will be. And that lack of
clarity over the costs and that lack of access to the
infrastructure makes it more expensive and take longer. And if
you are a project developer, the longer that you have to wait
in that line, the more expensive it is. You have a lot of costs
to carry.
So all of that contributes to the problem that we face. And
as long as we are not able to build those resources, things are
going to be more expensive at the other end.
Ms. Castor. So I have learned a little bit in Congress over
time on Energy, and that is why I put together the Expediting
Generator Interconnection bill that I hope we can move forward.
How will that help smooth the addition of energy resources onto
the grid?
Ms. Smaczniak. Well, I think we need to continue to
innovate in our interconnection queues. FERC did an important
first step and looked at some of the best practices across the
country. They are not enough given the moment that we are
facing with growing energy demand, and so we need to do more.
And so I believe this bill pushes on FERC to look at a number
of innovative practices and ways to make the transmission
process or the interconnection queue process more transparent.
So it is clear what the costs will be. It is clear for
developers where they should locate in order to avoid costly
transmission upgrades, and then also just makes the process
faster for all generators. And I think those are the kinds of
solutions that we need in order to solve the problem.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
And, Mr. Matheson, it is good to see you.
Mr. Matheson. Good to see you.
Ms. Castor. I so appreciate everything that our electric
co-ops do to provide affordable and reliable energy. Co-ops
need access to affordable financing, though, to maintain their
electric distribution lines and other grid facilities.
Democrats put in some funding to help modernize the grid
through the GRIP initiative and then through USDA as well,
under New Era and PACE and REAP programs. But unfortunately,
the new administration came in and they froze so many of those
dollars that go to help make life easier for co-ops and all of
their customers.
But now I understand that both departments--we have heard
testimony this morning--they are starting to unfreeze some of
these dollars. But I hear that USDA is attaching conditions to
funds that recipients are already entitled to. I mean, it is so
important for everyone to adhere to their contracts, to keep
their word.
So tell me what is happening out there and what will happen
if the Feds do not keep their word through these contracts?
Mr. Matheson. Sure thing. Appreciate you asking those
questions because these are really important programs to
electric cooperatives. And let's start first with the
infrastructure programs like GRIP, where hundreds of co-ops
applied for these fundings. As a national association, we
organize consortia for smaller co-ops to bid together. We are
managing five large consortia projects, and GRIP is in an area
where we are doing that.
I am pleased to say that at the initial announcement of
freezing, those projects are moving forward. And they are
important in terms of investment and resilience in the grid of
electric cooperatives.
Let's shift over to USDA now where--in the Inflation
Reduction Act. The New Era and PACE programs are set up and
specific--the New Era was specific for electric cooperatives,
roughly 9.7 billion for clean energy projects. There was a
pause of 30 days where electric cooperatives are given
opportunities to modify their proposals on a voluntary basis if
they wanted to. That 30-day process is about to come to a
close. But it was voluntary. And I am pleased to note that
Secretary Rollins indicated we are looking to move forward with
these projects, and that is the premise upon which we are
approaching this issue right now. Because those are important
investments. The people have made a decision for their own
local communities back home.
Since you mentioned Inflation Reduction Act, I got to
mention one more thing. It included elective pay, which gives
access for both municipal utilities and electric cooperatives
to have access to the tax incentives to promote investment for
for-profit companies. That is very important for us as well.
Ms. Castor. I agree. Thank you so much.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's 12th
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here today.
Let's start with Mr. Snitchler first. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, from the great Buckeye State.
According to the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, at the end
of 2023 almost 2,600 gigawatts of generation projects were
sitting in the interconnection queues nationally. That is more
than double the existing generation currently on the grid.
Recently, the median wait time for projects to move through
interconnection queues across the Nation increased to 5 years,
delaying critical projects from being built and connected to
the grid.
Chairman Snitchler, I greatly appreciate EPSA's support for
my GRID Power Act, which is being considered today. In your
testimony, you note this bill requires grid operators and
transmission providers to provide a demonstration of need for
the prioritization of certain generation projects that provide
dispatchable power. The operators making the request must
provide FERC with information on how the projects will improve
grid reliability, provide a process for public comment and
State court engagement before the proposal is submitted to
FERC, and must provide regular reporting to FERC on the state
of grid reliability and resiliency.
Lastly, the bill requires FERC to review and update
regulations required by the bill to ensure they are effective
and relevant to involving challenges to grid reliability.
Chairman Snitchler, can you discuss how this bill provides
proper transparency and guidance to FERC so they can consider
these proposals and get new generation connected and built
faster?
Mr. Snitchler. Thanks for the question, Representative.
Yes. The bill clearly sets out a process for what amounts
to an emergency relief valve. It is not a permanent decision
that, once it is made, will continue in perpetuity. It doesn't
determine specifically what the resources are that would be
required. It solicits input and requires the system operator to
first have identified that there is an emergency or that they
have a reliability concern. It then requires that FERC evaluate
and determine that that is correct, and then have a process by
which they would then go through and ultimately determine that
that is correct and that the--then the resources would be
allowed to be moved ahead.
What it seeks to do, I think, is a very balanced approach
to try and address a critical issue in a way that does not
immediately advance any one project to the front of the line
and, in fact, takes a measured approach to try and ensure
reliability over time.
It is similar, in many ways, to the RRI decision that FERC
just issued, where two of the FERC Commissioners said, ``We are
voting for this because it is a one-time decision to try and
address the concerns that we have about reliability.'' This has
a very similar flavor in trying to address the occasions as
they arise in a way that will allow the emergency to be
relieved and then go back to business as usual.
And I think it is important to note there has been a lot of
discussion around queue reform and what is happening in various
parts of the country. PJM is kind of the poster child for
issues with queue reform, and they are nearly through their
queue reform process. They have pushed, I think, 50 megawatts--
or 50 gigawatts are already through the system, waiting to be
constructed. There is another 60 gigawatts that are nearly
through the system.
And it is important to note that, during the process,
approximately 90 gigawatts of projects that were in their queue
have dropped out of the queue, which means that is 90 gigawatts
that were holding spots in the system that have made it
difficult for other projects to get through.
So back to your question, Representative. We are trying to
address emergency conditions in a way that is thoughtful and
straightforward and doesn't choose winners and losers but
requires the grid operator to identify and the regulator to
agree that there is a situation that needs to be addressed.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much.
Moving on. Congressman, good to see you here this morning.
Mr. Matheson. Good to see you.
Mr. Balderson. My next questions are for you. You and I
have discussed the Biden EPA's Clean Power Plant 2.0 in the
past, and I agree with your organization's strong concerns with
that rule. I am extremely grateful for Administrator Zeldin
announcing last month that the EPA is reconsidering that role,
which would force our most reliable power plants into early
retirement.
Recently, NERC had stated that the majority of the Nation's
bulk power system is at high or elevated risk for capacity
shortfalls over the next 5 years. So I am curious. At any point
during the rulemaking process for the Clean Power Plant 2.0
last year, do you think EPA seriously considered the negative
impact the rule would have on the reliability of the electric
grid?
