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

                      THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                                     BUDGET
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 10, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-24

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

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

                                   __________

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISING OFFICE
    63-804 PDF	              WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

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

                               Professional Staff

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

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

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

                                    Witness

    Christopher Wright, Secretary, Department of Energy..............    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
        Answers to submitted questions \1\

                               Submitted Material

    Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
    List of documents submitted for the record.......................    93
    Fact sheet from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
      Economy, ``The Industrial Demonstrations Program is Essential
      for American Competitiveness,'' March 2025.....................    94
    Letter of June 6, 2025, from Air-Conditioning, Heating and
      Refrigeration Institute, et al., to Hon. Mike Lee, et al.......   101
    Article of June 6, 2025, ``Coal and Gas Plants Were Closing. Then
      Trump Ordered Them to Keep Running,'' by Claire Brown and Harry
      Stevens, New York Times........................................   104
    Article of June 1, 2025, ``Trump is forcing this dirty, costly
      coal plant to stay open,'' by Evan Halper and Jake Spring,
      Washington Post................................................   108
    Letter of May 9, 2025, from Henry Dargan McMaster, Governor of
      South Carolina, to Hon. Lindsey Graham, et al..................   112
    Letter of May 16, 2025, from Mike Braun, Governor of Indiana, to
      Hon. John Thune, et al.........................................   114
    Fact sheet from the Appliance Standards Awareness Project,
      ``Proposed Rollbacks of Efficiency Standards Would Cost
      Consumers $43 Billion,'' May 2025..............................   116
    Report from Dallas Fed Energy Survey, ``Oil and gas activity
      edges higher; uncertainty rising, costs increase,'' March 26,
      2025...........................................................   119
    Letter of May 5, 2025, from Travis D. Stice, Chairman of the
      Board and Chief Executive Officer, Diamondback Energy, Inc., to
      stockholders...................................................   133
    Article, ``Florida electric bills skyrocketed recently. Here's
      why,'' by Teghan Simonton, Tampa Bay Times.....................   136

    ----------

    \1\ Secretary Wright's reply has been retained in committee files and
    is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20250610/
    118357/HHRG-119-IF03-Wstate-WrightC-20250610-SD532.pdf.
    Article, ``Florida Power & Light seeks $9B rate hike with high
      shareholder profit,'' Tampa Bay Times..........................   146
    Article, ``Florida Power & Light Requests Largest Rate Increase
      in U.S. History,'' Food and Water Watch........................   149
    Article of May 3, 2022, ``Get Ready for Another Energy Price
      Spike: High Electricity Bills,'' by Ivan Penn, New York Times..   152

                THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                                Subcommittee on Energy,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m. in
    the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
    Hon. Robert E. Latta (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Latta, Weber, Palmer,
    Allen, Balderson, Pfluger, Harshbarger, Miller-Meeks, James,
    Bentz, Fry, Langworthy, Evans, Goldman, Fedorchak, Guthrie (ex
    officio), Castor (subcommittee ranking member), Peters,
    Menendez, Mullin, McClellan, DeGette, Matsui, Tonko, Veasey,
    Schrier, Fletcher, Ocasio-Cortez, Auchincloss, and Pallone (ex
    officio).
        Also present: Representatives Joyce, Obernolte, Ruiz,
    Dingell, and Carter of Louisiana.
        Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations; Clara
    Cargile, Professional Staff Member; Jessica Donlon, General
    Counsel; Andrew Furman, Professional Staff Member; Sydney
    Greene, Director of Finance and Logistics; Emily Hale, Staff
    Assistant; Calvin Huggins, Clerk; Megan Jackson, Staff
    Director; Sophie Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff Director; Mary
    Martin, Chief Counsel; Sarah Meier, Counsel and
    Parliamentarian; Joel Miller, Chief Counsel; Ben Mullaney,
    Press Secretary; Jake Riith, Staff Assistant; Jackson Rudden,
    Staff Assistant; Chris Sarley, Member Services/Stakeholder
    Director; Peter Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member; Matt
    VanHyfte, Communications Director; Katie West, Press Secretary;
    Aurora Ellis, Minority Law Clerk; Waverly Gordon, Minority
    Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio,
    Minority Staff Director; La'Zale Johnson, Minority Intern;
    Kristopher Pittard, Minority Professional Staff Member; Emma
    Roehrig, Minority Staff Assistant; Kylea Rogers, Minority
    Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of
    Communications, Outreach, and Member Services; Medha Surampudy,
    Minority Professional Staff Member; and Tuley Wright, Minority
    Staff Director, ENG.

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

        Mr. Latta. I call the Energy Subcommittee to order, and
    welcome to today's hearing on the budget of the Department--
    sorry, welcome to today's hearing on the Department of Energy's
    fiscal year 2026 budget.
        And welcome, Secretary Chris Wright, to your first hearing
    before the Energy and Commerce Committee. Welcome.
        Secretary Wright, in your confirmation hearing before the
    Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, you stated three
    goals: unleash American energy dominance, lead the world in
    innovation and technological breakthroughs, and once again
    allow for entrepreneurs to build in this country. This
    sentiment could not come at a more critical juncture.
        Around the world, adversarial nations like communist China
    are exploiting energy markets and critical minerals to advance
    their national interests at the expense of the security of the
    United States. Our own national--nation faces an electric
    reliability crisis that could threaten the everyday lives of
    hard-working Americans. Infrastructure development has been
    left at a virtual standstill after the regulatory onslaught of
    the previous administration. All the while, we are in the midst
    of a critical race to lead the world in AI development. The
    stakes could not be higher, which is why the ambitious goals
    laid out under your leadership are so critical to the interests
    of our country.
        After 5 months on the job, your Department has remained
    steadfastly committed to these efforts. Your Department
    reversed course on the disastrous LNG export ban and once again
    ensured our abundant natural resources can be utilized as a
    diplomatic tool for allies abroad. To reduce unnecessary
    Federal overreach, your Department rescinded dozens of
    burdensome and unworkable efficiency regulations and standards
    that the previous administration designed to advance as a one-
    size-fits-all approach to energy efficiency.
        Over the last few weeks, the Department issued necessary
    202(c) emergency waivers to continue the operation of baseload
    power plants to protect the grid reliability in regions across
    the country during the upcoming summer months. And just 2 weeks
    ago, the White House released the Reinvigorating the Nuclear
    Industrial Base Executive order, which will empower DOE to
    expedite and promote the use of nuclear energy in the United
    States. Importantly, these efforts will leverage the bipartisan
    work of our ADVANCE Act to fuel a domestic nuclear renaissance,
    empowering next-generation industries.
        As you have documented, you are continuing your ongoing
    tour of all 17 National Labs, our crown jewels, which will be
    critical in leading the world in technological breakthroughs.
    This includes the recent announcement of a new supercomputer at
    the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab that will be vital to the
    continued development of AI and fusion energy. I am encouraged
    that your Department has been rightly focused on the energy
    needs of our growing AI industry and why it is so important for
    our Nation and the world for the United States to win.
        Your Department has also remained committed to President
    Trump's agenda to be stewards of finite taxpayer resources by
    aligning Federal resources with high-priority projects and
    eliminating wasteful spending. As we discuss cost-cutting
    measures at your Department, it is important to remember that
    the previous administration received over $100 billion in new
    funding and $400 billion in loan authority from the Inflation
    Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The
    previous administration issued financial assistance awards in a
    haphazard manner that lacked accountability.
        In fact, in the 76 days between the Election Day and
    President Trump's inauguration, the Department issued almost
    $100 billion in new loans, compared to the $43 billion in loans
    issued over the loan office's 20-year lifespan. This level of
    Government subsidies was irresponsible and unsustainable,
    focused on misguided priorities, and was often done to the
    detriment of free markets and private enterprises.
        The fiscal year 2026 budget reflects these priorities and
    will refocus the Department of Energy on its core mission as
    you continue reorganization efforts, as is customary for
    incoming administrations. We look forward to our continued work
    together to achieve common goals to unleash American energy
    dominance, lead the world in the next generation of industries,
    and fuel economic prosperity throughout the country.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. I look forward to today's discussion, and I
    yield back the balance of my time, and at this time recognize
    the gentlelady from Florida, the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

