[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNLEASHING A GOLDEN AGE:
EXAMINING THE USE OF FEDERAL
LANDS TO POWER AMERICAN
TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, May 21, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-28
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-608 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Joe Neguse, CO
Tom McClintock, CA Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Paul Gosar, AZ Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Val T. Hoyle, OR
Doug LaMalfa, CA Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL Jared Golden, ME
Russ Fulcher, ID Dave Min, CA
Pete Stauber, MN Maxine Dexter, OR
Tom Tiffany, WI Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Lauren Boebert, CO Emily Randall, WA
Cliff Bentz, OR Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Jen Kiggans, VA Sarah Elfreth, MD
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Adam Gray, CA
Mike Collins, GA Luz Rivas, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Mark Amodei, NV Debbie Dingell, MI
Tim Walberg, MI Darren Soto, FL
Mike Ezell, MS Julia Brownley, CA
Celeste Maloy, UT Susie Lee, NV
Addison McDowell, NC
Jeff Crank, CO
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Mike Kennedy, UT
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
William David, Chief Counsel
Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
LAUREN BOEBERT, CO, Vice Chair
MAXINE DEXTER, OR, Ranking Member
Lauren Boebert, CO Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Mike Collins, GA Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Mark Amodei, NV Vacancy
Nick Begich, AK Jared Huffman, CA, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing Memo..................................................... v
Hearing held on Wednesday, May 21, 2025.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona................................................. 1
Dexter, Hon. Maxine, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 3
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Osuri, Greg, Founder and CEO, Akash Network, Austin, Texas... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Arthun, Emily, CEO, American Coal Council, Gillette, Wyoming. 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Hart, Kyle, Mid-Atlantic Program Manager, National Parks
Conservation Association, Washington, D.C.................. 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Questions submitted for the record....................... 15
Lambermont, Paige, Research Fellow, Competitive Enterprise
Institute, Washington, D.C................................. 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Dexter
Mortality risk from United States coal electricity
generation, Article.................................... 35
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To: House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members
From: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Staff, Michelle
Lane ([email protected]) and Andrew Bambrick
([email protected]) x5-0500
Date: Monday, May 19, 2025
Subject: Oversight Hearing titled ``Unleashing a Golden Age:
Examining the Use of Federal Lands to Power American
Technological Innovation''
_______________________________________________________________________
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold an
oversight hearing titled ``Unleashing a Golden Age: Examining the Use
of Federal Lands to Power American Technological Innovation'' on
Wednesday, May 21, 2025, at 2 p.m. in 1324 Longworth House Office
Building.
Member offices are requested to notify Jace McNaught
([email protected]) by 4:30 p.m. on May 20 if their Member
intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
Throughout America's history, technological innovations--
from the first light bulb to the internet--have powered our
nation forward. Access to reliable energy, in all its
forms, is an essential component of innovation.
Today, America finds itself at the precipice of a new
technological revolution, with artificial intelligence
(AI), cryptocurrency, and data centers spawning a massive
innovation in technology.
Prior technological revolutions that have both created
efficiencies and transformed our standard of living
required immense power input. Today's innovative
technologies are no different.
As energy demand in the U.S. experiences its highest
growth rate in over two decades, largely due to an ongoing
technology revolution, our domestic supply of natural
resources has the power to meet that demand.
While the U.S. is a leader in these innovative
technologies, cumbersome permitting processes, a lack of
reliable energy infrastructure, and a push by environmental
groups to ignore traditional energy resources threaten
America's leadership.
Foreign entities, such as China, are working to surpass
the United States by developing AI and data processing
capabilities that will exceed those of the United States,
barring policy changes that permit the unleashing of
America's natural resources.
II. WITNESSES
Ms. Paige Lambermont, Research Fellow, Competitive
Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Emily Arthun, CEO, American Coal Council, Gillette, WY
Mr. Greg Osuri, Founder and CEO, Akash Network and
Overclock Labs, Austin, TX
Mr. Kyle Hart, Mid-Atlantic Program Manager, National
Parks Conservation Association, Washington, D.C. (Minority
witness)
III. BACKGROUND
Energy Production and Demand in the New Age of Technology Innovation
Today's pace of technological advancement is staggering. Scientists
estimate that approximately 2.4 million years passed between the first
use of tools and the control of fire for cooking and heat by our
ancestors.1 Nearly 60,000 years passed between the invention
of the bow and arrow and gunpowder.2 The inventions of paper
and the printing press are separated by 1,500 years.3 More
recently, a mere 66 years passed between the first human flight and the
successful U.S. moon landing.4 And though the internet's
first web browser and website were only released in 1991, many children
now use smartphones capable of immense computing before they reach the
age of 12.5 Astonishingly, today's developments in emerging
technologies like artificial intelligence and blockchain are measured
not in years, but in months and weeks.
Although each technological leap made specific tasks or industries
more efficient, each leap forward was accompanied by exponential
increases in energy demand. For example, the invention of automobiles
built via assembly lines undoubtedly made daily movement more efficient
than horse-powered travel, but drove skyrocketing demand for fuel.
Similarly, the modern cellphone weighs about 5.5 ounces compared to the
70-pound computer that powered the Apollo mission to the moon, while
possessing approximately 2,800 times more processing power.6
Today there are now many more smartphones than people in the world and
the energy demand to produce, use, charge, and dispose of these devices
dwarfs that of the 1960s and 1970s.7 This trend of increased
energy demand is only accelerating as the pace of advancement
increases. In fact, the energy demands of AI programs, data centers,
and cryptocurrencies are so large, that they can only be described as
``insatiable.'' 8
Recognizing this reality, Republicans in Congress and President
Trump have moved to unleash a golden age of American energy dominance
by increasing energy exploration and production, especially on federal
lands and waters, to power U.S. technological advancement and
superiority.
Recent Executive Actions
Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump has recognized
that the new age of technological innovation flourishing in the United
States requires an immense and reliable power supply. On January 20,
2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14156, ``Declaring a
National Emergency,'' which declared a national energy emergency and
directed agencies to establish a reliable, diverse, and affordable
energy supply, including on federal lands.9 That same day,
President Trump also issued EOs 14154,10 ``Unleashing
American Energy'', and 14153,11 ``Unleashing Alaska's
Extraordinary Resource Potential,'' both of which served to unlock
energy resources to solve our nation's energy emergency. Additionally,
to underscore the importance of American critical and other hardrock
mineral production to energy independence and dominance, President
Trump issued three more EOs: 14220, Addressing the Threat to National
Security From Imports of Copper; 12 14241, Immediate
Measures To Increase American Mineral Production; 13 and
14285, Unleashing America's Offshore Critical Minerals and
Resources.14 Moreover, to most effectively ensure that our
natural resources are being developed and produced, President Trump
issued EO 14213, Establishing the National Energy Dominance
Council.15 Finally, recognizing the importance of emerging
technologies, President Trump issued EO 14179, ``Removing Barriers to
American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence'', which directed the
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, the Special
Advisor for AI and Crypto, and the Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs to develop an action to help enhance
America's global leadership in AI innovation and
dominance.16 Together, these orders reflect the reality that
rapidly emerging technologies, like AI, decentralized cryptocurrencies,
data processing centers, and microchips, will revolutionize the world
while requiring a greater amount of baseload fuel sources to power the
growing power demand for these innovations.17
New Technologies Fuel Growing Power Demand
The new age of innovation includes a number of new technologies, all of
which, taken together, demand additional energy. Examples include:
Artificial Intelligence (AI): Over the past 20 years, AI
has evolved from science fiction to a tool embraced by
millions of users with ``the capability of computer systems
or algorithms to imitate intelligent human behavior.''
18 This ranges from platforms such as ChatGPT to
security systems, fitness trackers, online shopping, and
even music playlists.19 As other nations like
China grow their AI capabilities, the United States risks
losing its position as a leader in the
industry.20
Cryptocurrency and Crypto Mining: Cryptocurrencies
(crypto) are ``digital assets exchanged and recorded on
public ledgers, known as blockchains, that do not require
central intermediaries (i.e. banks) for clearing and
settlement.'' 21 Cryptocurrency mining describes
when transactions are officially entered on the blockchain
for exchange and verification.22 The most well-
known form of cryptocurrency is Bitcoin. Bitcoin's energy
consumption at its data centers ranges anywhere from 91 to
150 terawatt-hours, which is more power than the country of
Finland uses.23 According to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration, cryptocurrency mining is
currently estimated to represent anywhere from 0.6% to 2.3%
of the United States' electricity consumption, requiring
enough energy to power more than three million
homes.24 The increasing popularity of crypto,
and its underlying technologies create both opportunities
and challenges for the energy sector.25
Data Centers: The advancement of cloud
computing, AI, cryptocurrencies, and similar technologies
require large amounts of information technology (IT)
infrastructure. Data centers, which often house components
of hardware, software, networks, data, and facilities for
these technologies, are the primary mechanism by which most
of these technologies depend upon.26 While in
their ``simplest form, data centers are facilities that
house and power large computer systems, they have evolved
to house multiple enterprise--level, interconnected
servers.'' Most advanced digital technologies utilize data
centers, which require both significant capital investment
and energy usage. For example, a recent report found that
data centers ``consumed about 4.4% of total U.S.
electricity in 2023, and, depending upon how much the rest
of the economy grows, are expected to consume between 6.7
and 12% of total U.S. electricity by 2028.'' 27 As
more data centers operate to support AI servers, the need
for reliable power will only increase. The Energy Policy
Research Foundation calculated that the projected power
needs for the 407 data centers that are either planned or
under construction will require 19,270 megawatts to
operate.28 This energy demand will power not
only the servers but also the storage systems, routers, and
other components needed to ensure a seamless transfer of
data and connectivity.29
Semiconductors: Semiconductors are ``fundamental to nearly
all modern industrial and national security activities, and
they are essential building blocks of other emerging
technologies, such as AI, autonomous systems, 5G
communications, and quantum computing.'' 30 The
semiconductor industry, and the advanced chips they
produce, power everything from the digital devices we rely
on to cars and home appliances. Global supply chain
shortages, due to a lack of critical hardrock minerals,
continue to threaten this industry,31 which
relies on a steady supply of copper, cobalt, and
lithium.32 However, the actions of the Biden
administration made sourcing needed materials here at home
even more difficult due in large part to obstructionist
environmental policies, increasing our reliance on foreign
sources, particularly from China, who operates a state
supported and market scale industry.33
Facing the Challenges of Rising Energy Needs
As the race for technological supremacy heats up, the United
States' leadership is at risk of dwindling due to an inability to meet
growing domestic power demands. These challenges include a lack of
reliable energy infrastructure and an antiquated permitting regime,
among others.
Lack of Reliable Energy Infrastructure
Actions pursued by the Biden Administration weakened the stability
of the United States' energy supply. For example, President Biden took
deliberate actions to move the United States towards an exclusively
renewable energy economy 34 by shuttering projects like the
Keystone XL Pipeline 35 and launching a war on
coal.36 According to the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), over 8 gigawatts (GW) of coal power have been
retired since 2023.37 In addition, NERC reports an
additional 83 GW of fossil-fired and nuclear generator retirements are
anticipated by 2033, while 35 GW of new power will be necessary for
data centers alone by 2030.38
Currently, oil, natural gas, and coal together provide
approximately 80% of American energy.39 These energy sources
provide for 40% of U.S. electric power, 32% of industrial power, and
14% of residential power.40 Both wind and solar are weather
dependent and, without reliable backup options like coal or fossil
fuels, the risk of blackouts and grid failures rises
exponentially.41 As Americans depend on more electricity to
power their lives, the demand for power is at its highest point in two
decades, while the generation capacity and associated infrastructure to
meet that demand is not meeting the anticipated supply.42
Permitting, NEPA, and Delayed Energy and Mineral Development
Prolonged analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and constant litigation challenging the sufficiency of
environmental documents have become significant barriers to all forms
of energy development, causing uncertainty and deterring investment.
The current permitting process is filled with repetitive assessments
and lengthy processing times, making it difficult for developers to
plan, finance, and build projects efficiently.43
In addition, hardrock mineral development requires hundreds of
millions of dollars in upfront capital due to the distinct technical
challenges associated with hardrock mineral exploration and
development. In the United States, exploration is followed by almost a
decade of permitting under NEPA and other statutes before production
begins.44 It routinely takes over 10 years and $1 billion in
start-up capital before a company produces any product in the
U.S.45 Prolonged delays under NEPA create significant
uncertainty, deterring investment in developing minerals needed for
renewable energy and countless other high-tech applications.