Mr. Matheson. I can't imagine that there is any serious
consideration because this puts so much reliability at risk.
And that is not just me saying that. Let's acknowledge that,
once the litigation started, all of the RTOs together,
collectively, filed a brief agreeing that they should withdraw
this rule because they raised concerns about reliability.
So I heard in the first panel during statements from--in
the opening statements that we should listen to those grid
operators because they are the ones responsible to make sure we
have a reliable operated grid, and they all--and it is unusual
for them to do this, by the way, they all filed the brief
together saying, ``We think this rule goes too far based on
reliability concerns.''
Mr. Balderson. All right. Thank you very much. I have a
followup question, but I will submit it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Thank you much. The gentleman's time has
expired. He yields it back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's
50th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was astounded. I just heard that 2,600 gigawatts is the
amount waiting to be connected. That is 2,600 nuclear power
plants. I mean, this is an enormous amount. And I would just
say that the first connection we should make is the one that is
ready, and I am prepared to help do that.
I certainly support Ms. Castor's bill, but I would
reiterate again that the grid is too small, too old, and too
dumb, and we have got to make investments, because it is not
really a matter of the order of hooking it up or anything like
that if you can't hook it up to something that is going to
transmit electrons.
So a big obstacle for that is obviously permitting reform,
and I was hoping to ask Ms. Smaczniak and Ms. Andryszak--whose
names rhyme, which is kind of funny--about a linear
infrastructure. So we talk a lot about natural gas projects and
transmission projects that go across long distances to move
electricity or power.
Maybe you can tell me a little bit about how they are
permitted differently, what are some of the common permitting
barriers that we can learn from? And maybe we will start with
you, Ms. Andryszak.
Ms. Andryszak. Thank you, Congressman. Certainly appreciate
that question.
We face a number of challenges in the construction of
interstate natural gas pipelines because of the permitting
challenges. We first receive our certificate of public
convenience and necessity from the FERC, and that isn't really
where we are finding our problems. We are really finding our
problems with getting the additional agency or State permits
that we get as part of the cooperating agencies with FERC. That
is really where we are finding the delays and the holdups. And
then in addition to that, we are finding significant challenges
with litigation at every step of the approval process.
Mr. Peters. Is it mostly NEPA?
Ms. Andryszak. So there is a lot of legal challenges to
NEPA. In terms of the challenges in getting permits, it is the
State Clean Water Act and air permits that typically hold us
up.
Mr. Peters. Right. Ms. Smaczniak?
Ms. Smaczniak. So let me simplify. If you have a big
interstate pipeline, you get to go to FERC. One-stop shopping
for your certificate. You get cited through one entity.
You have a multistate--you know, big transmission wire
project through multiple States, you have to go to each State.
And each of them have different requirements. Each of them
have--going to have different potential environmental
clearances and so on. And so there is tremendous complexity to
that. And any one of those say no, your project can die. And so
you have one very immediate difference in those efficiencies.
Now, when it comes to some of the permitting challenges,
you know, we--you always are going to need an agency that is
staffed up and has the resources. One of the reasons FERC is so
good at what it does is it does this over and over again, and
it has the concentration of specialized staff that you need.
You may not get that in the State agency that you are going to
if you are building a transmission wire.
So you see some of the big differences. And yet, at the end
of the day, you do need some streamlining. You need those
environmental reviews to happen efficiently so we get to an
answer and we know can we build a project, because no one wants
to wait around and have that uncertainty hanging over your
project.
Mr. Peters. But you think for high-voltage and regional
transmission, sort of a one-stop shop model like FERC would be
helpful for that. Is that right?
Ms. Smaczniak. I think big, high-voltage transmission, it
is a national priority. We need it for the reliability of the
grid. It is absurd that we do not have Federal authority to be
able to cite those.
Mr. Peters. Right. And for costs. I mean, obviously, you
can move a lot of electrons, respond to consumer cost issues as
well if you have a better network, right?
Ms. Smaczniak. That is right.
Mr. Peters. Mr. Matheson, thanks so much for coming back.
It is great to see you in this building again.
Maybe just in the last minute. You worked in this
committee. If you were sitting up here, what do you think you
would do to sort of help us build out a transmission network
that meets the challenges that we face today as a country?
Mr. Matheson. Well, I think it is one of those great issues
that shouldn't fall on party lines. For crying out loud, we all
can agree we need more transmission in this country and we can
all agree the current process doesn't work. And we can talk
about this agency isn't doing this or that agency isn't doing
that. But Congress--it has been a long time since Congress has
taken a look in a holistic way at various environmental
statutes in terms of how permitting takes place. And I would
like to think in the moment we are in, especially when it is
hard to permit any of the--you talk about transmission, but
whether it is a solar project or gas project, it is hard to
permit these days.
So I think we are developing momentum right now. We got to
have a candid conversation about what is a way to make a
practical, predictable--we are not getting rid of environmental
review, but let's make it where it is transparent, predictable,
and we have a thumbs up or thumbs down, move on.
Mr. Peters. Right. Well, I think that is what a lot of us
are interested in doing, and I really appreciate you all being
here today and look forward to continuing working again.
Mr. Latta, I hope we can bring in some more of those
transmission discussions as part of this effort going forward.
Thank you.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
back.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for
5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairman Latta, for holding this
important legislative hearing. I want to thank the witnesses on
our second panel for giving us your expertise on this important
subject.
I mentioned in the first panel how critical it is to
utilize all energy resources to meet our growing energy needs.
We need to make sure we have more power on the grid and
certainly not less. Natural gas is key in that building up our
natural gas pipeline infrastructure is critical.
Ms. Andryszak, in previous hearings the subcommittee held
this year, we heard concerns of natural gas availability for
energy demand growth given pipeline infrastructure constraints.
What are some of the biggest statutory hurdles to interstate
pipeline development?
Ms. Andryszak. So the biggest hurdles we face are securing
all of the necessary permits from State and additional agencies
that goes along with the overall FERC certification process. So
it is securing those, and then it is the fact that we face
legal challenges, litigation, at every stage of the permitting
process.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Snitchler, in your testimony, you mentioned
how market signals incentivize generational development.
However, in regions like the Northeast that lack critical gas
transmission infrastructure, is the market able to even respond
to those supply demands due to a lack of pipelines?
Mr. Snitchler. Representative, thanks for the question.
The short answer is yes, but the longer answer is it is
very difficult. So if you are not able to access the resource
that you think you need, you are forced to look at other
alternatives. And the issue of affordability or cost
effectiveness has been raised a number of times today, and that
does have an impact on the ultimate cost that consumers pay.
And that is true, again, whether it is a restructured
market or it is a vertically integrated portion of the country,
that if you have a restricted access to the commodity that is
the least expensive, most viable alternative to produce
electricity at the time and for the foreseeable future, yes,
that becomes a problem for planning and for investment
decisions, because you need the appropriate market signals in
order to drive that 30- or 40-year investment.
Mr. Allen. Would additional pipeline capacity lower prices
for consumers during the peak seasons in these tight markets?
Can you explain how that would be done?
Mr. Snitchler. Sure. Thank you for the question.