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

        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, Mr. Secretary. It is our job to hold you
    accountable and ask questions, and I appreciate you attending
    the briefing today to offer your budget.
        You know, the President promised to cut electric bills in
    half, but utility bills are way up, as is the risk of a
    resurgent inflation, thanks to the administration's policies.
    It always sounded way too good that electricity bills would be
    cut in half, but hard-working Americans did not expect you to
    actively work to make their lives more expensive, reach into
    their wallets, and grab their hard-earned cash. And that is
    effectively what your policies have done in just a few short
    months.
        And in addition to higher electric bills, the U.S. DOE is
    actively killing jobs. The U.S. Department of Energy, once the
    envy of the world for innovation, our National Labs, and focus
    on cleaner, cheaper energy, is killing jobs.
        Mr. Secretary, you inherited a Department of Energy that
    was advancing an energy manufacturing boom, 1,000 new or
    expanded factories across America, 400,000 good-paying jobs
    just over the past few years. America had a strategy to produce
    more energy, reshore jobs, modernize the grid, invent the
    energy technologies of the future, and build and scale them
    here in the United States. This is smart policy, especially as
    energy is central to our national security. But you seem happy
    to cede the next generation of energy, innovation, and
    leadership to our competitors like the Chinese Communist Party.
        We need you to answer why you and Republicans in Congress
    are intentionally sabotaging America's progress, constraining
    our supply, and fueling higher household energy bills.
        On top of it all, the administration is piling on arbitrary
    tariffs. That's making the energy sector more expensive because
    tariffs lead to increased costs and disruptions, ultimately
    impacting both consumers and the broader energy market. DOE is
    supposed to be leading the energy--supposed to be leading
    energy innovation and security, from grid resilience to
    critical minerals to renewable power to next-generation
    renewable power. But you and Elon Musk and DOGE have taken a
    chainsaw to the scientists, experts, and congressionally
    mandated initiatives at DOE.
        Witnesses and experts testify before this committee
    consistently that we need to support expansion of electricity
    transmission infrastructure in the U.S. because it is critical
    to providing affordable and reliable power. Yet the Big Ugly
    Bill, as we affectionately call it, the billionaire tax break
    package, rescinds support for transmission, facility financing,
    electricity transmission planning, modeling. It takes back the
    grants to facilitate the siting of interstate electricity
    transmission lines.
        And recent studies have shown that a comprehensive approach
    to building transmission lowers costs for consumers. In the
    Northeast, average electric bills could decrease by more than
    one-third. A new report released yesterday finds that every $1
    spent on transmission returns up to $4.70 in customer benefits.
        In addition, 2 weeks ago you canceled industrial
    demonstrations funded by Congress to cut carbon emissions and
    toxic air pollution from industrial sites and power plants. DOE
    claimed these projects failed to advance energy needs of the
    American people, they are not economically viable, they don't
    return a positive investment for taxpayers. But that is not
    true.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    record a report from the American Council for Energy Efficient
    Economy that finds the industrial demonstrations would bring
    $14 billion in private investment and keep industrial
    facilities competitive with countries around the world.
        Mr. Latta. Well, without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. Castor. This dysfunction at the Department of Energy is
    killing investment in America. Look at the Loan Programs
    Office, which House Republicans tried to kill--are trying to
    kill in their Big Ugly Bill. The LPO is exactly the kind of
    tool we need to provide low-cost financing to projects that
    traditional investors won't fund.
        However, since President Trump took office, companies--many
    of whom have spent years and millions of dollars to secure
    conditional LPO loan commitments--are walking away. They can no
    longer trust the Department of Energy to be a reliable partner.
    CORE POWER, who received a conditional loan to build a new
    lithium battery manufacturing facility, has canceled the
    project, resulting in 3,000 lost American jobs. Aspen Aerogels
    received a conditional loan to build a plant in Georgia to make
    thermal barriers for EV batteries. They have canceled the plant
    and will instead expand production in China and Mexico. The
    list goes on and on.
        And, you know, Americans expect policymakers like you to
    deploy taxpayer dollars wisely, spur cost-saving innovations,
    and make people's lives better. But your proposed budget fails
    to advance that vision. And when an administration holds a
    vision based on propping up only dirty power sources, we lose
    Americans' capacity--America's capacity to innovate and drive
    costs down, which ultimately hurts American businesses and the
    American people.
        So you have a lot to answer for today. I look forward to
    the exchange.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Castor. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chair of the
    full committee, for 5 minutes for questions.

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

        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you to Secretary Wright for
    being here.
        We welcome you to the Energy and Commerce Committee. Many
    people may not fully appreciate the functions that the
    Department performs in the Federal Government and your
    responsibilities as Energy Secretary. You oversee a national
    security agency and an energy security agency. DOE has designed
    and produced every nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal. It
    powers the nuclear navy. It plays critical roles in
    nonproliferation, international nuclear security, and other
    energy security missions.
        DOE is a world-class science, engineering, and technology
    agency. It is an environmental engineering and cleanup agency.
    It is an energy emergency support agency and produces essential
    energy information for our energy industry and public, as well
    as employing the fastest computers in the world. Its work is
    performed through a nation-spanning complex of National Labs,
    production sites, and facilities, and involves the largest
    contract workforce outside of the Department of Defense.
    Ensuring this agency operates efficiently can be a challenge,
    as the Committee on Oversight over the years has demonstrated.
        That said, successful management of DOE's missions and a
    focus on its core missions means America will be secure and
    stay ahead of our adversaries. You are taking charge of DOE at
    a critical time for the nation. Right now we are fighting to
    achieve AI dominance. It is a technological race that we cannot
    afford to lose to China. The threat of China succeeding at our
    expense equals, if not surpasses, the threats we faced almost
    90 years ago in the race to harness atomic energy, which
    America fortunately won.
        The success of the Manhattan Project, a project that is in
    DOE's DNA, safeguarded our Nation's security for two
    generations. We are confronting a similar treacherous time
    today. Over the past 4 years our adversaries have been
    emboldened--China, in particular. Here at home our Nation
    confronts tremendous new demand--tremendous new demand for
    energy and a burning need to revitalize our energy sector. We
    need energy and more of it. We need to build out the types of
    energy that we can rely on to power our technological needs, to
    support our allies, and to build our economy.
        Against this backdrop, understanding how you plan to
    address the urgency of this moment is critical. Recent actions
    by the administration to supercharge the drive to restore our
    nuclear energy leadership, including at DOE, represent the kind
    of positive actions this Nation needs. What will matter is how
    you execute these policies. So it is important to understand
    how you plan to manage the agency and align its budget to
    effectively meet your priorities and responsibilities, and to
    measure the results.
        Every new administration takes steps to align DOE structure
    to meet its priorities. President Trump did it in his first
    term. President Obama did it twice. We should give you the
    flexibility to have the organization you need to be effective
    and to allow you the--to find efficiencies in agency
    management.
        We should not lose sight of the reality that the Department
    of Defense today operates about 35,000 more contractors and
    employees than it did 5 years ago, most of that increase in the
    past four years. The agency used to put out a detailed annual
    performance report, but the last administration did not produce
    those reports, limiting accountability for measuring the
    results of work. Restoring accountability on that front would
    be welcome.
        And there certainly is room to be more efficient and
    effective across the agency and the enterprise for the sake of
    taxpayer stewardship. Ultimately, what matters is aligning DOE
    to deliver the nuclear and energy security results that are
    most essential for the Nation and to support the engineering
    and science that will help us sustain a prosperous future.
        I really appreciate your willingness to be here to testify.
    We appreciate you being here this morning.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Guthrie. And I will yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The chairman yields back
    the balance of his time. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman
    from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, for
    5 minutes for an opening statement.