The current United States permitting process often stifles the
ability of innovative technologies to move forward and maintain a
competitive global advantage. The NEPA process and other environmental
statutes can often lead to unnecessary project delays.46
A 2024 study by S&P Global found that U.S. critical mineral
projects take an average of 29 years from discovery to production--the
second-longest in the world.47 U.S.-based mining projects
also lose over one-third of their value due to delays during the
permitting process.48
Harnessing America's Vast Natural Resources
Despite the challenges the United States currently faces with
infrastructure and permitting, steps are being taken in the right
direction. One of the goals of EO 14156 is to ensure that our abundant
energy resources can be used. With 1.66 trillion barrels of technically
recoverable oil, 4.03 quadrillion cubic feet of technically recoverable
natural gas, 470 billion short tons of technically recoverable
coal,49 and the possibilities of geothermal energy to supply
our electrical grid,50 the energy needed to unleash the
ongoing technological revolution is well within our reach.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts a 50
percent increase in global energy consumption by 2050. Petroleum and
other liquid fuels will remain the largest energy source, and natural
gas consumption is expected to increase as well.51
Maximizing energy production in America will limit the need to import
from other nations, reduce global emissions and energy costs, create
jobs domestically, and allow us to help our allies abroad. In spite of
our abundant natural resources and the federal government owning 61
percent of America's onshore and offshore mineral estate, only 25
percent of domestic oil and 11 percent of domestic natural gas come
from federal lands and waters.52
In addition to natural gas, coal is also a critical natural
resource to harness. The United States has the capacity to help meet
demand in both the thermal coal and metallurgical coal markets; 84.8
million short tons of coal were exported from the U.S. in 2022, 45
percent of which were thermal coal and 55 percent of which were
metallurgical coal.53 Whereas oil and gas reserves are found
on federal, state, and private lands, coal is almost exclusively
located on lands owned by the federal government.54
Accordingly, mfederal policies can more easily impact coal production
and consumption,'' depending on the federal government's policies
toward coal, both to America's detriment and advantage.55
According to the EIA, coal accounts for 9.8% of U.S. energy
consumption.56 Of this, 91.7% accounts for electric power,
and 8.2% was for industrial use.57
Recognizing this reality, Republicans in Congress have advocated
for policies to reform the NEPA permitting process,58 lower
energy costs by increasing American energy production, conduct offshore
lease sales in the Gulf of America's Outer Continental
Shelf,59 provide for oil and gas leases on federal lands in
Alaska,60 promote energy exports, build critical
infrastructure, and increase domestic critical minerals
mining.61 In fact, legislation to codify many of these
policies was previously passed by the House of Representatives,
including the Lower Energy Costs Act,62 the Superior
National Forest Restoration Act,63 Alaska's Right to Produce
Act of 2023,64 and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of
2024.65 This work to unleash American energy, bolster
mineral supply chains, and support critical mineral development
continues in the 119th Congress, serving to lower energy costs through
streamlining permitting processes and providing pathways for increased
production of reliable energy resources.66
EO 14156 builds upon this work by directing all agencies to
expedite permitting procedures, such as those needed under the
Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act.67 It also
requires that the Secretary of Defense collaborate with the Secretaries
of the Interior and Energy to ``acquire and transport the energy,
electricity, or fuels needed to protect the homeland and to conduct
operations abroad, and, within 60 days, shall submit this assessment to
the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.''
68
Fortifying American Energy and Technology Independence
Harnessing America's natural resources and supporting the
development of innovative technology is critical not only to our
economy but to our national security. For example, AI technologies have
a wide range of national security applications, including
``intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; logistics; cyber
operations; command and control; semi- autonomous and autonomous
vehicles; and weapons systems.'' 69 The United States
Military has invested in AI systems and technologies since at least
2017, while other nations, like China and Russia, have released
national plans to lead with AI military development.70
In addition to using innovations like AI for national defense,
these systems can also be utilized as economic weapons. While the
United States currently maintains a competitive edge in AI compared to
China, that dominance is not guaranteed as China-based companies focus
on emerging markets and deploy open models.71 Although the
United States has taken steps to limit China's development of AI
technology, primarily through limiting exports of semiconductors, China
continues to advance its own domestic AI industry.72
In the race to maintain American technological dominance, the
United States must also contend with its reliance on foreign nations
like China for the minerals necessary to produce the semiconductor
industry. China has a stronghold in the processing and supply chains of
the hardrock minerals needed for high-tech applications. Because of
this overreliance, China has taken steps to limit their exports of
hardrock minerals and other technologies needed for
innovation.73 Republicans on the House Committee on Natural
Resources have aggressively pursed policies and legislation, like the
Lower Energy Costs Act,74 the Superior National Forest
Restoration Act,75 Alaska's Right to Produce Act of
2023,76 the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024, and the
BUILDER Act of 2023,77 which will allow for more domestic
mining of critical resources necessary for technological advancement,
including industries like the semiconductor, data center, and AI space,
which promote additional pathways forward for unleashing American
energy dominance.78
Conclusion
The United States is well-positioned to remain a leader in
innovation. America's abundance of natural resources can provide the
baseload supply necessary to meet the growing power demand required for
these innovations, which will benefit both our economy and national
security. However, cumbersome permitting processes that limit our
ability to unleash the full potential of our resource wealth pose a key
threat, providing an opportunity for nations like China to challenge
our global leadership.
In a time of high energy demand, it is imperative that Congress
continue to support technological innovation by ensuring that our
natural resources are responsibly developed and that American
innovators are provided with the necessary ingredients for a
sustainable energy supply to power a technology revolution.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON UNLEASHING A GOLDEN AGE: EXAMINING THE USE OF
FEDERAL LANDS TO POWER AMERICAN TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
----------
Wednesday, May 21, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:12 p.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gosar, Collins, Begich; Dexter,
Hernandez, and Huffman.
Dr. Gosar. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
will now come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on,
``Unleashing a Golden Era: Examining the Use of Federal Lands
to Power American Technological Innovation.''
Under Committee rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members'
statements be made part of the hearing record if they are
submitted in accordance with rule 3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent the following members be allowed to
sit and participate in today's hearing--the gentleman from
California, Mr. Obernolte.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Good afternoon, everybody. Thanks for coming. We
have had a really hot streak with this group right here. So I
got to tell you, we are going to have some more fun today.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Gosar. And I especially want to thank those who have
took the time to travel out to D.C. As we explore the nexus of
energy and technology in today's hearing, I am so happy we have
had representatives from industries at both ends of the
spectrum who can speak to the needs of this issue.
Today's pace of technological advancement is incredible.
While almost 60,000 years passed between the invention of the
bow and arrow and gunpowder, the time between innovations is
emerging--in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence
and blockchain today is measured in months and even weeks.
Undoubtedly, these emerging technologies are rapidly changing
how they interact with the world.
AI not only takes the form of generation tools like
ChatGPT, but also to detect online financial fraud, improved
GPS and navigation, and distinguishing between valuable
polymetal metallic nodules on the ocean floor and sea
creatures. Likewise, blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies
are changing the way we do business. These digital assets allow
for nearly instant and cheap financial transactions, including
for things like retail purchases and payroll, and even smart
contracts which are self-executing written agreements
translated into code.
Yet as these technologies work to update our lives, their
appetite for energy is insatiable. Continuous advancements of
AI and blockchain means that more people have access to more
technologies for more uses. In other words, as emerging
technologies improve, demand for them grows, and so does their
need for reliable, immense power.
Technologies like A1, blockchain, and the cloud require
data centers to store and process generated data. Without data
centers to house large-scale computer systems, these
technologies cannot function. And without staggering and
increasing energy inputs, data centers become--cannot operate.
In 2023 the Berkeley lab found that 4.4 percent of the
United States' total electricity was consumed by data centers.
The same report estimated that by 2028 data centers would
require as much as 12 percent of the total energy production.
Given the pace of advancement, this energy needs only to be--is
only going to need to grow. To meet these needs the Committee
on Natural Resources majority and President Trump have worked
tirelessly to implement an all-of-the-above approach to energy
development and production. In fact, the White House has issued
at least eight executive orders that work to unleash American
energy independence and dominance.
Likewise, House Republicans have introduced and passed
legislation to, among other things, lower energy costs by
increasing American energy production, conduct offshore lease
sales in the Gulf of America's Outer Continental Shelf, provide
for oil and gas leases on Federal lands in Alaska, promote
energy exports, build critical infrastructure, reform the NEPA
permitting process, and lastly, increase domestic critical
minerals mining.
To be clear, the reason for our national energy emergency
is not that the U.S. lacks natural resources. Rather, the
reason for our current inability to meet energy demands is
foolish and unscientific energy policy championed by
environmental extremists. Because of these extremists, more
than 8 gigawatts of coal power have been retired since 2023.
Mines across the country, including my home State of Arizona,
have been shuttered and entangled in permitting red tape and
frivolous litigation.
The United States is immensely rich in reliable energy
resources like oil, gas, and critical minerals that currently
account for 80 percent of America's energy use. We have the
natural resources at the ready to power our Nation, including
those advanced and emerging technologies, for generations.
According to the Institute of Energy Research, our Nation is
sitting on about 1.66 trillion barrels of technically--
technologically recoverable oil, 4.3 quadrillion cubic feet of
technically recoverable natural gas, 470 billion short tons of
technologically recoverable coal, and vast reserves of
minerals. As recovery technology continues to improve, these
numbers will certainly increase, as well.
As this Committee majority has repeatedly pointed out, by
unlocking our plentiful domestic energy resources not only can
we meet the growing power demands of emerging technologies, but
we can also free ourselves from the constant threat of supply
chain insecurities created by China under the Biden
administration.
It is imperative that the United States leads the world in
technological innovation. To do this we must also lead the
world in energy development and production. By increasing
production of energy on public lands, we invest in America's
future. My legislation, H.R. 34, the LASSO Act, would take 10
percent of this investment off public lands and deposit it into
the Social Security Trust Fund, thus creating an incentive for
everyday Americans to use our Nation's land.
I challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here
today to think not only about the growing energy needs
presented by emerging technologies, but also about the data-
backed solutions presented by executing an all-of-the-above
energy approach. I think I represent one of those bills.
Dr. Gosar. So thank you. I now recognize the Ranking Member
Dexter for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAXINE DEXTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you also to our
witnesses for coming and testifying today.
I would like to start with a reality check. In 1999 Forbes
published an article with a sensational prediction: half of the
U.S. electric grid would soon be powering the digital economy.
They called this article, ``Dig More Coal: The Personal
Computers are Coming.'' But that never happened. By 2009 data
centers only used about 2 percent of U.S. electricity, not the
50 percent that was predicted. We know now that those
projections were wildly inaccurate because the computers
powering the Internet became smarter and more efficient.
Today we are hearing a similar tune from fossil fuel and
tech giants warning that artificial intelligence will need a
massive energy surge that can only be met with coal and methane
gas. But just like in 1999, those projections deserve serious
skepticism. In December, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab found
that the data centers will account for just 6.7 percent to 12
percent of total electricity consumption by 2028, a far cry
from the sky-high numbers some are pushing. They note that
these projections are more modest than others, and that
forecasting past 2028 is a fool's errand. The technology is
rapidly becoming more efficient, and there are just too many
key uncertainties to accurately quantify the demand past that
point.
So why are these inflated numbers being pushed? Because
fossil fuel companies and some in big tech want subsidies, they
want public land, they want exemptions from our bedrock
environmental protections, and they want the public to foot the
bill if their predictions don't pan out.
I want to be clear on that last point. Let's say a data
center developer tells a utility, ``I need 300 megawatts.'' The
utility builds a new gas plant to meet that demand. But if the
data center doesn't show up or needs less power, ratepayers,
every-day American families, are stuck paying for that unused
infrastructure. That has a name, and it is called a stranded
asset.