I think it is clear that if there is a greater access to
the commodity, which is typically available at lower cost, when
you look at where the constraints and supply are, specifically
in northeast Pennsylvania, there remains a large volume of gas
that could find a home in the Northeast. That would allow
generators who utilize that resource as well as other customers
on the pipeline system to be able to have lower cost of gas,
which means that in turn reduces overall power prices, which--
and then goes into your ultimate retail bill at a lower rate
than it would if you have got higher prices that you are having
to address. So it is kind of a linear function of the access
and the price.
Mr. Allen. Plus it burns 42 percent cleaner, which is a big
reason why we have reduced our carbon footprint.
Mr. Matheson, you mentioned in your testimony the need for
reliable base load power to meet the growing energy demand.
Plans to take away natural gas and coal, I believe, will harm
availability. Can you share what the characteristics of natural
gas and coal--why the characteristics are so critical to
reliability and what the harms would be to having some of this
generation retire?
Mr. Matheson. Well, I think it is in the term of
``dispatchable,'' or the term I like to say is ``always
available.'' It works great in the portfolio. If you are going
to have renewables, having it anchored by always available
makes the value of the renewables more so as well. And it could
be natural gas, it could be coal, but it could be nuclear and
it could be hydro. But they are always available. That is key
in terms of maintaining reliability over a 24/7/365 calendar.
Look, for 340 days of the year, this country has got plenty
capacity. It is those 25, right?
Mr. Allen. Right.
Mr. Matheson. And you can take a look at the great example
just--I will give you one with hydro in the Pacific Northwest,
where two Januarys ago we had record cold and the wind
production went from over 100 gigawatts down to nothing. And
the hydroelectric dams out there in the Pacific Northwest kept
the heat on in bitter cold for hundreds of thousands of people.
So having that always-available generation matters in terms
of those crisis situations.
Mr. Allen. Good. Thank you. Yes. Thank you so much for
sharing your expertise with us.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey's
Eighth District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to second Ranking Member Pallone's
frustrations with what is happening back in New Jersey. It is
unacceptable that PJM's inability to add generation to its grid
will increase prices on New Jerseyans. And this issue isn't
unique to PJM. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, MISO,
which services the Midwest, revealed earlier this week that its
recent capacity auction saw prices explode as well.
And one thing I want to emphasize is that we want to get
projects on the grid. The interconnection process is absolutely
a part of that, and a natural one, given FERC and Congress's
immediate jurisdiction. But getting projects on the grid also
includes financing, local permitting, and supply chain issues
that all must be addressed as well.
Ms. Smaczniak, according to a recent MISO filing, supply
chain shortages and a lack of transmission are preventing
projects from connecting to the grid even once they have gone
through the interconnection queue and signed agreements. Would
allowing projects that are facing supply chain issues to jump
the queue actually get them online?
Ms. Smaczniak. No. That would not help. If you can't have
the equipment to build the plant, it is not going to help to
move it to the front of the line.
Mr. Menendez. I agree.
As we have heard repeatedly this year, there is a gas
turbine shortage. So while I appreciate that my colleagues
think that natural gas power plants are somehow the only
solution, the bills we are discussing here today wouldn't
actually help them get online any faster. Gas turbine
manufacturers have been clear that if you don't have an order
in for a new turbine now, you are not getting it this decade.
So quickly, I want to also shift to the bill on
coordinating pipeline permitting. Ms. Smaczniak, as you and our
other witnesses here today mentioned in your testimony, an
earlier iteration of this bill had a provision that would strip
States of their ability to examine pipelines under the Clean
Water Act. Can you talk about State authority under the Clean
Water Act and why it is so important to keep this authority
with the States?
Ms. Smaczniak. Yes. Under existing law, States have the
ability to review discharges that result from construction of
these projects and determine is it going to impact their State
waters. That is really important. The States are the ones who
are closest to the needs of their residents. They can consider
the public health impacts and the livelihood impacts of those
discharges.
Now, the bill would move that authority from States to
determine what are the impacts of those construction projects
to the Federal Government, to FERC, which lacks the expertise,
as was testified in the first panel, to be able to assess
those. It is not close to the ground. It doesn't understand the
uses of those waters.
And I believe that violates what the fundamental
cooperative federalism approach of the Clean Water Act is and
really puts States in a position where they can't protect their
residents. And that concerns me.
Mr. Menendez. I appreciate that.
Well, thank you all so much, and I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Tennessee's First District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
panel for being here today.
I will start with Ms. Andryszak. I am going to expound on a
question that my colleague had. We know the demand for energy
will only continue to rise. However, when we look at the
supply, power plants are being closed for early retirement and
new projects face a permitting process that is mired more and
more with lengthy approval timelines and judicial review
schedules.
So I guess this is more for your members. Where in the
process do your members encounter the most unpredictability for
infrastructure projects, and what should Congress do to restore
efficiency to the review process?
Ms. Andryszak. Absolutely. So our greatest challenges are
securing some of the clean water and clean air permits. And I
am happy to give a perspective on changes to permitting the
Clean Water Act, if you would like.
We additionally also face challenges with litigation. NEPA
is the most litigated Federal statute. And so one of the things
that we are advocating for is clarifying some of the language
under the NEPA statute so that it is very clear what
congressional intent is, and it would make it much more
challenging--it would make it more difficult to challenge a
Federal agency's decisions around NEPA.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, I understand about clarification of
language, so--how can enhancing collaboration between Federal
and State agencies help expand our natural gas pipeline network
safely and efficiently?
Ms. Andryszak. Yes. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
So, again, FERC is the lead coordinating agency for these
environmental reviews, but we do see that States often delay
and frustrate the process. And I think that having permits move
in a concurrent manner would help speed up the process, make it
more efficient. And ideally, the way the improve--the bill is
structured so that there is more transparency around the
process and whether some of the cooperating agencies, if they
are slowing the process down, it would become more clear. That
would be a positive step.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. And I will get back with you on your
ideas about the clean water and clean air.
Congressman Matheson, thank you for your testimony
highlighting just how damaging the EPA's Clean Power Plant 2.0
would be on energy reliability. And thank you for mentioning
that, under President Trump, we are seeing this rule be
reconsidered.
As member-driven nonprofit organizations, cooperatives
would be uniquely burdened by these expensive and unrealistic
mandates. As administrations often differ significantly on
policy, how might providing FERC the authority to review other
agencies' regulations that impact bulk power systems affect
energy reliability and hoist up power rates for electrical co-
ops?
Mr. Matheson. Look, I think the idea that we need to make
sure we are considering reliability across agencies--as I think
I said in my written testimony, we need a watchdog. We have
people with expertise. There is FERC and there is NERC, and
they all kind of have their role. But then you get different
Federal agencies doing their own thing in their jurisdiction,
and electric reliability isn't even considered. And the Power
Plant rule is a great example, and I can give you a lot more in
other Federal agencies.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, we probably need you to.
Mr. Matheson. So--well--all right. I will give you two
quick ones. Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service posted
conservation rules in the last couple years where it limits
access to existing rights-of-way to go and clear danger trees
to prevent wildfire risk in the West. That is not a good thing,
using existing rights-of-way----
Mrs. Harshbarger. That is not a good thing.