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

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today we are here to discuss the Department of Energy's
    fiscal year 2026 budget requests, but the destruction of our
    national energy policy had already started before we received
    this flawed and harmful budget. It started on day one, when
    Trump signed disastrous Executive orders that halted Federal
    grants and propped up polluting fossil fuels. It continued with
    House Republicans passing the One Big Ugly Bill that eliminates
    programs that are lowering energy costs and helping to build
    clean energy manufacturing here in America, all so Republicans
    can give giant tax breaks to billionaires.
        And now we have a Trump budget that will increase household
    energy costs, prioritize oil and gas, undermine clean energy,
    and gut energy assistance programs. And at a time when energy
    demand is increasing, this budget will make it harder for our
    Nation to meet the moment.
        So, Secretary Wright, welcome to the Energy and Commerce
    Committee. But I have to say I have tried to get answers from
    you on a number of actions at DOE, ranging from staffing costs
    to project delays and funding freezes. But every single letter
    I have sent has gone unanswered.
        When appearing before a different committee, you seem to
    indicate that you view responding to Congress as an optional
    part of your job, and I want to be clear it is not. And
    responding to this committee is part of your responsibility to
    the American people. After all, you owe them an explanation of
    your actions over the last 6 months.
        The agency has forced Americans to pay higher energy bills
    to keep outdated and expensive coal plants online. It is
    revoking energy and water efficiency standards that lower
    energy bills for American families. It cancelled $3.7 billion
    in grants that would lower emissions from the industrial sector
    and create thousands of good-paying energy jobs.
        The Department of Energy also threw open its doors to Elon
    Musk and his DOGE minions. Musk forced out more than 3,500 DOE
    staffers, and now the agency has lost experienced and valuable
    personnel with critical expertise. And now the Trump
    administration sends Congress a budget request that hollows out
    DOE even more, slashing funding by more than 25 percent. It
    slashes funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program,
    zeroes out grants for renewable grid integration and wind and
    solar energy, and cuts loan programs for advanced vehicle
    technologies and Tribal energy.
        So, Mr. Secretary, in your confirmation hearing you
    indicated that expanding the grid was--and I am quoting now--
    ``important to securing and modernizing resilient electricity
    grid to meet growing electricity demand.'' But your budget
    proposal rescinds billions of dollars in investments in the
    Nation's power grid, making it even more difficult for us to
    modernize and secure it for the future.
        The Trump administration and congressional Republicans
    claim to care about competing with China. I hear that over and
    over again. But every action that they take only leaves America
    further behind in the global energy leadership race. By
    freezing and canceling investments in emerging clean-energy
    technologies, the Trump administration is letting China win. By
    undercutting manufacturing projects set to build electric
    vehicles and solar panels here in the United States, the Trump
    administration is leaving the door wide open for our
    competitors. They are letting China further grow its own supply
    chains and its global market share. And we were on the verge of
    a clean energy manufacturing renaissance, and the Trump
    administration has ground it all to a halt.
        And the Trump administration allowed its reckless alliance
    with Elon Musk and his DOGE minions to threaten the operations
    of the National Nuclear Security Administration and the
    Bonneville Power Administration. And now that that alliance
    between Musk and Trump, I guess, has come to an end with this
    ongoing war of words on social media--but still the Trump
    administration now claims that Musk is only looking to support
    his financial interests.
        Well, they did not voice any concern from us--very real
    conflict of interest when he was decimating our Federal
    agencies or indiscriminately firing workers and all while
    covertly stealing Americans' sensitive personal data. They
    didn't seem to care about it then. Now they say they care.
        But before I finish, Secretary, it looks like you and I
    agree on at least one issue, and that is that nuclear energy is
    worth investing in, and that the Loan Programs Office has an
    important role to play. And that is something I hope you will
    reiterate with committee Republicans today who don't seem to
    share your view on this. In the One Big Ugly Bill they
    completely zeroed out funding for DOE's Loan Programs Office.
        It also appears that even you have some concerns about this
    budget request. In testimony before the Senate last month, you
    asked Congress to send DOE the budget it needs, not the one you
    asked for. And so I question your own support for the budget
    that you are here to defend. So I am looking forward to finally
    getting some answers today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pallone. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
    the balance of his time, and this now concludes Member opening
    statements.
        The Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to committee
    rules, all Members' opening statements will be made part of the
    record.
        We want to thank our witness, Secretary Wright, for being
    here today and taking time to testify for the subcommittee.
        Mr. Secretary, you will have the opportunity to give an
    opening statement followed by a round of questions from
    Members.
        And again, of course, our witness is the Honorable Chris
    Wright, Secretary of the Department of Energy.
        We appreciate you being here, and, Mr. Secretary, we look
    forward to hearing your opening statement. And you have 5
    minutes. Thank you very much.

       STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
                                 ENERGY