It is not just about the harm these data centers could
inflict on our working families. It is about our health. As a
pulmonologist I spent decades treating patients struggling to
breathe, children with asthma, seniors with COPD, families
living near industrial pollution who came to me with worsening
symptoms. I have seen firsthand what happens when we let short-
sighted energy decisions poison the air we all rely on.
As we will hear today, communities in Virginia are already
suffering with this approach. In Virginia, also known as data
center alley, they are rolling out massive and unnecessary
diesel generators to back up data centers, generators that were
supposed to be for emergencies, but are now being used as
routine power, spewing harmful pollution into nearby
neighborhoods.
Elon Musk's xAI facility in Memphis is also a good example.
They claim to only be using 15 backup generators at any time,
but a heat sensitive camera showed that they were burning 33 of
them. That means more air pollution, particulate matter, sulfur
oxides, nitrogen oxides right where families live. Bypassing
our basic environmental protections in the name of an AI race
is simply not an option.
And let's be clear. None of this is inevitable. A Rhodium
Group report shows that advanced geothermal could meet up to 64
percent of expected data center demand by the early 2030s. That
is a clean, sustainable path.
History shows us that competition drives efficiency. We
have seen it in computing, programing, and cooling
technologies. There is every reason to believe that the trend
will continue and offset at least some of the energy demand,
unless monopolies are allowed to corner the market and choke
off innovation.
My conversations with Lina Khan have reminded me that
monopolies kill competition and, with it, efficiency. That is
exactly the kind of structural failure that leads to energy
crises, and it is also a policy failure.
But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. Like so
many hearings in this Subcommittee, this is about corporate
subsidies and deregulation for industries awash in cash and led
by billionaire Trump donors, all while our communities are
being asked to bear the cost. Whether that is higher utility
bills, dirtier air, or the continued destruction of our
climate, we need real oversight here, not just rubber stamping
profit for polluters.
Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the Ranking Member for her comments. I
now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr.
Huffman, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Good morning, Chairman Gosar, and welcome to
the witnesses.
You know, hyperbole is not what it used to be these days
with this Administration and this Congress. I mean, it is the
golden age of this, the golden age of that, a big, beautiful
bill that we spent all night discussing and debating in the
Rules Committee. And as we dig into it we find out it is not so
beautiful. It certainly is big when it comes to tax cuts and
special favors for billionaires and special interests. It is
really big when it comes to exploding the debt. But it is not
very beautiful because it finances those billionaire tax cuts
on the backs of American families by taking away their health
care and their nutrition assistance. And of course, it is a
massive boondoggle of a giveaway to special interests when it
comes to the natural resources title.
So, you know, if this is the golden age of anything, it is
the golden age of gaslighting. It makes me almost nostalgic for
the time when Republican hyperbole used to have a little
subtlety to it. It used to have at least some tether to
reality, but now it seems like we spend our time in this
Committee talking about imagining the golden age of asteroid
mining, and deep sea mining, and any number of other special
interest giveaways that our Republican friends can cook up.
But at some point there really should be some serious work
done in this Committee, and it should be about the real world,
what is actually happening. We are entering into another
dangerous wildfire season. But instead of getting us more
prepared, the Trump administration is hollowing out the very
workforce that we count on to prevent and respond to wildfires.
Let me get my microphone a little closer.
Dr. Gosar. There you go.
Mr. Huffman. Do you want me to start over again, Mr.
Chairman?
Dr. Gosar. Oh, no. I got it permanently imprinted on my
cerebral cortex.
Mr. Huffman. All right, you are following me.
So, look, the Trump administration is hollowing out the
workforce we count on to make us safe. For one, thousands of
certified red card employees have been lost from the Forest
Service just since January. These are experienced staff. They
are trained to support firefighting crews. They assist with key
jobs like prescribed burns, managing logistics, and stepping in
during peak fire events.
Now, heading into fire season with that vulnerability seems
like the kind of crisis this Subcommittee ought to at least be
talking about, if not investigating. We should be asking
administrative Administration officials how many personnel have
been cut, how they plan to manage for the upcoming fire season,
what level of damage we can expect from the DOGE assault on our
Nation's firefighting capacity. Instead, we are here in the
latest of a series of imaginary issues.
By the way, we have got fake emergencies all over the
place, a fake energy emergency at a time when we have been
producing record levels of oil and gas, exporting record levels
of oil and gas. The industry is awash in record profits, but I
guess now it is a crisis, it is an emergency, and we have to
somehow unleash them from their record profits.
But, you know, it is like this Subcommittee has become less
of an oversight body and more of a venture capital pitch for
billionaires. And so we saw the space mining venture capital
pitch for a billionaire friend of Elon Musk, a client of Elon
Musk who was having trouble raising money. Things weren't going
so well, like everyone else in this space mining boondoggle. So
he was given a platform to pitch Federal subsidies for his
company so that, you know, he could continue down his adventure
on asteroid mining. We have had many hearings on oil and gas
billionaires. Of course, we had the deep sea mining for
billionaires hearing.
Today the conversation turns to big tech billionaires. We
will hear proposals to exempt data centers from environmental
review under NEPA, which, of course, is how we get answers
about potential threats to things like our drinking water from
data centers. And according to a 2021 study by Virginia Tech
and the Department of Energy, data centers are among the top 10
water-consuming industrial or commercial industries in the
United States. Why wouldn't you want some scrutiny, some
environmental review when it comes to that industry?
And making matters worse, nearly half the data centers are
powered by power plants located within water-stressed regions.
The arid West, Mr. Chairman, you and I should be very sensitive
to how the heck we are going to manage water in the face of
this incredible demand.
So these are the kind of impacts that NEPA is intended to
review to make sure we get projects right. Instead of gutting
NEPA, we should be asking hard questions. This is a time when
NEPA really is worth the many years of success that it has
brought to us to help us have better projects.
Let's have better hearings, too, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huffman. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. So was I having an out-of-body experience last
week? Didn't we have a good one about firefighting?
Mr. Huffman. Did we have a hearing about firefighting?
Dr. Gosar. Yes.
Mr. Huffman. You know, what I can't seem to get you to talk
about, Mr. Chairman, is the gutting of the workforce that we
depend on to keep us safe from fires.
Dr. Gosar. Well, it has been a long year. So I am now going
to introduce the witnesses.
First we have Mr. Greg Osuri. Did I say that right?
Mr. Osuri. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. OK, Founder and CEO, Akash Network, Austin,
Texas.
Then we have Ms. Emily Arthun, CEO from American Coal
Council, Gillette, Wyoming. My home state, that is where I was
born and raised.
Mr. Kyle Hart, Mid-Atlantic Program Manager, National Parks
Conservation Association, Washington, D.C.
And Ms. Paige Lambermont, a Research Fellow at the
Competitive Institute of Washington, D.C.
Let me remind the witnesses that your testimony will all be
provided, so you are--must limit it to 5 minutes. You are going
to see our little lights here. When you are ready to go, it is
green. It will turn yellow when you have about a minute to go.
And when it turns red, please wrap up, OK?
Make sure you push your button so that it is on. We had a
demonstration of that with Mr. Huffman. So we want to make sure
we get that right.
I now recognize Mr. Osuri for his 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GREG OSURI, FOUNDER AND CEO, AKASH NETWORK,
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Mr. Osuri. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member
Dexter, and members of the Subcommittee, and the staff for the
opportunity to speak today. I am Greg Osuri, the Founder and
CEO of Overclock Labs, the team behind Akash Network. I am an
open source developer and a cloud infrastructure engineer.
Akash is a decentralized cloud platform used by hundreds of
thousands of users. By tapping into idle servers worldwide, it
delivers compute power at a fraction of the cost of traditional
cloud providers. Our open network, supported by hundreds of
global contributors, empower developers to build and deploy AI
and other applications without relying on big tech.
Artificial intelligence isn't just a break-through, it is
becoming the substrate of civilization. Like electricity in the
20th century and the Internet in the 21st, AI is the next
foundational layer. It is not a feature, it is a foundation.
From curing cancer to defending the homeland, AI will enhance
everything we do. There is no domain that AI won't transform.
Yet we are only at the starting line. Super-intelligence is
coming, an invention that could define the next 500 years. We
will either master it or be mastered by it.
America is leading for now, but we are in a sprint and
China is gaining ground. The DeepSeek R1 model, trained for
just $5 million, delivered results that rival OpenAI's. They
are scaling faster, investing more, and moving with purpose. We
cannot afford to fall behind. The future of AI must be built on
freedom, transparency, and trust, not surveillance and control.
That is America's edge, and we must defend it.
To lead in AI we must confront the energy crisis it is
creating. According to Department of Energy, U.S. data centers
consumed 176 terawatt hours of electricity in 2023, 4.4 percent
of the Nation's total. By 2028 that number could triple. At the
high end, AI infrastructure could consume 12 percent of all
U.S. electricity, an enormous burden on our grid.
Here is the problem: Our national power generation isn't
doubling every 2 years, but the energy needed to train AI is.
Our demand is on an exponential curve. Our response can't be
linear. Gartner warns by 2026 energy demands may exceed utility
capacity, leaving 40 percent of AI data centers without
sufficient power. Meanwhile, China is racing ahead, out-
building us, out-powering us, and scaling fast. DeepSeek R1 is
a glimpse of how quickly the lead can slip. Without bold
action, this energy bottleneck won't just slow AI innovation,
it could cost us global leadership.
To maintain momentum we must use every tool available,
including fossil fuels, as a temporary bridge. But that is not
a stop--that is just a stop-gap, not a long-term plan.
Fortunately, we don't need to wait for massive new data centers
to power our power plants. Leading AI labs have shown that
training doesn't need to happen in hyper-scale facilities; it
can be distributed across small compute clusters. That opens
the door to a decentralized grid powered by solar, renewables,
and local energy sources from homes, campuses, and communities.
This model isn't just more efficient, it is more secure.
Decentralization builds resilience: no single point of failure,
no single target. That matters, especially in a world of cyber
threats and geopolitical risk. We need distributed
infrastructure to meet AI's energy demands today while we scale
sustainable energy tomorrow.
Yes, we must ease barriers for advanced nuclear to ensure
long-term energy sustainability, but decentralization is how we
scale now. That is exactly what Akash Network enables, a
decentralized AI cloud, open, efficient, and built for the
future. AI will shape the future of every industry, every
economy, and every nation. The question is, who will shape the
infrastructure behind it?
We cannot rely solely on big tech or centralized power. We
must build a distributed, resilient, and inclusive AI
infrastructure rooted in American ingenuity, powered by clean
energy, and open to all. Congress has a chance to lead:
incentivize decentralized cloud infrastructure, fund Federal
R&D for distributed computing, open Federal lands to power edge
innovation, accelerate clean, flexible energy solutions.
Let's ensure that America doesn't just participate in the
AI revolution. We lead it, shape it, and share it. For that,
America must accelerate. Let's unleash AI's full promise not
just through code, but through infrastructure that defines our
future.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Osuri follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Osuri, CEO of Overclock Labs (Akash Network)
I'm Greg Osuri, Founder and CEO of Overclock Labs, the team behind
the Akash Network. I'm an open-source developer and cloud
infrastructure engineer.
Akash is a decentralized cloud platform used by hundreds of
thousands of developers. By tapping into idle servers worldwide, it
delivers compute power at a fraction of the cost of traditional cloud
providers.
Our open network--supported by hundreds of global contributors--
empowers developers to build and deploy AI and other applications
without relying on Big Tech.
Artificial Intelligence isn't just a breakthrough--it's becoming
the substrate of civilization.
Like electricity in the 20th century and the internet in the 21st,
AI is the next foundational layer. It's not a feature--it's the
foundation. From curing cancer to defending the homeland, AI will
enhance everything we do.
There is no domain that AI won't transform.
Yet we're only at the starting line. Superintelligence is coming--
an invention that could define the next 500 years. We will either
master it--or be mastered by it.
America is leading--for now. But we're in a sprint, and China is
gaining ground. Their DeepSeek R1 model, trained for just $5 million,
delivered results that rival OpenAI's. They're scaling faster,
investing more, and moving with purpose.
We cannot afford to fall behind. The future of AI must be built on
freedom, transparency, and trust--not surveillance and control. That is
America's edge. And we must defend it.
To lead in AI, we must confront the energy crisis it's creating.