Mr. Matheson. And we ought to be able to go and prevent
wildfire risk.
So again, people with one goal, an agency that has one set
of viewpoint, isn't thinking about electric system reliability
or impacts on that. So I am all for looking for ways to create
an awareness and some form of watchdog that is more effective
than what we have had before because, clearly, things are
slipping through the cracks.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. And I have a farm in Tennessee, in
east Tennessee, that--we use a co-op, and it is--listen, I
could go into some stuff too about that. So thank you, sir, for
that answer.
Mr. Matheson. Thank you.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Quickly, Mr. Snitchler. You mentioned why
it is critical to maintain our existing dispatchable
infrastructures as a way to bring on new energy infrastructure.
How do we take advantage of the generation assets we already
have, and what regulatory flexibility would help bridge the gap
as new dispatchable generation comes online?
Mr. Snitchler. Thanks for that question, Representative.
Clearly, we do need to keep what is already generating
electricity on the system because we are--as has been
previously noted, we are at the intersection of rising supply
and shrinking--or sorry, strike that, reverse it--rising demand
and shrinking supply. And we need to address that. And the
fastest way to do that is to put the shovel down and allow us
to keep what we have.
Then how you are going to address the problem is it really
is an all-of-the-above approach. There are some resources that
are going to be available quicker than others. There are some
resources that are more controllable than others. And there are
some resources that are zero emitting, if that is your
objective. All of them are on different time horizons. All of
them have different costs associated with them.
Our members look at the market to provide the appropriate
signal to allow them to respond quickly. And when the market
arbitrarily reduces the market signal because there is concerns
about prices--which are a valid concern--but when you take away
the signal to invest, it makes it impossible for people who
look for that price signal to know now is the time for us to
invest.
Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. Thank you for that answer, and I
yield back.
Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York's
20th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Smaczniak, I would like to ask you about the Power
Plant Reliability Act. Am I correct that there are already
existing Federal Power Act authorities that can and sometimes
are used in emergencies to ensure the reliability of
electricity systems?
Ms. Smaczniak. That is correct. We have numerous
authorities under the Federal Power Act that address the
reliability, and they are layered under each other. And so
there are emergency ones. We have the Department of Energy that
has section 202(c) authority when there is a temporary need to
keep a plant running. We also have already--within many
markets, we have opportunities to, outside of the market,
ensure so-called reliability must-run contracts where we
recognize that there is going to be a gap and a reliability
need that needs to be filled for a longer period of time. And
there is provision for that outside the market.
So these are all mechanisms that already exist to address
reliability concerns.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And it appears that this proposal is
attempting to mimic some of those tools that are already
available to help support reliability, such as section 202(c)
of Federal Power Act and reliability must-run orders. Is that a
fair assessment?
Ms. Smaczniak. That is my understanding, except they would
be much more costly under this bill, this version of that
authority, because it, by default, appears to set an
expectation of running those plants for 5 years at a time
regardless of the reliability need.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And can you discuss why a generating
unit might need to enter into a reliability must-run contract
in the first place? I am guessing at least some of the time it
is because, absent such a contract, that unit would not be able
to compete economically.
Ms. Smaczniak. Typically, this is a case in which there is
a unit that is uneconomic and considered it is planning to
retire. But then when you look at the transmission, there are
certain reliability concerns that would result from that
retirement. And so there is a need for some upgrades, some
additional changes to the grid to allow that retirement.
And so during that period while that construction occurs,
these contracts allow for that gap and ensure--meanwhile, you
have some bigger-picture mechanisms to ensure we are continuing
to bring new resources in so we are not expecting that we are
just going to keep retiring plants on the grid indefinitely. So
we expect these market mechanisms to keep new resources coming
in, which are cheaper ways to meet those needs.
Mr. Tonko. And are these reliability must-run contracts
typically expensive?
Ms. Smaczniak. Yes. Yes, they are expensive.
Mr. Tonko. And under this proposal, compelling a unit to
operate would also compel consumers to pay for that asset. How
might Americans' energy bills be affected by requiring
uneconomic power plants to continue to operate over a long
stretch of time?
Ms. Smaczniak. Well, we know from research from Rocky
Mountain Institute that looking at where we have uneconomic
coal being dispatched, that the costs run to the billions of
dollars per year already. And so if this authority were
available, we would expect those costs to go, again, much
beyond that number. And so I think that is just an absurd
amount to pay for units that may not be needed at a time when
energy prices are already rising.
Mr. Tonko. So if these types of arrangements can have big-
cost implications, it looks to me, though, it makes sense that
these orders are used sparingly.
Ms. Smaczniak. That is right.
Mr. Tonko. Unlike the Federal Power Act, this proposal
doesn't require an emergency situation. Is that correct?
Ms. Smaczniak. No. It actually extends the authority beyond
what you would see in section 202(c), for example, in order to
look and say, Is there a possibility that this could be needed
in the next 5 years? And if there is any possibility, that
triggers the authority to issue one of these orders.
Mr. Tonko. OK. And section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act
also has requirements about making certain the operation of
facilities is done safely and in accordance with Federal,
State, and local laws. Is that correct?
Ms. Smaczniak. That is correct.
Mr. Tonko. OK. And none of those requirements were carried
over into this proposal.
Ms. Smaczniak. That is correct.
Mr. Tonko. So, Mr. Snitchler, I know independent power
producers want to be able to compete, and that means providing
reliable electricity at the lowest price. This proposal would
require a term of 5 years, which seems like quite a long time
commitment.
So is there any evidence that a guaranteed 5-year
reliability must-run order would be appropriate, or would the
length of that contract have distortionary impacts on the
market?
Mr. Snitchler. Thanks for the question, Representative.
First and foremost, RMRs are a suboptimal solution for the
situation that has evolved or is happening on the system. And
so our members are sometimes asked to participate in an RMR
arrangement. But what the RMR is actually signaling is that the
unit should retire and there is a need for new resources to be
added to the system.
So the potential for RMRs to frustrate the development of
new resources is a real concern. The potential cost impacts are
significant, though I would caution that typically an RMR is
cost of service plus a rate of return, which is more like what
a traditional vertically integrated utility would get. So it is
mitigated. It is not some unlimited cost that would be
required.
But the duration should really only be as long as it is
needed to resolve the transmission constraint and allow the
solution to be implemented. And then the resource should be
able to leave the system.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you so much.
Ms. Smaczniak, I had one other question for you, but I see
my time is exhausted, so we will get that to you.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the
chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for having this
hearing, this panel. Thank all of you for being here today.
So, Ms. Andryszak, we need to expand energy capacity,
especially gas capacity, and for affordable energy to heat
homes, to power businesses, and keep the lights on. So I am
just asking what do you think the critical steps Congress can
take to make sure investors have the regulatory predictability
and certainty to make decisions to build out this capacity,
including regard to the Clean Water Act?
Ms. Andryszak. Thank you, Chairman. I really appreciate
that question.