        Secretary Wright. Thank you, Chairman Latta, Chairman
    Guthrie, Ranking Member Castor, and Ranking Member Pallone, and
    members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you
    today as Secretary of Energy to discuss the President's fiscal
    year 2026 budget request for the Department of Energy.
        Under President Trump's leadership, our priorities for the
    Department are clear: to unleash a golden era of American
    energy dominance, strengthen our national security, and lead
    the world in innovation. A reliable and abundant energy supply
    is the foundation of a strong and prosperous nation. When
    America leads in energy, we lead in prosperity, security, and
    human flourishing.
        America has a historic opportunity to secure our energy
    systems; propel scientific and technological innovation,
    including AI; maintain and strengthen our weapons stockpiles;
    and meet Cold War legacy waste commitments. The Department of
    Energy will advance this critical mission while cutting red
    tape, increasing efficiency, and ensuring we are better
    stewards of taxpayer dollars.
        The President's fiscal year 2026 budget will ensure
    taxpayer resources are allocated appropriately and cost
    effectively. We will invest DOE's resources in sources and
    technologies that support affordable, reliable, and secure
    energy, and provide a return on investment for the American
    taxpayers. We will return the Department to its core mission
    and eliminate spending on projects that fail to provide such a
    return, fail to advance our energy needs, and fail the test of
    economic viability.
        It is deeply concerning how many billions of dollars were
    rushed out the door without proper due diligence in the final
    days of the Biden administration. DOE is undertaking a thorough
    review of financial assistance that identifies waste of
    taxpayer dollars, protects America's national security, and
    advances President Trump's commitment to unleash American
    energy dominance. As a result, we recently announced the
    termination of 24 projects totaling over $3.7 billion in
    taxpayer-funded financial assistance. These projects failed to
    meet the economic, national security, or energy security
    standards necessary to sustain DOE's investment, and the
    taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize them.
        Instead, we are advancing a policy of energy addition,
    fully leveraging affordable, reliable, and secure sources that
    have powered our country for generations. The United States is
    blessed with an abundance of coal, oil, and natural gas, and
    our administration is committed to using them to meet growing
    energy needs of the American people. Every one of these
    resources was unleashed through the world-changing power of
    American innovation. Our National Labs are the engine that
    drives research and development to expand our energy dominance.
    We will prioritize research that supports true technological
    breakthroughs and maintains America's global competitiveness.
        America must play a leading role commercializing a
    reliable, safe, and secure nuclear energy, and we are taking
    steps to accelerate innovation in this sector. DOE is working
    to advance the rapid deployment of next-generation nuclear
    technology, including small modular reactors. I am proud to
    report that we have officially ended the previous
    administration's reckless pause on LNG export permits, and have
    returned to regular order for reviewing and approving new
    permits.
        DOE will also work to replenish the Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve, a national asset that protects our security in times
    of crisis. I want to thank this committee for prioritizing
    funding to refill the SPR in the One Big Beautiful Bill as
    well. We are advancing President Trump's pledge to lower the
    cost of living and expand choice by right-sizing DOE's approach
    to home efficiency standards and regulations. Under the
    President's direction, we have begun slashing more than 47
    regulations as part of the largest deregulatory effort in
    history. These actions are projected to save the American
    people approximately $11 billion while restoring consumer
    freedom and lowering costs.
        The responsible stewardship and modernization of the
    nation's nuclear weapons system is paramount for this
    administration. DOE is focused on addressing critical upgrades
    for the U.S. nuclear stockpile and maintaining our engine
    powerhouses for submarines and aircraft carriers. Both tasks
    will be even more crucial in the next few years.
        Our nuclear innovation as a nation began with the Manhattan
    Project, and the Manhattan Project is clearly AI. DOE has a
    significant role to play in driving AI innovation for
    scientific discovery and national security. Our agency has
    world-class, high-performance computing capabilities, including
    4 of the world's top 10 supercomputers. Harnessing our energy
    potential to power global AI leadership while meeting growing
    energy demand will be the challenge of our time. But America
    doesn't back down from big challenges or big builds.
        As Secretary of Energy, I am honored by the responsibility
    to help meet the American people's growing energy needs and
    lead the world in energy development. I appreciated the
    opportunity to work with many of you on this committee to
    unlock America's full energy potential and drive down costs for
    families with the One Big Beautiful Bill, and I look forward to
    continuing to work together to achieve President Trump's energy
    dominance agenda.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
    committee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for--or
    Mr. Secretary--for your testimony today. And we will now move
    into the question-and-answer portion of the hearing, and I will
    begin the questioning and recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        One of the things I have asked over the last 4 years is the
    same question of our witnesses coming before us, Mr. Secretary:
    Do we need to have more energy or less energy produced in this
    country?
        Secretary Wright. Unquestionably, more energy.
        Mr. Latta. And, you know, as we look at this, you know, we
    are looking at a widening gap between our projected electricity
    needs, largely driven by the new data centers you pointed out,
    and we also have a reshoring of domestic manufacturing, the
    amount of reliable energy entering the system to meet that
    demand.
        As you know, record levels of baseload generation are
    prematurely retiring. How is the Department viewing this
    existential threat, and what do you see as the potential
    consequences for not meeting the moment?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, if one were to look at recent data,
    growth in electricity production and energy more broadly in
    China has been rapid. And in the United States, particularly in
    the electricity sector, we saw almost no growth in American
    electricity production during the 4 years of the last
    administration. Yet with almost no growth in production, we saw
    across the country an average 25 percent increase in
    electricity prices. This is clearly a pathway to losing the AI
    arms race. If we can't grow our electricity production and keep
    prices in check, America is in trouble.
        Our administration is entirely focused on unleashing
    private capital, getting the government out of the way to grow
    and expand our supply of reliable, firm electricity. That is
    what AI needs: 24/7 365 electricity. But of course, that is
    what the American electricity grid needs as well. No one wants
    the lights to go out or electricity production to decline when
    your kid is on a ventilator or when your factory is running. We
    need reliable, affordable, secure electricity.
        We are meeting with commercial providers across the
    spectrum about how to build and enable the expansion of
    American electricity generation. That is priority number one.
    We need to grow the supply of electricity even faster than the
    demand. That is the only way to meet the demands of AI and
    reshoring manufacturing, and to stop the highly destructive and
    politically polarizing rises in electricity prices. There is a
    lot of momentum behind this increasing the cost of electricity,
    restricting the ability to develop or even operate the existing
    plants. So it is a big challenge.
        As Ranking Member Castor mentioned, yes, electricity prices
    have been rising fast under the last administration, and
    stopping that on a dime is a tricky challenge, but it is a
    challenge we can and must meet.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. Your Department is undergoing a
    reorganization effort to align with priorities of the
    administration and most effectively accomplish your goals of
    energy dominance, technological superiority, and fueling
    economic prosperity. Would you give us an update as to where
    things stand with the reorganization efforts and the number of
    staff that have departed the agency?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, look, the Department of Energy is
    full of a bunch of tremendous, hard-working, committed men and
    women trying to better the direction for our country. But
    again, like with electricity prices, headcount at the
    Department grew over 20 percent during the last administration,
    with only increasing costs of energy and no increase in the
    supply of electricity. Clearly, that is a trajectory we don't
    want to go on.
        So like with any business or any organization where you
    care about performance, we have got to critically look at what
    we do, how we do it, how we can be more efficient, and how we
    can concentrate limited resources on what matters the most. We
    have followed a careful, thoughtful way to look at how we are
    going to reorganize the Department and to bring the headcount
    more aligned with an appropriate budget for the times we are
    in. We have done this almost entirely through voluntary
    measures, so a lot of engagement with people. And we have had
    voluntary offers to give generous financial treatment for
    people that maybe--that are choosing to move on to a different
    chapter in their career.
        These are hard and tough, and this is still ongoing. There
    is significant timeframe people have to choose whether this is
    the pathway they want to go or not. People will be moving from
    some offices to other offices to make sure we are appropriately
    staffed in every office. But I am proud of the hard work of the
    team, some of the people working behind me, and many, many more
    back at the Department.
        In the next few weeks we will probably get more clarity on
    exactly where the reorganization is going to end, but I think
    it has been a great effort to align the people and the staffing
    with the mission we have at hand, and to align our expenditures
    with the output of the Department.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. My time has expired, and I
    will submit my other questions in writing to you.
        But at this time I will recognize the gentlelady from
    Florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes
    for her questions.
        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, you have actively been throttling back
    energy production, you have been complicit in raising American
    families' electric bills, and gutting innovation, so it is
    really hard to determine where to even start with this. But I
    will start with an initiative that is very popular across the
    country that helps our neighbors back home save money, and that
    is Energy Star. It is a joint DOE-EPA initiative mandated in
    statute by Congress. In the past it has been very bipartisan.