According to the Department of Energy, U.S. data centers consumed
176 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2023--4.4% of the nation's total.
By 2028, that number could triple. At the high end, AI infrastructure
could consume 12% of all U.S. electricity--an enormous burden on our
grid.
Here's the problem: our national power generation isn't doubling
every two years, but the energy needed to train and run AI is.
AI demand is on an exponential curve. Our response can't be linear.
Gartner warns that by 2026, energy demands may exceed utility
capacity, leaving 40% of AI data centers without sufficient power.
Meanwhile, China is racing ahead--outbuilding us, outpowering us,
and scaling fast. DeepSeek R1 is a glimpse of how quickly the lead can
slip.
Without bold action, this energy bottleneck won't just slow AI
innovation--it could cost us global leadership.
To maintain momentum, we must use every tool available--including
fossil fuels as a temporary bridge. But that's just a stopgap, not a
long-term plan.
Fortunately, we don't need to wait for massive new data centers or
power plants. Leading AI labs have shown that training doesn't need to
happen in hyperscale facilities. It can be distributed across smaller
compute clusters.
That opens the door to a decentralized grid, powered by solar,
renewables, and local energy sources from homes, campuses, and
communities.
This model isn't just more efficient--it's more secure.
Decentralization builds resilience. No single point of failure. No
single target. That matters, especially in a world of cyber threats and
geopolitical risk.
We need distributed infrastructure to meet AI's energy demands
today, while we scale sustainable energy for tomorrow.
Yes, we must ease barriers for advanced nuclear to ensure long-term
energy stability. But decentralization is how we scale now.
That's exactly what Akash Network enables: a decentralized AI
cloud--open, efficient, and built for the future.
AI will shape the future of every industry, every economy, and
every nation. The question is: who will shape the infrastructure behind
it?
We cannot rely solely on Big Tech or centralized power. We must
build a distributed, resilient, and inclusive AI infrastructure--rooted
in American ingenuity, powered by clean energy, and open to all.
Congress has a chance to lead:
Incentivize decentralized cloud infrastructure
Fund federal R&D for distributed computing
Open federal lands to power edge innovation
Accelerate clean, flexible energy solutions
Let's ensure America doesn't just participate in the AI
revolution--we lead it, shape it, and share it.
Let's unleash AI's full promise--not just through code, but through
the infrastructure that defines our future.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
______
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and now
we are going to give Ms. Arthun her 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF EMILY ARTHUN, CEO, AMERICAN COAL COUNCIL,
GILLETTE, WYOMING
Ms. Arthun. Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the chance to
discuss the critical role that Federal coal plays in powering
American technological innovation including artificial
intelligence, cryptocurrency mining, and other advanced
technologies. I am Emily Arthun, CEO of the American Coal
Council and resident of Campbell County, Gillette, Wyoming, the
Nation's energy capital, where Federal coal mining is the
lifeblood of the community.
Coal has long been a keystone feature in the American
success story, a symbol of industry, production, and
prosperity. Coal continues to play a critical role in meeting
the United States' growing energy demands, particularly in the
context of winning the AI data race. America has always prided
itself on energy independence. However, anti-coal regulatory
policies from prior administrations have served to weaken our
energy independence. In order to continue as the global
economic leader, we must utilize our abundant natural
resources, innovative technological advancements, and robust
energy infrastructure to secure our future.
Coal remains the most reliable and abundant energy source
in the United States. As we advance our technological
capabilities, especially in AI, the need for a stable and
continuous power supply is crucial. AI demands vast
computational power to process data, train models, and deploy
applications. Coal-fired power plants provide the consistent
energy supply necessary to maintain the high performance of AI
initiatives.
By utilizing Federal coal reserves, we can ensure our AI
initiatives have the dependable energy they require to
flourish. This approach enhances energy security by reducing
reliance on foreign sources, which is necessary for maintaining
competitiveness in the AI data race. Domestic Federal coal
reserves safeguard our energy independence and protect
technological advancements from external disruptions.
Additionally, cryptocurrency mining such as Bitcoin require
substantial energy, and Federal coal can meet that demand,
keeping the U.S. competitive.
The United States possesses substantial Federal coal
reserves that are essential for meeting energy demands. These
resource reserves ensure a dependable and cost-effective supply
of coal. According to the Energy Information Administration,
the United States has an estimated 250 billion short tons of
recoverable coal. The Federal Government owns 57 percent of
U.S. coal reserves, predominantly situated in the western
region of the country, particularly in the Powder River basin,
where I am from. The Bureau of Land Management oversees 279
coal leases, covering 421,000 acres across 11 States.
In the Fiscal Year 2023, coal production from Federal lands
totaled 243.2 million tons, accounting for roughly 42 percent
of the 577 million tons produced nationwide. Federal coal
generated approximately $523.6 million in royalties, $1.58
million in rentals, and $3.1 million in bonus payments during
the Fiscal Year of 2023. BLM-managed land coal jobs for 2023
totaled 29,000 jobs and contributed $9.2 billion to the
economy. By continuing to invest in Federal coal leasing, we
can sustain these jobs and stimulate economic growth. The
economic stability is vital as we strive to lead in AI,
cryptocurrency, and other technological fields. The coal
industry in the Western States is important for State
economies. For example, Wyoming employed 5,118 individuals in
2023 in mining alone, with an average salary of $103,000.
While some argue against the use of Federal coal, it is
important to recognize that advancement in coal technologies
has significantly mitigated environmental impacts.
Revolutionized projects like 8 Rivers, Allam-Fetvedt, Cycle
Carbon at the Dave Johnston Plant in Glenrock, and Rivotto's
Nx25, an emissions reduction solution, will transform coal-
fired plants with emission-reducing technologies.
To close, I reiterate that Federal coal reserves are
indispensable for powering American technological innovation.
By leveraging these resources we can support the development of
AI, cryptocurrency, and other advanced technologies, ensuring
that the U.S. remains at the forefront of global innovation.
Investing in coal not only provides reliable energy, but also
supports economic growth and job creation, making it a
cornerstone of our technological and prosperous future.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Arthun follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ms. Emily Arthun
Chairman Gosar, Vice-Chairman Boebert, Ranking Member Dexter, and
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the chance to discuss the
critical role that federal coal plays in powering American
technological innovation, including artificial intelligence (AI),
cryptocurrency mining, and other advanced technologies. I am Emily
Arthun, CEO of the American Coal Council and resident of Campbell
County, Gillette, Wyoming--the nation's Energy Capital--where federal
coal mining is the lifeblood of the community.
Coal has long been a keystone feature in the American success
story--a symbol of industry, production, and prosperity. Coal continues
to play a critical role in meeting the United States' growing energy
demands, particularly in the context of winning the AI data race.
America has always prided itself on energy independence, however anti-
coal regulatory policies from prior Administrations have served to
weaken our energy independence. In order continue as the global
economic leader we must utilize our abundant natural resources,
innovative technological advancements, and robust energy infrastructure
to secure our future.
Coal remains the most reliable and abundant energy source in the
United States. As we advance our technological capabilities, especially
in AI, the need for a stable and continuous power supply is crucial. AI
demands vast computational power to process data, train models, and
deploy applications. Coal-fired power plants provide the consistent
energy supply necessary to maintain the high-performance computing
infrastructure essential for AI development. By utilizing federal coal
reserves, we can ensure our AI initiatives have the dependable energy
they require to flourish. This approach enhances energy security by
reducing reliance on foreign sources, which is necessary for
maintaining competitiveness in the AI data race. Domestic federal coal
reserves safeguard our energy independence and protect technological
advancements from external disruptions. Additionally, cryptocurrency
mining, such as Bitcoin, requires substantial energy. Federal coal can
meet this demand, keeping the U.S. competitive globally by powering
data centers. This guarantees energy for data centers, manufacturing,
and infrastructure, supporting innovation and keeping our global
advantage.
The United States possesses substantial federal coal reserves that
are essential for meeting energy demands and facilitating technological
progress. These reserves ensure a dependable and cost-effective supply
of coal. According to the Energy Information Administration, the United
States has an estimated 250 billion short tons of recoverable coal. The
federal government owns approximately 57% of U.S. coal reserves,
predominantly situated in the western region of the country,
particularly in the Powder River Basin.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Coal / Bureau of Land Management
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees 279 coal leases
covering 421,903 acres across 11 states. In fiscal year 2023, coal
production from federal lands totaled 243.2 million tons, accounting
for roughly 42 percent of the 577.2 million tons produced nationwide.
Federal coal generated approximately $523.6 million in royalties, $1.58
million in rentals, and $3.1 million in bonus payments during fiscal
year 2023.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Coal / Bureau of Land Management
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BLM managed land coal jobs for 2023 totaled 29,000 jobs and
contributed $9.2 billion to the economy.\3\ By continuing to invest in
federal coal leasing, we can sustain these jobs and stimulate economic
growth. This economic stability is vital as we strive to lead in AI,
cryptocurrency, and other technological fields. The coal industry in
the western states is important for state economies. For example,
Wyoming employed 5,118 individuals in 2023 with an average salary of
$103,000.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The BLM: Valuing America's Public Lands 2024
\4\ 2025-2025 WMA Concise Guide to Wyoming Coal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some argue against the use of federal coal, it is important
to recognize that advancements in coal technologies have significantly
mitigated environmental impacts. Revolutionized projects like 8 Rivers
Allam-Fetvedt Cycle Carbon (AFC-C) at the Dave Johnston Plant in
Glenrock WY and Rivotto's Nx25 an emissions reduction solution will
transform coal-fired plants with emission-reducing technologies.
To close, I reiterate that federal coal reserves are indispensable
for powering American technological innovation. By leveraging these
resources, we can support the development of AI, cryptocurrency, and
other advanced technologies, ensuring that the U.S. remains at the
forefront of global innovation.
Investing in coal not only provides reliable energy but also
supports economic growth and job creation, making it a cornerstone of
our technological and prosperous future.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Ms. Arthun, and I now recognize Mr.
Hart for his 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KYLE HART, MID-ATLANTIC PROGRAM MANAGER, NATIONAL
PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Hart. Good afternoon, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member
Dexter, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you again for
the opportunity to testify. My name is Kyle Hart. I work for a
non-profit called the National Parks Conservation Association
and serve as the Mid-Atlantic Field--or Program Manager.
NPCA, we are a nationwide, non-profit, non-partisan
organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing America's
national parks for present and future generations. In my role
as the Mid-Atlantic Program Manager I basically work in
Virginia and Maryland, which is sort of becoming the data
center capital of the world, or is the data center capital of
the world, and I work to protect parks in those two States from
park threats.
I live in Virginia, and in my free time I spend my time on
sort of America's vast resource of public lands hunting,
fishing, hiking, and camping. NPCA has been working on this
issue of data centers for more than 4 years now. We came to
this issue in early 2021, when a 1 million square-foot data
center project, which is the equivalent of about five Walmart
supercenters, was proposed inside of the authorized boundary of
Prince William Forest Park, which is a national park site in
Prince William County, Virginia, just outside of D.C. Prince
William Forest Park is visited by more than 350,000 Americans
in 2024, and the proposed data center complex in question
threatened sensitive environmental resources, the park's
primary watershed, Quantico Creek, hardwood forest, and
wildlife habitat.
Less than 2 months after that we were alerted to a proposal
directly adjacent to Manassas National Battlefield Park, a
project that would be the world's largest data center campus,
also known as the Prince William Digital Gateway. That project
has a maximum permissible build-out of 27 million square feet,
which is the equivalent of about four Pentagons' worth of
square footage, and it would quite literally share the boundary
with Manassas National Battlefield, and would be on land that
is designated under the National Register of Historic Places,
as well as numerous other environmentally sensitive areas of
cultural significance.
Over time we also started to examine sort of the broader
impacts that the data center industry writ large poses to our
national parks and other environmental resources. Data centers,
obviously, as we have talked about today, use a tremendous
amount of water, energy, and land. The threat to our regional
water supply has not been adequately studied. And in Loudoun
County alone, which is the data center capital of the world,
data centers used 1.6 billion gallons of water annually.
There is also the threat to the broader electric grid,
threatening ratepayers with rolling brownouts, higher electric
bills, and, of course, an increased reliance on fossil fuel
infrastructure. This increase in reliance on fossil fuel
infrastructure threatens years of work from NPCA and partners
to reduce impacts on regional air quality and haze pollution
that impacts national parks around the region.