So INGAA has advocated that we need statutory reforms to
the Clean Water Act, to NEPA, as well as judicial reforms. And
what we are advocating for would essentially put more clarity
around some of the decision making that is incorporated into
the statutes, and it would put in place some additional set
timelines, particularly for judicial review, so we can stop
opponents to pipeline infrastructure just dragging out, sort
of, projects needlessly.
You specifically asked about the Clean Water Act, and I
know that has been a discussion today. And it is an important
discussion because that is one of the areas where we see real
delays in getting our pipeline projects--I am sorry--our
pipeline permits. Some States--not all, but some States use the
water quality certification process to slow down project
approvals.
There was a discussion earlier about a provision that had
been part of legislation last Congress related to the Clean
Water Act 401. And what that provision would have done, States
would have still been able to maintain their role in reviewing
water quality certifications. It just would have changed. They
would have been now doing it in a consultative manner as part
of the FERC-led NEPA process. However, the States--under the
way the legislation was written, the States still would have
been able to recommend terms and conditions related to water
quality that FERC could incorporate into the FERC certificates
if they choose to do so.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
And, Mr. Matheson, you had some of my--your members in town
that are my constituents, and I am their customer, so kind of a
good relationship to have them here. And I talked about in my
opening statement and talked about there with them is that this
probably is an exciting time as the 1930s when they first came
into being as co-ops to be involved in energy because of the
demand of energy just exploding.
And so if we don't expand energy, if we don't expand
opportunity in the next 3 to 5 years, then we have a limited
supply. and we know the demand is coming. If the demand doesn't
come, it means that we have chosen to AI somewhere else. And
that is not a choice we can accept as Americans. And so what
could Congress do the most to give your members the chance to
expand to meet the demand that is coming?
Mr. Matheson. Appreciate that.
Mr. Guthrie. Because you know it is going to raise the
prices for people in their houses. So we don't want to do it to
bring these big energy consumers on board.
Mr. Matheson. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. And we think
the AI and the data centers are going to disproportionately be
in rural areas, by the way. A lot of land there available, and
electric cooperatives serve 56 percent of all the land in this
country. So we think we are really a big part of this.
Listen, I think we can help on the permitting side, number
one. We had a lot of discussion on that. I know the permitting
conversation is complicated. There's multiple committees in
Congress with different jurisdictions. We haven't even talked
about things like the Endangered Species Act, which also
affects permitting.
So there is a whole series of Federal statutes that have
got to be looked at for permitting reform. Again, I think there
is a consensus in a bipartisan way we ought to be doing that
right now. That would be a big factor in giving this more
certainty and clarity on the timing it takes to move ahead with
these projects.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
So, Mr. Snitchler, you represent people that do on-demand
dispatchable energy. What can we do to produce--what can
Congress do to help your folks produce more energy so that the
big consumers coming on board don't crowd out people at home?
Mr. Snitchler. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
I think there's a couple of things that immediately come to
mind, the first of which is--and I won't belabor it, it has
been talked about a lot--is permitting and siting reform. The
ability to move quicker and be able to deploy the resources
faster are better, and that will help us get where we need to
be.
And I know that we also have to expand infrastructure on
both sides of the meter. And by that I mean the pipes have to
be expanded and the wires will have to be expanded in order for
us to deliver molecules that are needed to create the electrons
that are going to power the system on a dispatchable basis. No,
natural gas is not the only fuel that will be utilized in order
to power the system going forward, but right now it is the fuel
that helps to back up and make sure that the system operates
reliably. And every study that we have seen has suggested that
even in a high-renewables world in the future, you are going to
need more gas, not less, for those times when the system really
needs it, to ensure that it can operate reliably. And that is
why you are going to need both pieces of that puzzle.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you for
your indulgence, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
back.
And the Chair now recognizes the ranking member for a point
of personal privilege.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chair Latta. Thank you for
recognizing my point of personal privilege.
I want to welcome to the Energy and Commerce Committee
Energy Subcommittee the students from the Bayaan Academy back
home in Tampa Bay. I am sorry I couldn't meet you on the steps
for a photo because we are here doing policy. This is a
committee meeting where we are talking about America's energy
system and how we provide affordable reliable power to power
our lives. So I am grateful for you all being here. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Massachusetts' Fourth District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Chairman.
Ms. Smaczniak, in your comments on the GRID Power Act in
your written testimony, you described grid reliability is a
team sport, something that comes from a full system, not just
individual components like generators. I know you commented on
it in your opening testimony as well, but we have since heard
about it from Mr. Snitchler and others, so I wanted to give you
an opportunity to respond to what you heard from him and also
to expand on why only prioritizing dispatchable resources won't
safeguard reliability. What other levers should grid regulators
or Congress focus on?
Ms. Smaczniak. Thank you for the question.
And I--look, I think exclusive focus on dispatchability is
too much of a one-size-fits-all type of approach.
Dispatchability may well be a tool in the tool kit: moving
resources, making sure they are getting properly compensated,
making sure there is value for the services provided. There are
a number of ways in which the markets can work to ensure we
bring the resources in.
My concern is when we use the interconnection queue, which
is supposed to be for all comers who are ready for commercial
viability--where we use that as the way of screening out who
gets access. So it is fundamentally challenging the ability for
competition and innovation to fuel affordability on our energy
system.
Mr. Auchincloss. It is not really the competition market-
based system that my Republican colleagues advocate for.
Ms. Smaczniak. Yes, that is exactly right.
Mr. Auchincloss. And as Mr. Peters from California said, he
said first to get connected should be first that is ready,
right?
Ms. Smaczniak. Exactly. So to the extent that we are going
to move anything to the front of the line, it should be the
stuff that is going to get built most quickly. And that is
exactly the kind of approach that is built into FERC's
approach. Look at commercial readiness as the way to determine
what moves through the queue. If we can do that better, let's
do that better.
Mr. Auchincloss. And as you mentioned, FERC already has the
ability to consider dispatchability in its queueing
preferences, right?
Ms. Smaczniak. That is right.
And then just to get to your point. When we look at how
does FERC approach reliability, it has never said ``one size
fits all, this is what every region of the country needs.'' It
has allowed each region to look at, what are our particular
circumstances? What kind of flexibilities do we already have on
the grid? What is our existing mix of resources? And that is
the thing that allows then a reliable system, is to have that
kind of region-specific, context-specific approach.
And the focus on dispatchability alone, it says we have one
tool to rule them all. And that is just not going to work.
Mr. Auchincloss. I appreciate it.
I want to move on to the Power Plant Reliability Act, which
would give FERC the power to compel payments to certain power
plants under specific circumstances. You express concern that
the language doesn't require evidence of a reliability
emergency.
Can you talk about what would happen to electricity rates
if consumers were forced to pay for a power plant for 5 years,
if a reliability emergency stays purely hypothetical? Do you
think the Commission and the Department of Energy's powers
under section 202 Charlie of the Federal Power Act are
sufficient to address acute emergencies?
Ms. Smaczniak. So, one, I think this would be an incredible
cost on Americans at a time when we are already facing rising
energy prices. There is no sense to forcing energy--for
American families to pay for the cost when it is not really for
reliability. And because it automatically sets a 5-year
timeframe for when these would operate, regardless of whether
that actual reliability need manifest, it is a waste of
people's money to do that.