        But your budget request runs counter to law. It actually
    proposes to completely eliminate Energy Star. No one thinks
    that is smart. Actually, I correct myself: The polluters and
    the utility companies that want consumers to use a lot more
    energy, they like it. But I am going to offer for the record a
    letter from leading residential and real estate organizations
    that describes Energy Star as a key element of the all-of-the-
    above strategy. It says electricity saved by Energy Star helps
    free up space on the grid needed so the U.S. can lead the world
    to power and grow AI, bring manufacturing back to our shore. It
    reduces Americans' electricity bills.
        I will offer that to you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Latta. And without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. Castor. So, Secretary Wright, in a press release you
    said that DOE claims that when you eliminate Energy Star you
    save Americans $11 billion by rolling back energy efficiency
    standards. However, according to DOE's own estimates,
    eliminating those standards would increase Americans' utility
    bills by more than $54 billion. So how do you justify robbing
    Americans of $54 billion in savings from energy efficiency
    standards?
        Secretary Wright. So, of course, increasing energy
    efficiency, which has been going on for 200 years, is great. If
    you can invest, you know, $1 in increasing energy efficiency
    and save many dollars of energy costs, people do that all day
    long, every day, and they have been doing it throughout human
    history, and certainly long before----
        Ms. Castor. So how do you justify it?
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. There was a Department of
    Energy. Because individuals and businesses should make the
    choice to evaluate those trade-offs.
        Ms. Castor. And they do. There are no mandates in energy
    efficiency standards or appliances that people want to
    purchase. My folks back home are replacing a lot of appliances
    because we were socked by two hurricanes in a row and did real
    damage. And every time you say that you are--and the
    Republicans have been complicit on this--that you can't--you
    are not going to provide the information to consumers that they
    need to lower their electric bills at this time, that does real
    damage.
        Secretary Wright. We are not preventing any product being
    purchased by any consumer. Quite the contrary----
        Ms. Castor. Yes, you have, in eliminating Energy Star, in
    the war on energy-efficient appliances. This is the opposite of
    what you said. You said you want to be good stewards of
    taxpayer money, but you are not. You are asking people to pay
    more, and taking the tools they need away from them.
        I will move on to the industrial demonstrations, because
    you said America needs to be focused on innovation and lead the
    world. You know, China is doubling down on industrial-sector
    innovation and decarbonization. In April, China announced 101
    new demonstration projects, including low-carbon steel,
    geothermal heat pumps, and green fertilizer. These--those
    projects will receive, of course, direct support, expedited
    approvals, prioritization. That is how they work. So the least
    that America can do if we want to keep up our competitive edge
    is to provide strategic support.
        But you announced 2 weeks ago you are going to cancel those
    industrial demonstrations. You said these cancellations would
    strengthen our national security. Do you believe that allowing
    China to overtake the United States in these key sectors
    actually strengthens our national security?
        Secretary Wright. It is critical that the United States
    lead in the technologies that matter, but----
        Ms. Castor. But you are taking the resources away from
    these kind of innovative companies. They have come to you, they
    have come to the Department of Energy. They are bringing their
    own capital. They are not doing it on their own. And you are
    taking these tools away from them, kind of like pulling the rug
    out from under them, and ceding this to China. Why do you think
    that is a good idea?
        Secretary Wright. If American taxpayers invest a dollar,
    and the potential return on that dollar is a penny or maybe a
    dime, that is not a good expenditure of American dollars, and
    it is certainly not the pathway to win in a competitive
    marketplace.
        Ms. Castor. Now, you said you are all for energy dominance,
    but it--you are doing the opposite. You are taking a hatchet to
    what makes America strong and what makes America great, and
    that is innovation and doing it in partnership with our private
    businesses. I think it is a recipe, again, for higher electric
    bills for our families and businesses back home, and it is a
    recipe for ceding ground to China that we are not going to put
    up with.
        I will yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the
    full committee, for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        So, Mr. Secretary, we talked AI and we talked throughout
    this committee. My understanding is--we talked about
    decarbonization of China--the one concern on AI and defeating
    China at AI is the big, vast delta of China's expanding energy
    sector and our flat growth in energy. And my--what is, kind of,
    the components of China's growth in energy? My understanding is
    they have strong use of coal.
        Secretary Wright. Yes, by far the biggest source of
    electricity in China is coal. Coal is----
        Mr. Guthrie. So would China be the world leader in
    decarbonization?
        Secretary Wright. No, China is definitely not the world
    leader in decarbonization. In fact, thank you for going back to
    that point.
        There is one leader in decarbonization that by far leads
    the world, and that is the United States of America. We have
    reduced global greenhouse--we have reduced greenhouse gas
    emissions more than the next five countries after us combined.
    But--and these reductions----
        Mr. Guthrie. Well, at the same time using coal as our
    energy generation as well. You can do coal in a clean way. My
    guess is China is probably not the leader in clean coal that we
    are.
        Secretary Wright. Correct. And our decarbonization was
    driven by market forces, not by government programs or
    incentives. They have had actually a relatively small role. The
    much bigger impact of government subsidies and involvement in
    our energy sector is to drive our energy prices up. And when
    you drive our energy prices up, you don't make things in the
    United States. They get offshored, and mostly to China.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thanks. And so you wouldn't hold China up as
    an example of decarbonizing the world?
        Secretary Wright. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Guthrie. And if we dismiss what they are doing, such as
    we--so we need 152 gigawatts of power over the next decade,
    estimated. We have 112 gigawatts, including coal and clean
    coal, scheduled to come offline. What is your concern there?
    Not only do we have to make up the 152 we need, we have to
    create 112 that we are losing as well.
        Secretary Wright. Oh, it is a huge concern. Look, as I
    said, almost no growth in our electricity production over the
    last 4 years. You quoted some high numbers there, over 100
    gigawatts of needed new power to lead the reindustrialization
    of our country and lead in AI. And at the same time, we are
    going to retire well-working, reliable, secure energy sources.
        If you got to build up a mountain, the first thing to do is
    stop digging the hole.
        Mr. Guthrie. Exactly. So if you look at that during the One
    Big Beautiful Bill, we have a provision in there--because the
    concerns you hear from people investing in energy, you know,
    some energy is a 20-, 30-year return on investment. And when
    there is--every 2 to 4 years, the policy seems to be changing
    out of Washington. They are concerned.
        And to address that, one, I would love to see if we could
    all work together to have a bipartisan energy bill to show that
    we can work together. And, hopefully, that is still possible
    for us to do. We are going to make that effort. I can guarantee
    both sides of the aisle, we are going to work on that.
        But you also came up with a provision that we put in the
    bill to help as well. And it is not really insurance companies
    can pay into, but can you describe that program a little bit
    for us?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, look, energy infrastructure takes
    time to build. Maybe the most famous example in the United
    States was the Keystone XL pipeline to bring Canadian oil down
    to American refineries so we can turn them into high-value
    products and sell them to Americans or export them overseas.
    Billions of dollars were spent on this pipeline, and then an
    administration came in and just stopped it.
        Who is going to build long-term infrastructure if the next
    administration may just flush your investment? The Governor of
    New York did the same thing on pipelines that could lower the
    cost of energy in New York State and New England. Hundreds of
    millions of dollars were spent for these obviously beneficial
    pipelines, and then the--Governor Cuomo in New York just
    stopped them.
        So the idea is we need to build confidence for people to
    make long-term investments again. And if the Government comes
    and changes their mind, they at least give you the money back
    that you invested to try to help the American economy.
        Mr. Guthrie. That is only if the Government decision is
    what drives the loss of the investment, right?
        Secretary Wright. That is correct. Look, as a long-time
    entrepreneur, we make investments all the time. Sometimes they
    turn out great and sometimes they don't. That is the nature of
    business. But if your investment only fails because the
    Government changed the policy, well, the Government should have
    a cost for changing that policy.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. I only have a few seconds left, but my
    understanding is that over the past 5 years DOE has expanded by
    35,000 people, employees and contractors. Are you--I am sure
    you are looking at that and kind of--what is your explanation
    of that, and what you are doing with that?
        Secretary Wright. Yes. Look, it is another just example of
    growing headcount, spending more money, and hiring more people
    does not necessarily lead to positive results. And in fact,
    historically, at the DOE it has led to the opposite. We hired a
    lot of people whose main job was to try to stand in the way of
    energy development. That is not a productive use of people or
    capital.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. My time has expired. I appreciate
    you being here, and I will yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired, and
    he yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New
    Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes
    for questions.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is not my question, but I just have to say it is
    ironic you are talking about, you know, what the previous
    administration did in terms of discouraging investment--which I
    don't agree, but, I mean, the irony right now is that you and
    the Trump administration are doing everything you can to
    prevent any kind of moving forward on clean energy. And so why
    would anybody--you know, you are killing all the clean energy
    initiatives around the country.
        And so, you know, what is happening now, which is very sad,
    is that--what we really should be for is all-of-the-above in
    terms of energy. And my Republican colleagues claim that. But
    that is not what you and they do. You kill clean energy and you