Also of concern is the need for new, high-voltage
transmission lines to get power from where it is generated to
where the load is. Many national park sites including Manassas
National Battlefield, Harpers Ferry, the Appalachian Trail are
all under threat from massive new transmission lines that would
cross-cut these park sites, negatively impacting viewsheds,
natural and cultural resources, and overall visitor experience.
A recent study from the State's Joint Legislative Audit and
Review Commission in Virginia, found that the average ratepayer
in Virginia could expect to see as much as $444 annually on
their bills to support this infrastructure build-out. In
Maryland ratepayers could see $800 million worth of cost shift
from infrastructure needed to serve the data center industry in
Virginia.
At NPCA, of course, we recognize that data centers are a
critical part of our country's digital infrastructure and our
economy. However, data centers, like any other industrial and
commercial development, present both direct and indirect
threats to our national parks all over the country. Lawmakers
such as yourselves, regulators, and the data center industry
must understand these impacts and be proactive in how we plan
for and build out data centers to ensure that parks are
protected.
We are certainly not opposed to innovation, but innovation
should not come at the expense of places such as hallowed
ground at Manassas Battlefield and Harpers Ferry. These are
special places that tell the story of our American democracy,
honor our collective shared history, and preserve the natural
beauty that defines our Nation. We must find a path forward
that fosters both technological progress and environmental
responsibility. That begins with acknowledging the unique and
irreplaceable role that national parks play in our society, and
ensuring that future development does not come at their
expense.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I
welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hart follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250521/118174/HHRG-
119-II15-Wstate-HartK-20250521.pdf
------
Questions Submitted for the Record to Kyle Hart, National Parks
Conservation Association
Questions Submitted by Representative Paul A. Gosar
Question 1. H.R. 34, the Land And Social Security Optimization
(LASSO) Act requires 10 percent of revenue generated by lands under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior,
including submerged lands on the Outer Continental Shelf, and the
Forest Service to be deposited into the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund. Would you agree that putting public lands
revenue into the OASI Trust Fund would stimulate growth in the Trust
Fund? Please give a detailed explanation of why or why not.
Answer: NPCA does not currently work on the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund and therefore does not have an
opinion on this.
Question 2. Would you agree that putting public lands revenue into
the OASI Trust Fund would encourage increased utilization of public
lands under the multiple use doctrine? Please give a detailed
explanation of why or why not.
Answer: NPCA does not currently work on the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund and therefore does not have an
opinion on this.
Questions Submitted by Representative Jared Huffman
Question 1. What impacts will DOGE cuts to funding and staff, and
closures of federal facilities have on our public lands when it comes
to data centers?
Answer: As data centers are proposed to be constructed on or
directly adjacent to federal lands, or massive new infrastructure
projects, like transmission lines and mining operations, are undertaken
to serve the increasing electricity and critical mineral needs of data
centers around the nation, federal agencies will certainly face an
onslaught of new permit requests requiring detailed NEPA review. When
an agency like the National Park Service reviews a permit request
through NEPA, expert staff at individual park sites and within regional
offices will review the permit and analyze environmental impacts. As
the Department of Governmental Efficiency and the Department of the
Interior continue to reduce staffing at the National Park Service and
other agencies, it is likely that fewer and fewer staff will be
available to review permits and determine how to reduce or eliminate
environmental impacts and protect park resources. Not only will this
reduce the ability of agencies to adequately review permits; it will
also cause permit delays as staff are stretched thin and asked to
review these permits and conduct environmental reviews while being
under-resourced and understaffed.
Question 2. From your perspective, how dangerous is it when large-
scale industrial development like data centers advance behind a veil of
secrecy, particularly in water-scarce places across our country? And
what's the case for requiring transparency of data centers' water
usage?
Answer: As the old adage goes, knowledge is power, and elected
officials and regulators should constantly be striving to have as much
information as possible prior to making decisions on environmentally
damaging projects like data centers. As data centers are being proposed
across the nation, particularly in water-scarce places, it is
imperative that data centers be transparent with both decision makers
and the public about their long-term water needs. And as regulators are
reviewing data center proposals, they must take into account both the
individual facility's water needs as well as the region's water needs
as a whole. This should also be occurring with proper modeling, as
climate change will increase heat events and the frequency and severity
of droughts around the nation.
Question 3. Based on your experience with data centers in Virginia,
what would you say Members of Congress should consider when deciding
whether to use public lands of any kind for data centers?
Answer: A recent study by Virginia's Joint Audit and Review
Commission (JLARC) highlighted numerous environmental consequences of
data center development. One of their main points was that data centers
constitute intense heavy industrial development. Data centers often
require years of intense construction, which can cause noise and clean
air impacts as heavy machinery operates on the site. Operational data
centers are large concrete buildings which can have significant
stormwater runoff implications. Data centers also require tremendous
amounts of energy and back-up power sources. These backup generators
are traditionally massive diesel generators, which can spew fine
particulate matter, NOX, and CO2 into the
atmosphere, reducing regional air quality. Operational data centers are
also known for noise complaints around the country.
National park sites and other public lands are largely incompatible
with such intense industrial development. These public lands are set
aside to be protected and enjoyed by the American people for numerous
types of outdoor recreation. Such intense industrial use will
negatively impact visitors' experience at these sites, as well as local
water and air quality, wildlife habitat, and more. Around the country
sit thousands of sites ripe for redevelopment opportunities, such as
abandoned mines on private lands and factories, old shopping malls, and
more, that are much more suitable for data center development than our
crown jewel public lands.
Should federal agencies consider the construction of data centers
on federal lands, such as for internal agency use, those agencies
should strive to build projects in a way that does not negatively
impact the environment and do so in the most transparent and
environmentally responsible way, including the development of renewable
energy sources, utilizing alternative backup generation sources, not
diesel generators, and choose sites most suited for industrial
development, not well-preserved places enjoyed by the American public.
Question 4. What are some of the consequences of the current lack
of transparency?
Answer: In places with large amounts of data center development,
like Virginia, regulators and decision makers often find themselves
flying blind, reviewing and often approving data center projects
without a full understanding of the impacts to regional water supply
and the electric grid. Because of this, the entire regional grid,
operated by PJM, now finds itself with massive energy shortfalls, which
could bring regional blackouts and will require billions of dollars'
worth of upgrades to the system. These transmission system upgrades
will be paid for by ratepayers. In Maryland, transmission upgrades to
feed data centers (mostly in Virginia) are set to cost more than $800
million and will be paid for by Maryland ratepayers. Recently, a
Maryland electric company BGE informed their customers to expect as
much as a 30% increase in their bills starting on June 1. These
increases are driven largely by capacity shortfalls and infrastructure
upgrades being driven by out-of-state data centers.
If data center developers were required to be transparent about
their energy use before constructing their projects, regulators and
utility companies would be able to adequately plan for and
appropriately allocate costs for needed infrastructure and generation
capacity. Moreover, this would allow citizens to fully understand the
impacts of data center projects. Around the PJM region, new massive
transmission lines are being planned to slice through communities and
national park sites. Prior transparency and planning would allow
officials and communities an opportunity to engage in the process to
prevent these impacts beforehand.
Question 5. What are some of the potential consequences of huge
amounts of water withdrawals from municipal water supplies?
Answer: The consequences of massive amounts of water withdrawals
are twofold. First, as demands on the system increase, environmental
advocates and communities are worried that drinking water shortages are
imminent. Without proper transparency and planning, as discussed above,
massive water withdrawals could lead to system-wide shortages, forcing
people and other businesses to reduce water usage (or even not have
water at all) for extended periods of time.
Second, as municipal water systems increase their withdrawals from
local waterways, regions run the risk of negatively impacting the
broader river ecosystem. Increased withdrawals on non-tidal rivers can
reduce flows beyond levels that support aquatic life and the outdoor
recreation many of these areas rely on for tourism. In freshwater tidal
rivers, significant increases in withdrawals could impact the water's
salinity. This can negatively impact aquatic ecosystems, as well as
other water users, such as farmers.
______
Dr. Gosar. Last but not least, Ms. Lambermont, your 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAIGE LAMBERMONT, RESEARCH FELLOW, COMPETITIVE
ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Lambermont. Chair Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter, and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
holding this hearing and inviting me to testify today. My name
is Paige Lambermont, and I am a Research Fellow in the Center
for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, a
non-profit public policy organization dedicated to free-market
limited-government principles with a focus on regulatory
issues. I am also a visiting fellow in the Center for Energy
and Conservation at the Independent Women's Forum. I am
grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today on this
important issue.
I have three main points I want to make in my testimony:
number one, power demand from AI is rising, revealing
underlying issues on the power grid; number two, there are
legislative and regulatory actions that can be taken to meet
this demand; and number three, our public lands and Department
of Energy sites can play a vital role in meeting this
challenge.
AI technology has the potential to solve complex problems
across sectors of the economy and create significant benefits,
both economically and in terms of human health and flourishing.
But as AI technology develops, its power demand grows as well.
More than 400 data centers are currently planned or under
construction in the U.S., totaling 19 gigawatts of new power
demand. A 2024 report by Goldman Sachs projects that data
centers will consume 8 percent of U.S. power demand by 2030,
and that 47 gigawatts of new power capacity will be needed to
meet that demand. This new growth comes at a time when existing
thermal generation, the dispatchable sources that are available
when called upon, is being quickly retired.
Between now and 2034, more than 79 gigawatts of natural
gas, coal, and nuclear power are set to retire. New power
plants will be necessary to fill this gap. The private desire
to build this infrastructure exists, but policy reforms are
necessary to make those projects possible. This makes it
essential to remove existing policies that distort power
markets and make it more difficult and expensive to build new
power plants.
Permitting reform is essential to allow power plants to be
built more quickly. The National Environmental Policy Act in
particular is ripe for reform, but its interactions with other
laws can trigger additional reviews. This then requires
overlapping layers of regulation that provide no added
environmental protection, but require the duplication of
significant work for those looking to develop new projects.
Reforming these laws in parallel would reduce barriers to new
development while still maintaining high standards. Ideal
reforms would be broad based and technology neutral, allowing
new power plants and grid infrastructure to be built more
quickly and efficiently where and how they are needed.
Additionally, the energy subsidies contained in the
Inflation Reduction Act, particularly the Investment Tax Credit
and Production Tax Credit, are also especially harmful to grid
reliability. These tax credits have historically paid wind,
solar, and other energy companies for investment in new
facilities and for each megawatt of power they produce, and
make it difficult for more reliable thermal units to compete
economically. This is because they lower the price at which
wind and solar generators can bid into power auctions and
remain competitive. This means that other generators are
competing with artificially low prices that they may be unable
to match, resulting in less reliable power over time. Reforming
our permitting system and repealing the ITC and PTC would go a
long way toward creating an environment where companies are
willing and able to build reliable power in response to market
demand.
There is a clear role for public lands to play in meeting
this new power demand. Colocation, wherein new data centers are
sited next to power plants and situated behind the meter before
their connection to the broader power grid, has been a common
solution by companies looking to power data centers. Because
data centers operate around the clock, deals with nuclear and
natural gas companies have been especially prominent. Among
these are several notable deals. Microsoft has signed a deal
with Constellation Energy to reopen the shuttered Three Mile
Island Nuclear Power Plant, a first-of-its-kind action. Google
has agreed to a colocation agreement with Kairos Power, a small
modular reactor company. Meta is soliciting bids for between
one and four gigawatts of collocated nuclear power, and Ohio
natural gas power plants are being collocated with a data
center park.
Technology companies have shown that they are willing to
support power projects to meet this new data center demand.
Given the popularity of colocation, the Department of Energy
released a list of 16 locations that would be primed for
partnerships with private companies to build collocated
artificial intelligence data centers with power plants. Many of
the identified sites are national labs, some of which already
host both super-computer projects and demonstration projects
for advanced nuclear reactors. Allowing power plants and data
centers to be collocated alongside these facilities would allow
for faster permitting and approval of the projects, while also
allowing for collaboration and innovation.