Mr. Auchincloss. It is another example of the abusive
emergency power we are seeing the President use, the emergency
power of tariffs to raise costs on Americans. Now they are
talking about using emergency power for reliability to raise
costs on Americans.
Ms. Smaczniak. And I think we already have a layer of
tools. We have our traditional market design. We have--how do
we value resources? Those are all things that are supposed to
move the right resources in that we need in order to avoid
these emergencies.
And then if we don't have something in a timeframe when we
need it, we already have existing reliability must-run options
where needed for a temporary period of time. And then at the
very last gap, we have 202(c) when we just know there is some
emergency, we need to address it.
So these layers of tools, they are there. They exist. We
should continue to rely on them rather than create new outside
of the process mechanisms that are going to be incredibly
costly for Americans.
Mr. Auchincloss. So it sounds like, in your assessment,
both the GRID Power Act and the Power Plant Reliability Act
will ultimately just raise costs on consumers of energy.
Ms. Smaczniak. Yes.
Mr. Auchincloss. I yield back my time.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Iowa's First
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ranking
Member Castor, and thank you to our witnesses for being here
today.
Iowa is an energy State. I know that may be mind-blowing to
most people, but Iowa is a State that has 50 percent of its
energy from renewables. We have over almost 60 percent of our
electricity from wind, and we are a net exporter of energy. We
have any of the above, including carbon-based fuels, liquid
fuels, compressed renewable natural gas, nuclear hoping to
restart, which we lost 5 years ago, hydropower, wind, solar.
You name it, Iowa has it.
Mr. Matheson, in your testimony, you mentioned a 10-year
horizon for generation retirements. The Power Plant Reliability
Act would require a 5-year advance notice for planned
retirements. How do different generation sources vary in their
ideal timeline for retirement notices, and is the 5-year
requirement in the legislation reasonable?
Mr. Matheson. Look, I think that you raise a fair question
about different resources have different components to them in
terms of--from a reliability standpoint, we have got to be real
careful about thinking that the market could react like that
just on the dime. This is a capital-intensive industry. We are
making investments in this infrastructure. It takes time. And
we are making decisions for assets that are going to last
another 50 to 80 years once they are built.
And so I have heard this conversation today, and I think a
lot of important points have been made, but we have got to take
a step back that--this is a multifactorial challenge in terms
of how we are going to make reliability happen, in terms of
when we shut down power plants, and have we reliably replaced
that capacity. And that is the challenge we are in right now.
Demand is growing, and we are not keeping up.
And the interconnection queue needs to be fixed. We have
talked about that today. We have talked about permitting. But
let's be careful about digging the hole deeper before we know
we can reliably replace that power.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Yes. Bringing energy online, certainly,
I think is both our--you know, our mandate as well as that of
this administration.
As an alternative approach, you mentioned the Power Plant
2.0 rule under the previous administration that caused
significant issues. If that rule were repealed, might it be
more effective to prevent forced retirements rather than adding
new regulatory burdens?
Mr. Matheson. Well, it would do two things because, right
now, as that rule is on the books, if you want to build a
natural gas power plant and you are asked to deploy a
technology that is not commercially viable--which is carbon
capture and sequestration--then you can only run your natural
gas power plant 40 percent of the time.
So all these new gas plants are going to be built. Because
we have heard everyone here talk today about you can't get a
gas turbine for 2030. That is because the electric sector is
betting on gas. They reserved all these turbines because they
are going to build new power plants.
If that power plant rule is in place--so not only will it
force a shutdown of existing power plants, it is also going to
restrict the value of these new investments. So, quite
candidly, the electric sector is counting on that rule to be
repealed because they are not going to invest in a natural gas
combined cycle plant that you can only run 40 percent of the
time.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Ms. Andryszak, you mentioned in your
testimony that natural gas has many uses beyond electricity
generation, sort of like our ethanol plants do. How do these
other applications impact coordination efforts and demand for
natural gas as we look to increase natural gas for electricity
generation?
Ms. Andryszak. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
So we have talked a lot about gas for electricity today.
However, our end users also include industrial manufacturing,
your local distribution companies, which get gas to homes and
businesses to be able to power their businesses, to heat their
homes, for home cooking, as well as natural gases for LNG
exports. So all of those end uses are equally important, and we
are going to continue to need more pipeline infrastructure to
serve all of those end users.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Well, in Iowa, we would know that as
fertilizer as well--one of those end uses--as well as hydrogen
energy in the future.
Are there competing demands for pipeline capacity that
might affect reliability of the electric grid?
Ms. Andryszak. I would just say that the--what might impact
reliability is a lack of pipeline capacity. And so when you do
have times of high energy demand, there are sections of this
country which are pipeline constrained, and you just aren't
able to deliver all of the natural gas that is being demanded
because you just don't have enough infrastructure in place.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. And, briefly--because I am going to run
out of time--how can we ensure that gas-electric coordination
is improved while meeting these other essential needs?
Ms. Andryszak. So our industry has been working vigorously
to address this issue. We have improved winterization. We have
improved coordination both with our customers and the RTOs, and
we are--already, natural gas pipelines do reliably deliver, but
we are always working to improve our reliability.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. 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 again, Chairman Latta, for
holding this hearing, and thanks to our second panel of
witnesses for your testimony today and for your time. I think
it has been very helpful to all of us, and I think this
extended hearing on these issues I know is very important to my
constituents at home as it is to people across the country.
I want to follow up on a couple of things. There has been a
lot of really interesting ground covered.
But, Ms. Smaczniak, I want to go back to your testimony.
You talked a little bit about Ranking Member Castor's bill,
Expediting Generator Interconnection Procedures Act of 2025,
and how that will help all projects move through the queue
without picking winners and losers, which is something that my
constituents kind of repeatedly have indicated is a priority.
And it would encourage grid operators to use a similar model to
the one that we use in Texas with ERCOT, and ERCOT has really
successfully connected a record amount of diverse energy
generation to our grid in Texas.
So can you talk a little bit more about the advantages of
the connect-and-manage model and kind of what other grid
operators can learn from what ERCOT has done well in these sort
of quick connections?
Ms. Smaczniak. Absolutely. And I agree that ERCOT is a
model in terms of being able to move resources quickly through
the queue, and we can learn from that.
Texas does have the advantage that it has had significant
transmission build-out which has enabled that kind of
interconnection approach to work very well. What they do is
they have a much more targeted way of studying the
interconnecting resources and addressing the reliability gaps
and the upgrades that are needed, and that allows things to
move much more quickly than the kind of very expansive and
interconnected related studies that happen in some of the grid
operators' approaches.
It is something that I have heard from grid operators that
it does not always easily translate, and so I think there is
work to be done, but I think that also goes to the underlying
problem that transmission capacity--when we have it, when we
know it is going to get built, it really makes this
interconnection process that much easier.
So these are really interrelated, and to solve this problem
in a long-term way, we really need to get at that underlying
problem of lack of adequate transmission capacity.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, and I appreciated your response to Mr.