    encourage fossil fuels. And this going back and forth, back and
    forth is certainly not good for the future in terms of
    America's dominance or energy independence.
        But that is not what I wanted to ask, Mr. Secretary. I
    wanted to talk about the fact that the Trump administration has
    been laser focused on raising energy costs for Americans,
    despite what the President campaigned on. And the example came
    in the last month when your Department ordered two power plants
    burning coal, natural gas, and fuel oil to stay online mere
    days before they were scheduled to shut down for good. And just
    one problem: No one asked for these plants to stay open--not
    their grid operators, not their utilities, and not their State
    regulators.
        So my question is--and you could just answer quickly--who
    made the decision to issue those orders under section 202(c) of
    the Federal Power Act? Was it you?
        Secretary Wright. I made those decisions.
        Mr. Pallone. That is fine. I want to move to the next
    question. It is not fine, but, I mean, I--that is what I wanted
    to hear.
        Now, your Department ordered the utilities running those
    plants to get permission from FERC to charge customers to keep
    those plants online. According to the chair of Michigan's
    utility commission, those extra costs could costs homeowners
    and businesses tens of millions of dollars.
        And just in case anyone doubts these facts, I would like to
    insert two articles on these orders into the record, Mr.
    Chairman. One is from The New York Times and one is from The
    Washington Post that, you know, back up what I just said.
        So let me----
        Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, your background is in the oil and gas
    sector, not the electric sector. So why do you think that you
    knew better than the grid operators, the utilities, and the
    State regulators, you know, to actually try to revive these,
    even though no one seemed to care?
        Why are you increasing electricity prices for millions of
    people? Because you know better about what you think we should
    do with these plants?
        Secretary Wright. So keeping the coal plant open in
    Michigan, in southwestern Michigan--2 days after we issued the
    order to stop that plant from closing, there was a blackout in
    MISO. MISO is the tightest reserve margin place we have in the
    country. You need to be able to keep the lights on.
        Mr. Pallone. OK.
        Secretary Wright. Two days later, the lights went out. It
    is hard to overestimate the extent----
        Mr. Pallone. Well, that was a different part of the State.
    But in any case----
        Secretary Wright. Same grid.
        Mr. Pallone [continuing]. It is going to increase monthly
    energy bills for millions of Americans. That is my point.
        And I want to ask one more question, because, you know, we
    don't have a lot of time. I want to turn to a statement you
    made about the Department's Loan Programs Office at a recent
    Senate hearing. You said, and I quote, ``We do need to make
    sure we have funding available in the Loan Programs Office
    because, used judiciously, it is a way to leverage private
    capital to make things happen fast.''
        Now, the Republican Governors of South Carolina and Indiana
    have made it clear that achieving the administration's desired
    nuclear build-out will be impossible without the Loan Programs
    Office, and I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into
    the record a letter from the South Carolina Governor in which
    he states that, without the existing Federal tax credits and
    loan programs for nuclear power that make--making financing new
    nuclear power generation possible, that effort would be dead
    without the loan program.
        So let me just ask you, do you think that----
        Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Do you think that it is possible, if Federal funding for
    the Loan Programs Office is clawed back, that they are going to
    be able to accomplish this goal? That is not what the Governor
    says.
        Secretary Wright. There is a funding request in the
    proposed budget for the DOE to continue the Loan Programs
    Office. And yes, I do think it is a helpful tool to launch
    nuclear energy, which is why we are requesting money to do just
    that.
        Mr. Pallone. Right. But in the House Republican
    reconciliation bill, they get rid of it. So that is
    inconsistent, obviously, correct?
        Secretary Wright. I am not sure all of the funding is gone
    in the House reconciliation bill, but it----
        Mr. Pallone. But it says all unobligated funding. I mean,
    clearly it is going to cripple the program.
        I mean, all I am asking you to say is you would like to see
    the program continue, despite whatever the Republicans are
    doing here. Is that accurate?
        Secretary Wright. That is accurate.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you so much.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Latta. Does the gentleman yield back?
        Mr. Pallone. Yes.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
    time. The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the
    subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And Mr. Secretary, we thank you for being here. And before
    I get to the questions I want to note for the record that the
    Keystone pipeline would have come into my district over there
    on the Gulf Coast of Texas, 830,000 barrels of product a day.
    And I was unaware that there was billions of dollars poured
    into, I guess, engineering and developing that process before
    President Obama killed it. I actually got to meet him when I
    came into Congress, and he said he was considering the Keystone
    Pipeline. Then, of course, he killed it.
        From my colleagues across the aisle, 830,000 barrels a day,
    if you took an 18-wheeler that holds about 7,000 gallons or
    9,000 gallons--if it is a small, medium, or large one--it would
    take--you divide that into barrels of product a day, it is
    about 120 barrels per 18-wheeler. It would take 5,318 wheelers
    on the highway every day to move that amount of oil. And I
    thought our friends across the aisle were against emissions,
    those kinds of emissions, but I defer, so I will--let me go to
    my questions, Mr. Wright.
        U.S. LNG exports, which--I have three LNG plants in my
    district--are a critical part of President Trump's energy
    dominance agenda, with my district serving as a major hub with
    Freeport LNG, Golden Pass LNG, Port Arthur LNG, and Cheniere
    Sabine's LNG, which is actually across Louisiana's border, that
    other foreign nation about 6 miles from us that--we help them
    get their product out into the Gulf.
        Since 2016, the U.S. has become the world's largest LNG
    exporter, generating over 400 billion--with a B--dollars in
    economic growth, and has supported an average of 273,000 direct
    and indirect U.S. jobs. However, I was concerned about the USTR
    301 action, which threatened to suspend LNG export licenses for
    current as well as future facilities if certain vessel
    requirements were not met. So I am so grateful that the penalty
    was recently proposed to be removed.
        So the question is, Does the DOE have the sole authority
    over LNG export licenses, and what steps are we taking to
    further support and grow U.S. LNG exports, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, the DOE is the entity with authority
    to grant or not grant LNG export licenses. We take it very
    seriously. We have a lot of projects in the queue. We evaluated
    them thoroughly and expeditiously, and it is the fastest-
    growing United States export. And in fact, natural gas is by
    far the fastest-growing source of energy in the United States
    and around the planet.
        So it is huge economic opportunity for the United States,
    and I am excited to see the huge capital--private capital
    flowing in to grow the capacity.
        Mr. Weber. Sure. Well, I appreciate that. And of course, as
    you know, Texas is the number-one wind energy State as well as
    solar panel State in the country. Twenty percent of our power
    comes from wind, and 5 percent comes from solar. It is funny to
    hear my friends across the aisle talk about how we are trying
    to kill green energy. No, we are not. We are just recognizing
    that we need a stable, reliable, dependable, affordable energy
    base to be able to do these things.
        Let me move on. And, you know, maybe--I wonder if you would
    be willing to testify at the Science, Space, and Technology
    Committee if we could get you in there some time. I am the
    committee chair--subcommittee chair for energy there, too, but
    we will catch up on that a little later.
        Under President Biden, Mr. Secretary, the petroleum
    reserve, Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as we discussed, 60
    percent of it in my district--60 percent of it--has been
    unbelievably drawn down. It has reached its lowest level since
    1983. When Biden took office, the SPR contained 638 million
    barrels of oil. Today it is 375 million barrels, roughly half.
        In his 2025 inaugural address, President Trump made a
    commitment to refill the SPR. In this committee's
    reconciliation title we authorized $2 billion to big crude
    purchases, conduct--to buy--to conduct repairs and buy back 7
    million barrels from mandated sales. So do you think the
    Department's plan to refill the SPR will work with what we have
    done in the reconciliation package?
        Secretary Wright. It is a start, absolutely.
        Mr. Weber. OK.
        Secretary Wright. I mean, the immediate thing we need to do
    is finish the repairs on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It
    was drawn down so quickly, that causes some damage to the
    infrastructure itself. So those repairs are ongoing, and they
    are a nontrivial amount of money to repair the SPR.
        Then we also have to spend some money to offset planned
    additional sales of oil that were also entered into to reverse
    those so we don't shrink the deposits, and then additional
    funds will be used to fill it.
        Mr. Weber. OK.
        Secretary Wright. But yes, I thank you for that funding,
    and--
        Mr. Weber. Very quickly, before I yield back, Mr. Chairman,
    if I can--so you actually have a plan to build up our energy
    and at affordable prices, not make energy higher. Thank you,
    Mr. Secretary.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired, and the Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from California's 50th district
    for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary Wright, for coming. I appreciate it,
    seeing you today. I want to ask some questions about
    transmission and the grid.
        In your first secretarial order, you committed to use all
    lawful authorities to strengthen the grid, including the
    backbone, our transmission system. Since 2005, FERC has had the
    authority to act as the sole permitting agency for large,
    multistate transmission lines that your Department deems to be
    in the national interest. But the Federal Government has not
    once used this authority, due to litigation and endless
    bureaucracy regarding DOE's role in the process. That is Bush,
    Obama, Trump, Biden. It never used the authority.
        The backstop permitting authority for transmission is also
    a fraction of the authority that FERC has long had over natural
    gas pipelines and LNG, which always get their one-stop
    permitting shop at FERC.
        So my question is, Would you support bipartisan efforts in
    Congress to streamline this permit authority for large
    transmission lines, including would you be supportive of
    establishing permitting parity at FERC between natural gas and
    transmission?
        Secretary Wright. Absolutely. The United States needs to