Ultimately, artificial intelligence is a technology that
will bring numerous benefits. The disruption of added power
demand is something that we ought to work to mitigate to reap
the benefits of this innovation. Public lands have incredible
possibilities in this space, especially given the unique
infrastructure that already exists at these sites. Viewing the
AI power demand as a challenge rather than treating it as a
crisis will enable innovative solutions in this space.
Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lambermont follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250521/118174/HHRG-
119-II15-Wstate-LambermontP-20250521.pdf
------
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Ms. Lambermont. Now we are going to
go to members for 5 minutes for their questions. The gentleman
from Georgia, Mr. Collins, is now recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
highlight that I appreciate you having this hearing. You know,
I know that we have heard some testimony just earlier about how
we should just stick our head in the sand and worry about this
when this gets to be a huge problem.
And this is going to be a huge problem. China makes no
bones about it. They want to dominate economically, socially,
militarily, and in every aspect of our lives by 2045. And by
gosh, they are on the way there. And if we just want to hang
out and do nothing, then you will wake up 1 day and we will
have China in charge. So I appreciate that.
You know, the America is on the precipice. We have got AI,
we have got quantum technology. I have heard it in several of
your testimonies about the different things on data centers and
Bitcoin mining. And even in my district we have got data
centers, we have got Bitcoin mining, we are reshoring
manufacturing. And we do need to have good, reliable, cheap,
affordable energy.
And Ms. Arthun, is that correct? Thank you for what you
said. I want to restate that real quick. Coal remains the most
reliable and abundant energy source in the United States.
Well, let's take a look at my district. Just down the road
from my house, 20 miles, we have a coal-burning electric-
generating facility. It has four units. Only three of the four
are operating right now because one of the customers decided to
shut their unit down due to political pressure, political
correctness. Instead of running that big, clean, beautiful
coal, they decided to go and bend to the winds or the sun or
the solar panels.
So I want to start--and Mr. Hart, I looked through your
testimony, and in your written testimony--and you just
mentioned something about the 400 annual. You argue that
utility costs will increase because of data center
construction. However, isn't that because there just isn't
reliable energy supply chains out there now?
Mr. Hart. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
So I don't have the expertise on sort of the reliability
question. I think the cost shift comes from sort of the
billions of dollars of new infrastructure that will be needed.
Existing infrastructure simply won't meet the demand.
And so, you know, the report that Virginia recently----
Mr. Collins. I know, even though I just gave the example,
the three out of four running coal plant units, but that is OK.
Also in your written testimony you also agree with me. You
state that questions about power grid reliability and energy
sustainability are contributing to higher costs. So if there
was a reliable supply chain of energy in the United States,
wouldn't you agree that it would help lower energy costs?
Mr. Hart. Once again, thank you for the question,
Congressman.
So the simple fact is even if I am not familiar with the
example in your district, but let's take Virginia, which is
where I am very familiar with. The report in Virginia
highlights that no matter how you shake it, new generation will
need to be constructed, and new generation costs money. Like,
that is just the reality. And the current rate structure in
Virginia, and arguably around the PJM region, does not
adequately address that. And the solution to that is,
essentially, you would require large-load customers, primarily
data centers, to essentially sign contracts with utilities on
the front end for power purchase agreements.
Mr. Collins. Let me help you out, man. A reliable supply
chain, it will help. Because obviously, it is going to help
increase the supply. So, I mean, in highlighting the lack of
sustainable energy, wouldn't you agree that harnessing our
natural resources like coal, oil, and gas will help us meet
this growing energy demand and lower prices?
Mr. Hart. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Frankly,
I am not an expert on sort of energy cost and what the cheapest
form of energy is.
Mr. Collins. I know what you brought, a problem. And you
should have brought a solution. I mean, it just sounds like you
don't even have a solution. I mean, you acknowledge that these
data centers, they are important, and that there are barriers
to constructing them, but you don't present any type of
solution to the cost of energy in the data center demands.
Mr. Hart. Mr. Congressman, I think our solution would be to
bring big tech into the fold, and have them essentially front
some of the costs for these solutions. And we are
technologically sort of neutral in terms of what that power
supply would be, as long as the impact to national parks is
effectively mitigated.
And I think the bigger question at hand is really who pays
for this infrastructure. And if everyday ratepayers are paying
for the infrastructure----
Mr. Collins. Our infrastructure is there, sir, and we have
plenty of it. We just need to unleash it.
Mr. Chairman, I am out of time and I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. You know, the gentleman yields back, but I
will tell you I think we all need to be part of the solutions
because you can't just say no. It is about what it is going to
take to say yes. That is a big key.
The gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Hernandez, is
recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Hernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin I
want to disclose that I used to work for the data center
industry and for a big technology company. But having said
that, I have not hesitated to criticize them in the past, I do
not hesitate now, and I will not hesitate in the future.
We live in a political climate that often flattens complex
issues into partisan sound bytes, and the truth is more
nuanced. Data centers consume significant amounts of energy.
That is undeniable. But it is also true that many of the same
companies powering our digital infrastructure are leading
innovators in the clean energy transition. Some are not waiting
for mandates. They have set ambitious, self-imposed targets--
net zero emissions, water neutrality by 2030 or 2040--and they
are making real progress. For example, Amazon Web Services
matched 100 percent of its electricity use with renewable
energy in 2023, supported by over 600 renewable projects in 28
countries. Microsoft is pioneering hydrogen fuel cells for
backup generators.
And if they are cleaner than the current diesel generators,
we want many of them in Puerto Rico, Microsoft, if you are
listening.
Google reports it has quadrupled computing power in 5 years
without increasing energy consumption. I think that government
and civil society must continue to incentivize that kind of
innovation, but we also have a duty to ensure that the United
States remains a leader in innovation and doesn't cede its
technological leadership in artificial intelligence to foreign
adversaries.
Let me put it plainly. AI is not a toy. AI is not a fad. It
is, in my view, a leap on the scale of the personal computer,
of the smart phone, of the Internet, even of the printing
press. We cannot afford to ignore it. And speaking as a
Democrat, we cannot let our legitimate environmental concerns
blind us to the strategic imperative of AI development.
I agree that there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the
future energy demands of AI, and we must approach this
uncertainty with a high degree of responsibility. At the same
time, I don't want to downplay the energy implications of AI in
the sense that while we have some efficiency break-throughs
through technology like AI companies like DeepSeek, and as we
see AI become more efficient, we might see AI become more
popular, and we might see AI consumption increase. And
therefore, that could offset the energy gains in efficiency.
Ezra Klein, in his book, ``Abundance,'' puts it succinctly:
``The AI revolution makes the cost of energy abundance even
more urgent. In the last few decades U.S. energy infrastructure
projects have been slowed by all the challenges we have
described: a lack of productivity in construction, permitting
blockages, extended environmental reviews, and long
interconnection queues. These bottlenecks are largely self-
made, and if we don't make it easier for AI companies to build
in America, we should expect them to build data centers
abroad.'' We should not, and we cannot let that happen. Let us
be honest. Let us be ambitious. And above all, let us be
strategic and pragmatic. A clean energy future and an AI-
powered future must not be at odds. We must make room for both.
But we cannot yield our leadership in AI. There is too much to
lose.
Having said that, in terms of questions, Mr. Hart, you have
spoken about development of data centers near valued sites like
national parks, and I understand and respect that concern. Do
you have any concrete suggestions as to government efforts that
could mitigate these risks, but at the same time support
responsible AI and data center growth?
Mr. Hart. Yes, thank you for the question, Congressman.
So I think my response would be sort of a lot of what we
have talked about today. We need to make sure that the
environmental review continues to exist, that NEPA is being
adequately followed, and I think, more importantly, that, you
know, Federal agencies have the staffing--you know, the Park
Service, Forest Service, and others have the staffing necessary
to do that environmental review. So I think that is a large
part of it.
And I think the other large part of it is, you know, I
think the impetus becomes on the tech companies a little bit to
ensure that, you know, when they are planning to build data
centers, that they are doing it in concert with community, in
harmony with national park sites, and planning ahead and
thinking about these solutions. Quite frankly, like, I probably
wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for these numerous parks
that were under threat from data centers. And all of that is
because of, essentially, you know, data center operators
throwing community concerns into the wind and----
Mr. Hernandez. But wouldn't you agree that data center
companies have advanced significantly in pursuit of clean
energy, and innovated a lot in that respect, including here in
Virginia? Well, there in Virginia.
Mr. Hart. Yes, sir. Data center operators, as you have
pointed out, absolutely, have invested a large sum of money in
clean energy. The simple reality is that energy demands have
outpaced what the clean energy supply can keep up with. And so
we are at--and arguably, the reason for this hearing today is I
would say that we are at a bit of an impasse. Utilities around
Virginia are proposing significant new fossil fuel
infrastructure. You see the same thing in the broader PJM
territory. And so we are at a bit of an impasse in terms of
meeting demand with clean energy alone, and that is arguably
the question that we are here to solve today.
Mr. Hernandez. In that respect that is what I mean when I
say that we have to be strategic and pragmatic. If we need to
bridge that gap in the short term with other energy sources, we
should be able to.
Thank you, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Hernandez.
So Mr. Hart, you do believe in federalism, then, right?
Mr. Hart. I am sorry, Chairman, can you repeat the
question?
Dr. Gosar. Yes. You believe in federalism, right?
Consultation with locals?
Mr. Hart. I suppose so, yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. OK. The gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Begich, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I am going to start by
talking a little bit about Alaska.
Alaska, as you know, is relatively remote. We are two-and-
a-half-times the size of Texas, but only 740,000 people in the
entire State. We have hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of
natural gas that are currently stranded on Alaska's North
Slope. And there is no way, no pipeline to get that out
presently. We do have some decent connectivity in Alaska, and
Starlink does extend to Alaska's North Slope.
So my question to anyone who would like to answer on the
panel, given Alaska's remoteness but abundant energy supply, do
you believe that remote installations of AI or crypto mining
rigs could make sense as a way to tap into America's stranded
energy resources, and also at the same time advance our AI and
crypto mining missions?
Ms. Lambermont. I will take this one. Thank you,
Congressman, for the question.
I think that that is certainly a possibility. I think that
colocation is especially beneficial in a situation like that,
where you have got abundant resources but are distantly located
from infrastructure. The great thing about colocation is that
it doesn't require the same transmission infrastructure. If the
place that is using the energy is right next to the place that
is producing it, it creates great systems there. So there could
be opportunities for natural gas plants or for small modular
nuclear in that situation. And I think that whatever the free
market determines there will work, and it sounds like a
situation in which the market might determine it works.
Mr. Begich. That is fantastic. And, you know, I couldn't
agree with you more. I think that Alaska, and probably in
addition to many other places around our country, is well
positioned to deliver the energy resources necessary to power
the AI revolution, as well as the crypto revolution.
One of the things that is so important as we think about
our ability to compete with respect to AI and many of these
other emerging technologies is that it is not only the energy
that we have to have, we have to have an abundant mineral
supply and a domestic supply chain for the minerals necessary
for semiconductors and for the grids for transmission capacity.
How important do you believe the domestic supply chain is for
the certainty of developing these industries domestically?
And do you support a localized supply chain to support
these industries?
And I will present that to Ms. Arthun.
Ms. Arthun. Well, certainly, we have to have a strong
supply chain. And what we have found since COVID is our supply
chains were really weak in the United States. Whether it was
critical minerals that were being imported from foreign
adversaries--I know there was a hearing earlier today about
critical minerals from China and processing, which is at an
all-time low in the United States. So, yes, the supply chains
are critical.
And when I look at coal as that supply chain, it is very
important. What we have found is coal not only as a thermal
utility for power, but we are finding that there is rare Earth
elements in coal, and that we can use coal for those elements
that are needed for batteries and technological advances.
In addition to that, our metallurgical coal is greatly
needed in the States for infrastructure. Even within when you
look at renewable energy and the amount of steel that goes into
wind energy and solar, those supply chains are critical.
Mr. Begich. That is a great response, and I couldn't agree
with you more. I think that when we look at the coal resources
that we have nationally, we are starting to see that a number
of these resources do have rare Earth byproducts or other
critical mineral byproducts. I would like to mention for the
purposes of the record, Alaska has 49 of the 50 critical
minerals on the Critical Minerals List. And it is so important
that we ensure that we have the domestic capacity to produce
the resources we need in order to be successful in these
emergent technology domains. Alaska provides those resources.