Peters' questions earlier. Obviously, he has been very focused
on permitting reform, as I have. It is one of the number-one
things that I hear about from my constituents at home who are
involved in producing and moving energy of all kinds. And,
certainly, permitting for transmission as well as permitting
for other projects and moving things--getting pipelines sited
and getting things moving through those pipelines are
priorities for the people that I represent.
And maybe, with that, I do want to turn to you, Ms.
Andryszak. It is nice to see you. And I want to follow up on
some of the things that you were talking about. There has been
a lot of conversation today and folks have asked you about--and
in your testimony you talked a lot about proposals around NEPA
review. And certainly that continues to be an important issue.
We are seeing some changes in this administration.
But one of the things I have heard pretty consistently from
my constituents at home is a concern about staffing. And it is
something we heard from the first panel. But there is a real
concern about the massive staffing reductions that we have seen
and that, as I understand it, my constituents--many of whom are
your members--want to make sure that the folks who are doing
the NEPA reviews and who are involved in the permitting process
have the necessary expertise, have the experience, and that if
they issue a permit, that that permit is going to have been
issued appropriately and withstand some of the challenges that
you have identified.
And so I am just interested in whether that is something
that you are hearing and how you think we can best address
that. I know you mentioned some challenges with State agencies
and other things, but here what we have seen is a massive
reduction in the Federal workforce that I am very concerned
about, and I think it would be helpful for folks here to
understand how that is affecting your members.
Ms. Andryszak. Absolutely, Congresswoman. Thank you for the
question.
Certainly, INGAA feels very strongly that any of the
Federal agencies that have oversight and responsibility for
permitting, construction, and overseeing the safety and
operations of pipeline infrastructure need to remain fully
staffed and fully resourced. It is a priority for us.
As it relates to FERC, something that maybe not everyone
understands is that FERC is actually funded by user fees paid
for by my members. And so since FERC is essentially a budget-
neutral Federal agency, we would hope that that might protect
them from any additional workforce cuts, because you are
absolutely correct: If we are going to build out the
infrastructure that is needed in this country and that we have
been talking about, we need to make sure that the folks at FERC
who approve that infrastructure are--that it is a fully staffed
agency.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you for that. And I agree. I
think I have already gone over my time, which is amazing. I
thought I was doing so well. But I thank you all for your time
and your testimony.
I thank you for your accommodation, Mr. Chairman, and I
yield back.
Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired and yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Dakota
for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for
your expertise. Thanks for spending your day with us today and
lending us all your expertise.
I want to talk about something that I haven't heard talked
about a lot here in Congress yet, and that is gas-electric
coordination.
Mr. Snitchler, you have got some experience in this. Could
you speak a little about where you see that ranking in terms of
priorities for us to maintain reliability and affordability and
maybe even one of a few of the key things that we need to do to
help support that?
Mr. Snitchler. Sure. Thank you, Representative. It is good
to see you again. Gas-electric is an issue that has been around
for a long time. We have talked about it to death, I think. I
think we are now moving into solutions, which is good.
And Amy mentioned, you know, some of the work that is
already being done collaboratively between the trade
associations, between our members, but also between the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the
State regulators, and FERC through your leadership when you
were the president of NARUC to put something together to try
and bring the regulators and industry together to try and
actually speak to the issues that are before our respective
sectors to try and knit us closer together.
Because the reality is the gas and electric systems didn't
have to work really closely together 25, 30 years ago. It was
coal and nuclear. Gas was the swing fuel. If it was there, it
was great. If it wasn't, it wasn't--it didn't really matter as
much. Now, it is almost half of all of the generation in the
country. So the critical importance of linking the two
together, I think, are even more important than they have been.
We have tried to identify some solutions as part of the
work that Amy's association and the Natural Gas Supply
Association and EPSA have done together to point to some of the
things that can be done. I don't want to belabor permitting and
siting. That should be, like, issue one. Everybody understands
that that is one of the issues.
But there are also market reforms that can be done at the
regional transmission or independent system operator level to
ensure appropriate compensation is granted to customers who
need it. That is power generators that need to secure supply.
And there are other issues that can be done internally
about forecasting and where we are going to be. How are we
making sure that we have got the right resources on the system?
Because we would agree that all resources are part of the
solution, but you have got to make sure you have the sufficient
amount, and they have got to be able to secure the commodity
they need to operate in order for us to ensure a reliable
system those 20, 25 days a year when it really, really matters
and the stress is on both the gas and the electric system.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you for that, Mr. Snitchler.
Let's pivot a little bit. I want to talk about incentives.
Is the Federal Government providing the right incentives to
bring forward the type of resources that we need right now? And
maybe we will start down at the end of the table and go
through.
Mr. Matheson. Yes. I think that, first of all, the
incentive that was provided specifically to electric
cooperatives that we are happy with was in the Inflation
Reduction Act, and it gave us access to the tax incentives that
the for-profit companies have had for years. Congress for a
long time now has used the tax code to incent investment. And,
if you are a municipal utility or if you are an electric
cooperative, you are kind of on the outside looking in.
And the Inflation Reduction Act created the elective pay
provision, which we think is a really important tool for
ownership of assets by not-for-profit entities like electric
cooperatives. So that is one incentive that we like. It just is
relatively new. And I think it is going to be over the next
several years a significant driver of investment for
infrastructure for co-ops.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you, Jim.
Amy?
Ms. Andryszak. Thank you. Interstate natural gas pipelines
are built with private capital. And so when you talk about
government incentives, one of the things that would help is the
Federal Government sending the right market signals. And one of
the key things to do--that would be to do statutory permitting
reform. That would indicate that pipelines can be built in this
country, and so it would send the right signals to the market
to be able to increase investment in those types of
infrastructure projects.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent. Thank you.
Let's see here. Kim and then Todd. So you each have about
25 seconds.
Ms. Smaczniak. I am going to pass. I came from FERC, and
FERC just takes them and makes sure the market works given
whatever the Federal Government prioritizes.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Snitchler. Our members have had the experience with the
IRA to have the ability to utilize resources that are helpful
in deploying new technologies--so carbon capture and
sequestration projects. We have had members that have taken the
opportunity to try and advance that technology as well as the
nuclear PTC, which has allowed the nuclear units to remain on
the system.
In the end, we crave the certainty that comes from knowing
that you can plan your business 5, 10 years out as opposed to 2
or 4 years out, and so having those tools remain in place that
have been approved is useful for people who are making long-
term investment decisions.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent. Thank you. I yield.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's
15th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here today to discuss these
bills. I am glad we all agree on the challenge ahead that we
need to figure out how we can meet rising demand for energy
while making sure that businesses and communities across the
country have access to reliable and affordable electricity.
Thanks to incentives in the IRA and the infrastructure
bill, we have had an enormous amount of investment in new
energy sources, and many of these are waiting to connect to the
grid. In fact, most of these are utility-scale solar, wind, and
battery storage projects. These are the cheapest and quickest
technologies to deploy today, and they could more than double
America's power production. This would go a long way in meeting
our projected rising demand, including the energy needs of data
centers.