    build more energy infrastructure of all kinds, and certainly
    including transmission lines.
        Mr. Peters. OK. And I agree with my colleagues that we
    are--we have a--we are walking into a reliability and
    affordability crisis. And I think, to the extent that is
    because right now our grid is planned in a way that is
    segmented, costly, and inefficient, the various regions across
    the country have no incentive to work together or ensure that
    we are meeting load growth in the most efficient and cost-
    effective way.
        Last year, the North American Electric Reliability
    Corporation, NERC, released a study showing that an additional
    35 gigawatts of interregional transmission capacity, which are
    grid connections between--among regions, would make the grid
    more resilient against extreme weather, would lower costs, and
    enable us to meet load growth. The study also says that
    building interregional transmission maximizes the use of energy
    resources, including peaker plants like natural gas, by
    enabling regions to send power where it is abundant to where it
    is most needed. Do you agree with the results of that study?
        And what can you do with the Department to help build more
    regional, interregional transmission infrastructure and use DOE
    authorities to build more regional transmission?
        Secretary Wright. Look, there is--so I can't speak to the
    specifics in that study. I do read a lot about the studies, but
    I can't comment on that one. But yes, are we better off with
    more----
        Mr. Peters. Sometimes--the Seam Study. You might have heard
    of it that way.
        Secretary Wright. Yes. Look, there is no doubt that our
    country and our grid would benefit from more transmission. And
    it is a subject at--of active study and discussion at the DOE.
        The problem, as you know, the historical record of building
    transmission is just deathly long, incredibly hard. NEPA and
    environmental protests have made it more than a decade to build
    anything. Very frustrating. We are working on that. We would
    love to get that faster. And in the meantime, we are also
    working on things to take existing right-of-ways and either
    have dynamic rating on lines--they have a certain maximum power
    they can put through, but it depends on temperature and wind
    speed.
        Mr. Peters. I don't disagree with any of that. I think--
    actually I am working on NEPA right now myself, because I agree
    with you.
        But the issue I am raising is the lack of incentive among
    regions to cooperate with each other to build transmission that
    I think undisputedly would make our system more reliable and
    offer lower cost for consumers. And what I would love to get is
    the opportunity to work with you, get your commitment that that
    is something you want to do, and that you would work with us on
    a bipartisan approach to getting that done.
        Secretary Wright. I would love to work with you, we would
    love to. And you are right, not just in the interregional
    transmission, but there is a lot of just the wrong incentives
    in our electricity grid because of the regulatory environment.
    So I look forward to working with you in a bipartisan basis to
    figure out how to make electricity easier to move and cheaper
    to buy.
        Mr. Peters. All right. And also, I think we have some
    different understanding of the facts of the production of
    energy. I just wanted to say the U.S. produced record oil and
    gas in 2023, more than we have ever produced before. We always
    thought it was an irony that we produced more oil and gas under
    Biden and more renewables than under Trump--and more renewables
    under Trump than we produced under Biden. And in fact,
    electricity production is up about 5 percent over the last 5
    years. We know we got to do more electricity production.
        And the one thing I would just say, you mentioned a concern
    about investors losing their investment in energy because of a
    change in Government policy, and maybe the Government should
    reimburse them. We are about to do just that. There's 2,600
    gigawatts of energy lined up to get connected. About 90 percent
    of that is nonemitting, what we call clean energy. And they
    depend on these--the--many of the tax incentives that have been
    laid out in existing law. And I think the administration's
    proposing not to phase those out, but just to cut them off, and
    a lot of that energy won't be realized because of that. I
    assume you are not suggesting we pay those people for changing
    the law like you just said?
        Secretary Wright. No, look, the subsidies for wind----
        Mr. Latta. If you could answer the gentleman's--
        Mr. Peters. I am----
        Mr. Latta. He is out of time. If you can do it in about 10
    seconds, that would be great.
        Secretary Wright. Yes. Those subsidies are decades old. We
    absolutely should get rid of them as soon as possible.
        Mr. Peters. We are changing the law and hurting investors
    like you said you were concerned about----
        Secretary Wright. Removing subsidies is not preventing
    construction.
        Mr. Peters. It is current law.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired, and the Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia's 12th district for 5
    minutes for questions.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chair Latta, for holding this
    important hearing.
        Thank you, Energy Secretary Wright, for being here to
    testify before the subcommittee and taking on this enormous
    challenge that we have before us at such a time as this.
        During the last administration, our energy prices
    skyrocketed. And in fact, if you were born after 1982, you had
    never experienced inflation greater than 2 percent in this
    country, so it was a great awakening. And a lot of that was
    costly regulations that made energy costs higher for our
    constituents.
        I am glad to have an administration in the White House that
    is focused on unleashing our domestic energy production and
    focusing on being energy dominant. Free-market competition is
    the only way to reduce inflation and to reduce costs.
        I am proud to highlight that my district is home to Plant
    Vogtle, the Nation's largest and most advanced clean-energy
    nuclear facility with units 3 and 4 now fully operational.
    Nuclear energy is critical for our Nation's energy security,
    and as the Trump administration has issued Executive orders
    promoting nuclear energy, I look forward to working with you in
    deploying our nuclear energy capabilities.
        President Trump's Unleashing American Energy Executive
    order directed the Department of Energy to safeguard the
    American people's freedom to choose from a variety of goods and
    appliances in lieu of these mandates from the previous
    administration. Congress aided by repealing several Biden final
    rules that would have restricted consumer choice.
        Under your purview, how has the Office of Energy Efficiency
    and Renewable Energy refocused on core missions?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, we are refocused on core missions.
    And in fact, I was down in your great State not long ago,
    celebrating the fact that a tankless natural gas hot water
    heater manufacturing company----
        Mr. Allen. Yes.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. Was not shut down.
        Mr. Allen. Right.
        Secretary Wright. It would have been shut down with--the
    Biden rule had gone into place. That is exactly--providing the
    most popular, low-cost, efficient way to heat water but was
    deemed not worthy by the Government, removing a choice and
    raising up the price at which people would buy hot water
    heaters.
        So I am about choice and opportunity.
        Mr. Allen. Well, thank you. Thank you for advocating for us
    there.
        Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, DOE is
    required to review energy-efficient standards of covered
    products no later than 6 years after the issuance of a final
    rule. Has this led to the weaponization of EPCA, with the
    previous administration using it as a tool in its antifossil
    energy agenda?
        As this administration evaluates energy efficiency
    standards in the future, how will DOE prioritize consumers'
    affordability in the letter of the law?
        Secretary Wright. Yes. So number one, the constraint is to
    follow the letter of the law, you know, and EPCA is a law--I
    might say unfortunately, but it is the law. So we have to work
    around that constraint.
        But yes, it has been weaponized to bring in all sorts of
    different devices or things people might use, and decide that
    Big Brother, the Government, should decide how they heat
    themselves on their outdoor patio or their hot tub or every
    other part of their life. I think this is just the perfect
    example of government run amok and getting involved in choices
    that are going to be made differently by different people.
        Mr. Allen. Yes, and I think we heard that loud and clear.
    The American people want choice.
        OPEC+, mostly steered by Saudi Arabia, recently agreed to
    the third monthly hike in a row, driving oil prices lower as
    the cartels aim to reclaim their share of global markets. I am
    concerned that OPEC+ is not just managing supply from member
    countries, but that there is a strategic and geopolitical
    intent that is detrimental to U.S. producers.
        We have got about 40 seconds. You and subsequently
    President Trump recently visited the Middle East. It is great
    to see the Secretary of Energy promoting U.S. energy on the
    global stage again. Can you tell us more about the
    conversations that took place related to global oil markets?
    And I need to do that in about 20 seconds.
        Secretary Wright. Yes. Hey, look, two main topics were
    discussed. The huge amount of capital they developed, their
    goal is to invest as much of that as possible in the United
    States, into our energy infrastructure and other industries in
    our country. And we welcome that investment.
        And we discussed decadal-long outlook for demand for
    energy, just trying to base in reality what investments are
    needed today to supply energy demands a decade, two decades,
    four decades from now. There was almost zero dialog on today's
    oil prices or supply and demand in the short run.
        Mr. Allen. Good. Thank you, sir, for your service to our
    country.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The----
        Secretary Wright. Thank you, thank you.
        Mr. Latta [continuing]. Gentleman's time has expired, and
    the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey's 8th
    district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman.
        Secretary Wright, this administration has made clear it
    wants to make America energy dominant. Is that correct?
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Mr. Menendez. And would you agree that the best way to
    achieve energy dominance is by an all-of-the-above approach to
    energy production? Just yes or no.
        Secretary Wright. I have never supported all-of-the-above,
    because if something is going to make energy more expensive and
    less reliable, I am not for that.
        Mr. Menendez. Well, OK, actually, let's walk through that.
    So more expensive, less reliable. Is that correct? That is why
    you are not a proponent of all-of-the-above strategy which
    would include renewable energy.
        Secretary Wright. All energy sources that will provide
    secure, affordable, reliable energy over the long term I am in
    favor of. I have worked in solar, in geothermal, in nuclear,
    across the energy spectrum. I haven't worked in wind or coal,
    but almost every other energy source I have worked in.
        Mr. Menendez. All right, we will keep moving. Would you