Our coal industry has those resources. We have abundance. We
are blessed with abundance in this Nation if we have the
courage to develop the resources that we have on our Federal
lands.
And with that I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Alaska. I now
acknowledge the Ranking Member, Ms. Dexter, for her 5 minutes.
Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you once again
to everyone for being here.
Mr. Hart, I am going to start with you. Ms. Lambermont
recently co-authored a report that suggested Federal lands
should be used for both housing data centers and the energy
development that can go with it. And Mr. Hart, could you please
describe the potential harms of building data centers on public
lands?
Mr. Hart. Yes, absolutely. So let's start with, you know, I
think the simple fact is that data centers are industrial
development, and Federal lands inherently are sort of protected
lands, right? Like, that is kind of the premise, particularly
on national park sites. And so inherently doing industrial
development on Federal lands is going to come with an
environmental cost.
And so once again, we would point towards existing
regulatory structures that encourage full and comprehensive
environmental review, and kind of going into this with eyes
wide open and making sure that we are protecting what we have.
I think the other side of this coin is, is there a need to
actually do this? At its core, I sort of question whether we,
from a construction of data centers perspective, really need to
utilize Federal lands to do so. Numerous, arguably thousands,
of sites exist across the country on private lands that are
ripe for redevelopment. In sort of a town that I fish in often,
Waynesboro, Virginia, there is essentially a vacant DuPont
plant that is just sitting there. Other localities across the
country have similar sites. And I would look towards the data
center industry and regulators to encourage redevelopment of
sites before turning towards protected sites for development.
Dr. Dexter. Thank you for that. And I am going to turn, I
think, to Mr. Osuri.
You mentioned that renewables should be--should power data
centers. And I agree with my colleague that we need to
incentivize innovation and make sure that we are assessing our
best way to approach this. As somebody who has deep air quality
concerns, the use of diesel-powered generators is of great
concern to me. And I wonder why you believe that we need to
focus on renewable power to power these data centers.
Mr. Osuri. Because I believe decentralized training or
decentralized computing infrastructure will be the state-of-
the-art, or will be the primary way we train AI. And that gives
us an opportunity to tap into a distributed grid where
renewables shine.
Renewables, I believe, are not so great at utility scale,
but they are great at a residential area or a smaller scale. We
are also seeing some 100-kilowatt data centers now that could
participate in a larger AI training run for which renewables
are great.
Dr. Dexter. Great. And I am not sure who--the best person
is to ask this, so I am going to ask you, Mr. Osuri, first, and
see if you want to defer. But you mentioned DeepSeek in your
testimony, and I would share that my impression from the
surprise that was generated in the community when it launched
at a much more efficient--for its chatbot model, that it was
much more efficient than anyone expected, did you see that
coming, or did you anticipate that such a huge improvement in
efficiency was going to be realized at the beginning of 2025?
Mr. Osuri. No one anticipated a DeepSeek. We did see data
when it comes to patents being filed by researchers in China
that exceeds American patents, and we did see quite a lot of
talent from China--or talent, rather, that is trained in
America, went back to China because they could not stay further
here in the country. But the DeepSeek was definitely a
surprise, and the general consensus in the industry was America
was leading, and seeing a DeepSeek from China was very
disturbing.
Dr. Dexter. And I have a bias that I just shared at the
beginning that, to a certain degree, the United States did
think that it was at the head, and wasn't necessarily
incentivized to be as innovative as our Chinese counterparts
seem to have been. Part of that, I might posture or position
myself to suggest, is that we have cloud computing and AI
generation, vertical integration. So there isn't really the
same motivation. It costs a lot. But if you have the cloud
computing capacity already, Microsoft, Amazon, others that
maybe you don't have the same motivation to innovate.
So I wonder if you have any thoughts about vertical
integration, and whether or not we should diffuse that so that
we can incentivize innovation in this area.
Mr. Osuri. From a DeepSeek standpoint, I think the
innovation really came because there was a restriction on how
many chips they can get access to, and they were able to have
certain break-throughs by using less resources. So it is a
market-driven, you know, outcome more than, you know,
incentivized outcome.
I am not sure if that answers your question.
Dr. Dexter. No, I think they weren't necessarily going to
benefit from the increased use of the cloud, but that may or
may not be accurate or valid. I am earnestly asking.
I don't know if any of our other panel members might have
any thoughts.
[No response.]
Dr. Dexter. Fair enough. I think it is a question that we
will continue to investigate.
And it looks like I went over. So thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Gosar. Oh, you are fine. Have you got another one?
Dr. Dexter. I will yield. I have other questions, but I
will yield.
Dr. Gosar. OK.
Dr. Dexter. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. The gentlelady yields back.
Emily, Ms. Arthun, according to the Institute of Energy
Research, the United States has about 470 billion short tons of
recoverable coal. Can you share with the Committee what the
economic impact of utilizing the coal is?
Ms. Arthun. Absolutely. Utilizing Federal coal for data
mining operations can offer several potential economic
benefits. And if we look at what occurred in 2023 from the
BLM's record, it was $9.2 billion in economic advantages for
the country from coal, Federal coal leases, simply said.
And living in Gillette, Wyoming, I see every day the
economic impact of coal mining, of the Federal coal mining that
is done in the community from--just the--from the volunteerism
within the community to what it does for the State
economically, schools, hospitals, infrastructure. And so mining
is very--coal mining is very important.
Dr. Gosar. So my follow-up question to you is that, you
know, I share the same thing. I want clean air, I want clean
water, I want clean land. Now, when coal was first started,
when we first burned coal, it is a totally different thing than
we do now, right? Can you give us a little more--tell us a
little bit more about the process?
Ms. Arthun. Correct. You know, as with any industry, you
continue to get better as time goes on. And we do that. And I
can specifically say from my standpoint, I look out on one of
the--my house looks out on one of the last coal utilities built
in the States. And through technology it is also one of the
cleanest-burning coal technologies.
But not only has that coal plant lowered emissions, but
there is the integrated test facility there that actually
invites companies in with technology to sample and to test what
their technology has through the flue gas that is taken from
the plant. And so they are actually testing new technology
right there in Gillette, Wyoming to continue to decrease
emissions.
Not only that, I also have the luxury of driving by Federal
coal reclaimed land, and can see that wildlife is out there,
the Eagle Butte property actually harvests hay off that I have
fed to my cows. And so I get to live how Federal programs can
really be done well and provide for a strong environmental
stewardship.
Dr. Gosar. So there is other benefits, right? So my
question to you is also some of the stuff that are ending up as
byproducts actually are involved in other aspects of our
construction industry, are they not?
Ms. Arthun. Absolutely. You will find that you can use coal
ash in concrete, which strengthens and is stronger throughout
the building process. You find the rare Earths. We are just now
starting to understand everything that rare Earths are going to
go in and how many are in coal and how that can be used. And we
find rare Earths in batteries and cell phones, in just about
everything that we use when we come to technology.
Dr. Gosar. So technology is really advancing this cause,
right?
Ms. Arthun. Technology is very important.
And I want to reiterate that burning coal for thermal
energy has come a long ways. We have a project in Wyoming,
Glenrock, Wyoming, at the Dave Johnston Power plant. It is 8
Rivers, and they are looking to build a plant that would be
all--it would be 97 percent in-house. Like, no--there would be
no CO2 emitted because it is using it to fire the
generators. Another one is a Rivotto's NX25. It is used as a
non-hazardous solution that goes on the coal prior to burning,
which enhances the burning of the coal and releases less
CO2. And so every day we get better at our jobs.
Dr. Gosar. That is great.
Mr. Osuri--did I say that right again?
Mr. Osuri. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. OK. So part of our problem in the process of
patenting is we have changed our patent process, have we not?
Mr. Osuri. I am not familiar with the patent process.
Dr. Gosar. Well, it is, because when I first came here in
2011, it was first to file or--yes, first to discover. And then
we went to first to file. And back then we were number one in
the world. We are not number one in the world anymore. And in
fact, that is why a lot of things go through China for us to
decide about what is going on. You are still right, they are
trailing us quite a bit, but I think that that process of that
technology involvement, we want to inspire people to get in
that technology because I want things different.
So, for example, we heard from the mining that you have to
have nuclear propulsion to be in space. So that is why we want
new and, you know, small modular nuclear. So that technology is
what is going to save us big time.
Mr. Osuri. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. OK. I am going to do a second round, so I am
going to yield to the gentlewoman, the Ranking Member, Ms.
Dexter, again.
Dr. Dexter. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Arthun, I appreciate your position about coal becoming
much more technologically advanced over, you know, time--since
it has been started. My understanding is that we started mining
coal in the 1700s really, effectively. Is that your
understanding?
Ms. Arthun. Yes.
Dr. Dexter. OK. So we have had over 200 years to advance
technology. Is that accurate? That over that time it has become
cleaner is what you are asserting, is that right?
Ms. Arthun. Yes.
Dr. Dexter. OK. I understand from a 2023 science journal
that they examined the health impacts of airborne particulates
from coal, and they had to isolate coal particulates from other
pollutants because the particles are the most toxic substances
to the human body. And they found between 1999 and 2020, so
more than 200 years after we started mining coal, that coal-
fired power plants were responsible for approximately 460,000
deaths in the United States, and nearly half a million lives
have been lost. So I am glad that it is cleaner, but it is
still obviously having a large impact on our community.
Do you believe that Science is reliable, Science Journal
being a highly peer-reviewed journal? I would suggest that that
should be the case, but I would love to hear your thoughts.
Ms. Arthun. I am actually not a scientist or a doctor, and
cannot speak to the validity of the study. And so I would
prefer to say I don't know.
Dr. Dexter. OK, and totally fair enough. I will just say
that Science is one of the most elite, peer-reviewed journals,
so it has to be relatively reliable science.
So the good news is that data also showed that deaths
dropped significantly when coal plants installed pollution
control equipment. And take the Keystone plant in Pennsylvania.
Before installing emissions controls it was linked to more than
600 deaths per year. And after installation, that number
dropped to 80. So I think what I am hearing is that you are
asserting that we should be using those kinds of pollution
controls on all coal-fired plants. Is that safe to say?
Ms. Arthun. I think the technology is developing. And like
I said, I live by one of the last plants that is out there, and
it is a very clean-burning coal plant, and has emission
reducing technology on it. The technology is continuing to be
developed, and we have great milestones that are out there, and
the ability to be able to put it on existing plants needs to be
supported, and needs to be given the tax credits that can make
it affordable in order to be put on those existing plants.
Dr. Dexter. OK.
Ms. Arthun. And so that is something that is out there. And
like I said, the ITC, they are testing new technology all the
time.
Dr. Dexter. I am just going to interrupt because I don't
want to run out of my time, but I do appreciate that.
But I hear you, that retrofitting is expensive. But if we
understand that we can dramatically drop from 600 deaths per
year to 80, I would suggest that we should not be firing our
coal power plants unless we have that health protection on
them. So what I am hearing from you is agreement that that
should be the case, but you would need industry investment or
some sort of support to make that happen. Is that fair?
Ms. Arthun. That is correct. There needs to be support for
those programs to be implemented.
Dr. Dexter. OK. So in your mind, I just want to understand.
What would be an acceptable number of deaths from coal
attributed to those coal-fired plants?
Ms. Arthun. I think the example that you--is there an
acceptable number of deaths from any event, correct? We would
like to mitigate car accidents and we would like to mitigate--
--
Dr. Dexter. I think we are talking about energy. So solar,
wind. We aren't seeing direct human deaths that we have
quantified. I am sure people might think there might be, but
nothing has been scientifically proven yet. Geothermal, I think
that is also true. So I just want to understand.
I hear you advocating for coal-fired plants. I certainly
understand that is, you know, a perspective of my colleagues. I
just want to understand, like, what is an acceptable number of
human deaths to run those plants, in your mind?
Ms. Arthun. I would tell you that I don't think any death
is acceptable in any industry. I do feel that everything is
being done to protect the U.S. citizens when we look at what
technology is doing for coal plants.
Dr. Dexter. OK. And so I would just assert with my
colleagues that we clearly see that this is a risk, and we
should make sure any policy that liberates coal mining or coal-
fired plants should be duly partnered with policy that makes
sure that we mitigate any human deaths. Is that fair?