Equally important, they wouldn't freeze like we saw with
gas wells in Texas in 2021, which would make our electric
system better prepared for increasingly extreme storms that we
see.
The question now is, how do we connect these energy
projects to the grid as quickly as possible? Right now, the
average wait time for interconnection is 5 years.
So, Ms. Smaczniak, you played an important role in
developing interconnection queue reforms at FERC. What do you
see are the most promising reforms we should put in place to
accelerate the deployment projects currently stuck in that
queue?
Ms. Smaczniak. I believe Ranking Member Castor's bill puts
forward a number of really good ideas for FERC to explore in
further rulemaking. That includes looking at what are advanced
computing technologies that could expedite the study process
for all resource types. That includes looking at what
additional forms of transparency are needed so that we are
understanding where the costs are high in certain sites in the
transmission system, understanding which projects are actually
able to be constructed quickly or not, and those kinds of
reforms would help expedite the entire interconnection queue.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that.
So I, along with a number of my colleagues, strongly
support Ranking Member Castor's bill, Expediting Generator
Interconnection Procedures Act of 2025, which would direct FERC
and the Department of Energy to find ways to streamline the
interconnection process. Speeding up this queue is critical.
So I am also thinking about the many projects that have
already broken ground and are supporting thousands of jobs.
With the Republican budget reconciliation coming up, I am
deeply concerned that any rollback of the tax credits provided
under IRA would create uncertainty in the energy sector,
freezing private investment and putting these jobs at risk.
So, Ms. Smaczniak, back to you. How would changes to the
clean energy tax credits impact investments in the power
sector, and would this affect the cost of electricity for
consumers on the downstream?
Ms. Smaczniak. Yes, absolutely. I mean, investors want
certainty. We have heard that message over and over again. And,
if there is significant uncertainty and changes of policies, if
policies flip back and forth every few years, when you have
infrastructure that takes years to be built and will last for
decades, that is going to increase the risk premium on these
projects. It is ultimately going to make it more expensive to
build in America.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. I am also wondering about
the impacts to people who rely on electric cooperatives for
power.
So, Mr. Matheson, you did touch on this in the previous
exchange. How are members of your association using the IRA tax
credits, and what would happen if they were repealed?
Mr. Matheson. Well, there is a specific program in the IRA
called New ERA, and that was just for electric cooperatives. It
was $9.7 billion based on a 25 percent cost share for clean
energy projects. It was more than double oversubscribed, by the
way. So there was tremendous interest across the electric
cooperative membership to participate in that.
Those projects are moving forward. Secretary Rollins has
indicated that she is ready to move ahead with those, and so we
are looking forward to seeing those projects come to fruition.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. I hope my colleagues across
the aisle recognize the importance of preserving these vital
incentives not just for the energy sector but for American
workers and families who would experience rising costs and
energy blackouts if we reverse course.
And, with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 11th
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will start with Ms. Andryszak on just some LNG issues
that--you have probably spoken to a lot of these, but I want to
talk about the FERC approval process. I think as they review,
approve based on multiple factors, including the public
interest, that was thrown into chaos. I actually have a bill
that is called Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act, which
would fix this by ensuring that LNG projects can move forward
without waiting for unnecessary, duplicative approvals.
So maybe talk to us a little bit about having FERC as that
sole Federal agency responsible for LNG export approvals, and
how does that affect predictability and then the overall--you
know, just the energy constellation? How does that help us?
Ms. Andryszak. Absolutely. Thank you for the question,
Congressman.
So we are supportive of this legislation. We think it would
be helpful to have one Federal authorizing body both for the
LNG export facilities and then essentially for the commodity
itself. And the reason for that is that, under the current
bifurcated system, we have seen it really add to significant
delays for LNG exports.
As an example, we have seen those delays growing because,
as you noted, first, an LNG export facility needs to get their
FERC approval, their certificate to build the facility. We have
seen, though, the time after you got your FERC approval to
actually getting the ability--the export authorization to non-
FTA countries, under President Trump's first administration, it
was about 49 days of lag time. We saw that lag time grow to
about 330 days during President Biden's administration. So we
think this would be a really important step to streamlining and
expediting that approval process.
Mr. Pfluger. Yes. And, if we don't do this, can you kind
of--I want to go to Mr. Snitchler here in just a second, but
talk to us about the way that energy--the energy industry plans
and the timeline that they need. And they just don't get it out
of the ground right now and then send it off, so how does it
impact our industry?
Ms. Andryszak. Absolutely. As we have discussed today,
certainty in terms of timelines and predictability for
planning, for ordering supplies, for building these facilities,
for hiring the staff all come into play. So a difference
between 50 days and 330 days creates significant uncertainty.
And I think you are well aware that having LNG exports to help
improve our national security is a strong imperative.
Mr. Pfluger. Well, thank you. I think it is very important,
and it is a piece of legislation that matches perfectly with
the energy dominance narrative that our country has spoken loud
and clear of.
Mr. Snitchler, good to see you. And I want to talk about
the GRID Power Act. The opponents of this claim that, you know,
if we were to--that prioritizing dispatchable sources would
inherently delay the interconnection of renewable sources. Talk
to us about that.
Mr. Snitchler. Thanks for the question, Representative.
Again, I will reiterate that we disagree with that position.
The job one of the grid operator is to ensure system
reliability regardless of resource. They can be fuel-neutral in
their approach, but their job is to keep the lights on. And, if
they determine that there is an emergency and they do not have
sufficient amount of resources that can be dispatched when they
are needed on demand, then they are making the call and they
would have to reach out to their Federal regulator to say we
have identified a problem, and there is a process in place that
would allow this temporary fix to ensure that the system stays
on and it stays reliable.
At the end of the day, what you end up with is a situation
where you have a temporary remedy while the other processes are
still going on. It is not as if they are moved to the back of
the line and they have to start over and extend their approval
process. In fact, what we are seeing through the queue reform
process is tens and--really, tens of gigawatts that are
dropping out of the queue process as they are being called upon
to say, ``Are you in or are you out?''
PJM is an example. They had roughly 290 gigawatts of new
resources that wanted to get access to the system, 50 gigawatts
of which had been approved, 60 of which will be approved by the
end of the year, but 90 gigawatts of which have dropped out of
the queue itself. So that tells me that those projects weren't
ready to go, and if we need to move projects that are ready to
go and can be dispatched when needed to ensure reliability,
this short-term measure is the appropriate and measured
response to solve the reliability problem.
Mr. Pfluger. So, of all the factors--affordability,
reliability, geopolitical, environmental--which one is the most
important to you?
Mr. Snitchler. Well, that is a difficult question. I think
reliability has to be job one.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you.
Mr. Snitchler. I think after you get to that, then we can
debate the rest.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
And, seeing no other Members wishing to ask questions of
our witnesses, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing
today. Members may have additional written questions for you. I
remind Members they have 10 business days to submit additional
questions for the record, and I ask that the witnesses do their
best to submit responses within 10 business days upon receipt
of those questions.
I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the
documents included on the staff hearing documents list. And,
without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Latta. And, seeing no further business to come before
the subcommittee, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]