And I will yield to the Chair. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman.
So Ms. Arthun, that is why you had scrubbers, right?
Ms. Arthun. Correct.
Dr. Gosar. So sometimes it is very misleading about
science, because if I determined that, you know, an airway is
going this way, you know, it is coming from the southwest to
northeast, and I put my monitors in a pathway that is going to
get a lot of wind, maybe from California--I am actually going
to talk about an actual case--and it was the Navajo generating
plant up in Page, Arizona. Two gentleman back there know all
about it, too.
So what they did is the smog that they were actually
filtering, it wasn't coming from the Page plant. It was coming
from California and China. Because if you look at the winds,
they go like this. They are all over, OK? And they actually
have imprints of those air waves, how the air moves. OK? It is
like what our planes look at. You know, you have these big--you
are riding back and forth. So with that, I think it was
misleading.
So, I am not a pulmonologist, I will tell you that right
now, OK, but I do see a problem that the worst pollution that
we will see--and this is not my opinion--happens to be a
catastrophic wildfire. Why? Because they are filters. They have
heavy metals in them. And when they explode, they explode in
the air. You are actively breathing in mercury, lead, all these
different things. So where is our mitigation here?
And I love her comments, you know, but what is acceptable?
Well, first of all, I want to make sure those numbers are
right. Number two is I want to make sure that we take the worst
offender and go back down the list. The other thing is we have
to mitigate things. We can't have our cake and eat it too. I
would love to have that, but we have got to have it.
I can tell you right now, on the west side of Phoenix,
where I have--I represent, I got to tell you the data centers
are going up right and left. And just to show you how much
energy is going, you brought up Three Mile Island. Somebody
did. I know. Yes, you did. And why is that? Can you give me an
answer there, Ms. Lambermont?
Ms. Lambermont. Yes. Is that why Three Mile Island is being
brought back on----
Dr. Gosar. Yes.
Ms. Lambermont [continuing]. And things like that?
Well, I think that the interesting case for Three Mile
Island is that when it was closed 5 years ago, it was because
there was no economic need to keep it online, due to a lot of
the sort of market distortions that had occurred before and the
lack of power demand that was--power demand wasn't increasing
at the time.
But now that it is, an existing plant that could be easily
brought back online just makes sense as a first resort, right?
You already have this existing nuclear power plant that has
barely been disassembled. Bring it back online. It is not very
much more expensive, especially because most of the cost of a
nuclear plant is the upfront capital costs, not the cost to
maintain it over time. So if you can bring it back cheaply and
quickly, it makes perfect sense as the sort of beginning
source.
And I think that those low-hanging fruit places like
Palisades Nuclear Power Plant, Three Mile Island are a great
starting place before we get into these building new power for
colocation situations.
Dr. Gosar. Got you. So, yes, Ms. Lambermont, Arizona has 77
of these data centers, with another 18 planned under
construction. Your testimony notes that 18 data centers that
are either planned or under construction will require 2,400
megawatts of power. That is baseload, right?
Ms. Lambermont. Yes, that is going to be round-the-clock
power is what the data centers are going to need.
Dr. Gosar. That is what they call baseload.
Ms. Lambermont. So, yes, you are going to need baseload and
dispatchable sources that you can control.
I mean, part of that can come from other sources, but you
are going to need power around the clock. So there will need to
be something to back it up when the intermittent sources are
not operating. So if you are colocating, it makes the most
sense to have something that is around the clock. Otherwise,
you need multiple things.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, Mr. Hart, there was a reason I asked you
about federalism. federalism means that you have to--the
Federal Government has to consult with local people. It has got
to pass the muster with local people, OK?
Number two is you talked about public lands. Well, my bill,
the LASSO Act, actually puts 10 percent of all money generated
off of public lands into a kitty for the Social Security Trust
Fund. We owe it $3 trillion, $3 trillion. We only pay interest
on it.
It seems to me when I own an asset, I was a businessman, I
am going to leverage it. And it seems to me that if I put the
national--that national lands, or the money coming off of that,
I am going to stimulate growth in that fund. Would you agree
with me?
Mr. Hart. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I am not
familiar with your legislation or this concept generally, so I
would defer and say that we would have to get you an answer in
writing at a later date.
Dr. Gosar. Oh, I will make sure you have the question in
writing.
Dr. Gosar. So, I find it very interesting that you made a
general comment. And to me, that bothers me because the public
lands are all our lands. They are all of us, not the elites. It
is all our land. And we are financially in dire straits. I will
say that right now. I don't think anybody will disagree with
me. And so we now have to start thinking smarter. Think smarter
and don't play harder. We have got to make this thing work.
And we have so much talent right here. If the four of you--
you know, I wish we had more people to talk and ask questions
because I think there is a lot here that we are not getting to.
So, you know, I really--you know, it is coming from the
national parks. Please look at the public lands. The West knows
them very, very well because there was a Teddy Roosevelt who
took over, and God bless him for giving us Yosemite and
Yellowstone. But there was another group that came in about 15
years later. It was called the Taylor Grazing Act folks. They
took some of this land that is public land. Nobody wanted it.
And they said you got to use it, OK?
So there are lots of things you have to look at. There is
also the checkerboard. So like in Payson, Arizona, 6 percent of
that county, Gila County, is actually private. The rest is
State government and Federal lands.
So I would hope that you would really look at this,
particularly the federalism, because I think you, as a person
of leadership, has to tell people, listen, if you are going to
put that here, this is what kind of energy you need. This is
what we bought off on. That is truly federalism. Makes sense?
Mr. Hart. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. You bet you. Well, I have got to tell you,
everybody, I thank you so very much. I wish there were more
people, like I said, here.
Oh, yes, I do have one more thing. This is an easy one. I
am going to ask each one of you the same question, OK? So
listen carefully. What was the question you wanted asked today
that wasn't asked? And what is its answer?
I will start with you, Mr. Osuri.
Mr. Osuri. What immediate actions can this Committee take
to support decentralized AI infrastructure development on
Federal lands?
Dr. Gosar. What is his answer?
Mr. Osuri. Prioritize access to power-ready Federal land
for distributed AI or infrastructure, That means identifying
under-utilized parcels near substations or renewable assets
where small-scale modular AI facilities can be deployed.
Enable flexible zoning and fast-track permitting for
decentralized data centers on Federal sites, and launch a
Federal pilot program for HAI infrastructure. What that means
is fund or coordinate pilot deployments of decentralized AI
nodes on Federal research labs, national parks for
environmental monitoring, and for all tribal lands for
inclusive innovation. And use these to model resilience, energy
efficiency, and low-cost access.
Third is streamlined interconnection and land use
approvals. Work with Department of Energy, Bureau of Labor,
BLM, and USDA to reduce bureaucratic barriers for clean,
energy-powered distributed compute nodes, especially where
excess renewable generation exists.
And number four is expand incentives for distributed cloud
R&D and hardware innovation. Include decentralized AI
infrastructure in Federal funding programs like ARPA-E, NSF,
and DOE innovation hubs.
Dr. Gosar. You would be surprised. I actually had a
legislation called PLREDA that actually made the government go
out and decide where wind and solar were very applicable, so it
streamlined that process. Amazing.
OK, Ms. Arthun, you are up. Now, what was the question that
you wanted asked and that wasn't asked, and what is its answer?
Ms. Arthun. The question is, what policies and regulations
are needed to ensure the responsible use of Federal coal in
data mining, AI, cryptocurrency.
Dr. Gosar. What is the answer?
Ms. Arthun. To align the Federal coal program with the
current state of the industry, it is imperative to right-size
the Federal coal royalty rate. A proposed reduction to 7
percent per ton of coal from the current 12.5 would be
instrumental. You talked about the country and the crisis we
are in economically. This change will not only increase the
coal supply, but also reduce the cost of coal-based energy and
products, ultimately boosting aggregate Federal revenues. This
would allow companies that mine Federal coal to put capital
into these reserves. A modernized royalty rate can invigorate
the coal industry and supported its sustainable growth.
In addition, in light of these factors, it is evident that
the Biden-era no-coal leasing decisions in Buffalo, Miles City,
and Rock Springs management plans must be repealed. This repeal
will enhance coal resources access by lifting all Federal coal
leasing moratoriums, thereby restoring balance to the Federal
RMPs. Reverse moratoriums will revitalize Federal coal leasing
activities and ensure equitable access to coal resources,
fostering industrial stability and growth. By doing so, we can
create job opportunities, support the growth of the data mining
industry, and drive innovation in energy management systems. It
is imperative to right-size the Federal coal royalty rate to
align the Federal coal program and the current state of the
industry.
Dr. Gosar. Great. Mr. Hart, what was your--what was the
question you wanted asked that wasn't, and what is its answer?
Mr. Hart. Absolutely. So the Congressman from Georgia kind
of flirted with this idea at the outset of sort of ratepayer
protections and that sort of stuff, and I want to dig in a
little bit. So the question would be largely, what are the
implications for ratepayers for this, and what happens, more
importantly, if this load, this energy demand never
materializes or, more importantly, phases out after a certain
period of time?
And so the--I think the answer to that question is arguably
the most complex question of this whole issue: What happens if
we invest hundreds of billions of dollars in new
infrastructure, new generation infrastructure, and new
transmission infrastructure, and then the load doesn't
materialize?
We have heard, and I kind of tried to touch on this in
Virginia, electric co-ops like small utility companies are
afraid of actual solvency. Like, if data centers don't pay
their bills, if they build new infrastructure and data centers
actually are like, ``Actually, we don't need that much power,''
like, you will see electric co-ops literally go bankrupt. And I
think that is a big problem.
And so I think the solution to this, and Ms. Lambermont has
touched on this, is colocation, right, is working with data
center developers to basically build their own power generation
behind the meter so that the ratepayers are not born with,
essentially, the risks of building all of this new
infrastructure. And so at its core, the solution is urging the
data center industry and regulators to look for solutions that
don't pose these risks both to national parks through new
transmission lines and ratepayers, and come up with innovative
solutions to this problem.
Dr. Gosar. So let me follow up on that, then. So in order
to make a great decision, let's say supervisor or a State
legislator or even a Congressman, you need to know the facts
about how things were paid and what the return on investment it
is. Right?
Mr. Hart. Absolutely.
Dr. Gosar. OK, thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Ms. Lambermont?
Ms. Lambermont. Yes, thank you, sir. And Mr. Hart and I are
very much having the same idea about a question we would like
to be asked. My question is going to be how can colocation
agreements help consumers and prevent stranded assets?
I think that colocation is one of the best options in this
situation, because it gives companies the ability to make
decisions in the free market on their own, while also
insulating regular consumers, right? If you are doing a
colocation agreement behind the meter, it is not going to
affect the broader power grid in the same way. So I think
encouraging colocation agreements in that way, and also one
idea at the State level is consumer regulated electricity. It
is the idea that you can form your own sort of off-grid
microgrids.
So instead of just one data center colocating with a
facility, you could have a company get together several other
companies to form their own microgrid that was just for, say, a
data center park. And instead of impacting the rest of the grid
with their power demand, they will provide their own power,
provide their own sort of microgrid, and be allowed to do that.
It requires sort of amendments to public utilities commissions
within the--at the State level, but it is one idea that would
allow for sort of innovative solutions that don't put other
ratepayers in jeopardy and still allow the power to be built
for what it is needed for. Thank you so much.
Dr. Gosar. Isn't technology and innovation just super?
Ms. Lambermont. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I want to thank the witnesses for their
testimony. The Chair now recognizes--oh, hold on.
Dr. Dexter. Mr. Chair, if I may.
Dr. Gosar. Yes.
Dr. Dexter. May I ask that we submit for the record the
Science article that discussed the excess deaths related to
coal burning?
Dr. Gosar. Without objection, so ordered.
Dr. Dexter. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimony and the members for their questions.
Members of the Committee may have some additional
questions, I promise you there will be, for the witnesses, and
we ask that you respond to these in writing. Under Committee
rule 3, members of the Committee must submit their questions to
the Subcommittee clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, May 23. The hearing
record will be held open for 10 business days for these
responses.
If there is no further actions, the Subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Dexter
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20250521/118174/HHRG-
119-II15-20250521-SD003.pdf
[all]