    agree that energy affordability is an issue important to so
    many Americans, including when it comes to their energy bills?
    Just yes or no.
        Secretary Wright. Oh, yes.
        Mr. Menendez. Yes, I agree. And would you agree that
    increased production of all types of energy, including
    renewables, helps bring down costs for consumers?
        Secretary Wright. Absolutely not. That is not at all how
    the marketplace has worked.
        Mr. Menendez. OK, let's keep going. ``Absolutely not.'' I
    am going to make a note of that.
        So do you know which States have been most successful in
    driving down energy prices for consumers?
        Secretary Wright. It depends on the baseline where you
    begin. I will tell you Florida over 15 years has had very
    little rise in their electricity price, and California has more
    than doubled them. And you can see the dramatically different
    policy in those two States.
        Mr. Menendez. So let's go with Texas. Earlier this year,
    the Energy Information Administration predicted that Texas was
    one of the few places in the country where energy prices were
    expected to decrease. Were you aware of that?
        Secretary Wright. I am aware of electricity price trends in
    Texas, yes.
        Mr. Menendez. And do you know where Texas ranks in terms of
    deployment of renewable energy sources?
        Secretary Wright. It would be the largest, because you can
    build things in Texas. It is predominantly natural-gas-powered
    grid, but they have a huge amount of wind power and solar power
    as well.
        Mr. Menendez. That is exactly right. Texas leads the Nation
    in wind production, is the second-largest producer of solar
    power after California. In 2023, renewable sources provided
    almost 30 percent of Texas's total electricity generation. Over
    the past 10 years, Texas has seen electricity prices decline as
    solar and wind have grown rapidly.
        Would you say that this decline in energy prices is good
    for Texans? Yes or no.
        Secretary Wright. Declining electricity prices is a good
    thing. The 200-plus people who died in the blackout in 2021 was
    a very bad thing.
        Mr. Menendez. I agree with that. Would you agree that
    consumers in Texas are benefiting from lower energy prices that
    result from increased renewable energy production?
        Secretary Wright. I don't think that is a meaningful driver
    of reduced energy prices in Texas.
        Mr. Menendez. Why is that?
        Secretary Wright. Because they--when--the more----
        Mr. Menendez. Lower energy production leads to lower
    prices, isn't that generally the idea of supply and demand?
        Secretary Wright. Only if you can store something. You have
    to match supply and demand at every instant on the electricity
    grid. You can't just put extra energy in a pot. Peak----
        Mr. Menendez. It seems like Texas has been successful at
    that because production has gone up with renewable energy. It
    accounts for about 30 percent of their energy production, and
    consumers are seeing lower prices.
        Secretary Wright. Natural gas is the biggest source of
    electricity in Texas. Natural gas prices have gone down. It is
    also the----
        Mr. Menendez. Well, going back to the all-of-the-above,
    Texas has both legacy energy production and also clean
    renewable energy. And what you are seeing is lower prices. Is
    that not accurate?
        Secretary Wright. Look----
        Mr. Menendez. It just seems like that is just a truth that
    you don't seem to want to admit to.
        Secretary Wright. It is--lower prices are good.
        Mr. Menendez. Yes.
        Secretary Wright. Lower prices are good. And renewables at
    any penetration level are not necessarily ruinous. I am just
    saying the drive-down in Texas electricity prices has not been
    primarily driven by wind and solar.
        Mr. Menendez. Primarily, but would you say it is a
    contributing factor?
        You are going to say zero, it is not a contributing factor
    at all. That is your testimony today. It has zero impact on the
    price for consumers.
        Secretary Wright. That is not my testimony. My testimony is
    it is more complicated than you are putting it out there as.
        Mr. Menendez. And I think it is simpler than you are making
    it seem.
        So let me ask you this. Despite Texas's success in
    embracing renewables and the real results of bringing energy
    prices down for consumers, are you still opposed to an all-of-
    the-above energy approach that includes renewables? Just a
    simple yes or no.
        Secretary Wright. I am not opposed to renewable energy at
    all. I don't use the term ``renewable,'' because they are not
    renewable. But I am not opposed to alternative----
        Mr. Menendez. Clean energy.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. Energy sources.
        Mr. Menendez. Yes.
        Secretary Wright. I have worked in them, I have invested in
    them, so I am not opposed to them.
        Mr. Menendez. But it is----
        Secretary Wright. But we need to do them to lower prices
    and keep grids stable, not as ways for wealthy people to gather
    dollars from the Government.
        Mr. Menendez. Well, I--that is a lot to unpack in the 5
    seconds that I have, so I will leave it there. But I think your
    administration is doing a disservice to the people that want to
    see a growth in renewable, clean, alternative energy. And we
    should continue to invest in it because we have seen success in
    places like Texas. Thank you for being here.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's
    12th district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary Wright, for being here today.
        I will start off with U.S. LNG exports have been a game
    changer for natural gas producers in Ohio, the State where I
    represent, as well as our allies around the world. Opponents of
    LNG exports often push the narrative that exports raise
    domestic natural gas prices. However, the vast majority of
    studies, as well as Henry Hub data, show the opposite: Boosting
    exports increases domestic production, which lowers the price
    for American consumers.
        In fact, while LNG exports rose by roughly 14 BCF per day
    between 2016 and 2023, dry gas production jumped by 31 BCF per
    day. And despite total U.S. natural gas consumption almost
    doubling from 2010 to 2023, the 2023 average natural gas price
    of $2.54 was the second-lowest level in over 35 years, only
    exceeding 2020 pandemic levels.
        Mr. Secretary, can you talk about the potential of U.S. LNG
    exports, not only for our allies but how boosting LNG can keep
    natural gas prices low for the consumers here at home?
        Secretary Wright. Thank you, Representative, and I agree
    very much with your premise. Seventeen years ago, the United
    States was the largest importer of natural gas in the world,
    and we had over 1,000 rigs drilling specifically to produce
    natural gas. Today that over 1,000 rigs is only 100 rigs
    drilling in the United States for natural gas.
        And as you pointed out, we have become the largest net
    exporter of natural gas in the world. This is technology, this
    is efficiency, and this is infrastructure that gets built to
    move natural gas at scale. All of those ultimately lower the
    cost to produce natural gas, they lower the cost to American
    consumers of what is today the biggest energy source in the
    United States.
        Seventy percent of total energy--not just electricity, but
    total energy consumed in the United States--comes from two
    things: natural gas and oil. And so you are right, this growth
    in natural gas has not only been great for American consumers
    and businesses, but it is our fastest-growing export. Within a
    decade, I think, it will be the largest export from the United
    States of America.
        The natural gas story has been a great story. It has faced
    a lot of headwinds and a lot of political pushback and battles
    in the--on the way there, but it has been a great story of
    lowering costs for American consumers and giving greater
    security to our allies abroad and growing the geopolitical
    influence of the United States.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
        Secretary Wright. And Ohio has been a leader in that, I
    should say, as well.
        Mr. Balderson. Amen. Thank you, Secretary, I appreciate you
    putting Ohio out there.
        One of the greatest threats to affordability is not exports
    but the lack of pipeline infrastructure, especially in the
    Northeast. As you know, expanding our pipeline capacity is a
    top priority for natural gas producers in Ohio and the Utica
    and Marcellus Shale.
        How is your Department working with FERC to prioritize
    natural gas pipeline development?
        Secretary Wright. Oh, active dialogs not just with FERC but
    across the Government. And I think you pointed out a classic
    example. Why does the 6 States of New England all have
    expensive electricity and relatively expensive home heating?
    Just a lack of a pipeline. Tremendous gas resources in
    Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio that have changed the
    game for people living in those regions.
        But New York State has historically stood in the way of
    building a new pipeline or expanding pipeline access through
    its State. I think we are going to change that. I hope we are
    going to see 2 pipelines under construction in the next 12
    months, which would really lower electricity costs, home
    heating costs, and opportunities for businesses to expand in
    New York State and New England.
        So building and, of course, not just in New England. The
    United States needs a fair amount of new pipeline
    infrastructure. There are private developers and private
    capital that will fund it. To your point, we just need to have
    a more sane and reasonable regulatory environment to get
    certainty in a reasonable timeframe to build these pipelines,
    but I support 100 percent your point.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you. With just 45 seconds left--so be
    watchful of the time. Given your role as Secretary of Energy
    and vice chair of the National Energy Dominance Council, I
    wanted to get your thoughts on an issue that presents a major
    threat to grid reliability: the broken interconnection queue
    process. You have 30 seconds.
        Secretary Wright. Yes. I think, as we heard earlier, 95
    percent of the projects in the queue to get connected at FERC
    are wind, solar, or batteries. The vast majority of them have
    no chance of being built, but you can just throw your name in
    the queue, and you can clog up the queue with a million
    studies. And it has led to inefficiencies.
        So we need to look at that process and make--and prioritize
    projects that are impactful, and make it move faster and more
    efficiently.
        Mr. Balderson. And we have a bill that we would like you to
    look at sometime.
        Secretary Wright. Great.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the
    Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Virginia's 4th
    district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Chairman Latta.
        Secretary Wright, as you may know, Virginia is the data
    center capital of the globe. But we are also the clean energy
    capital of the south, and I am particularly concerned about the
    Trump administration's impact on growing solar and wind
    projects in Virginia and how in the world we are going to meet
    our energy demands with the administration kneecapping solar.
        And your testimony to the contrary, experts agree that
    solar is the fastest, cheapest, and cleanest source of energy
    now. And even Appalachian Power has acknowledged that coal is
    becoming more expensive, has contributed to rising electric
    costs for their customers, and their parent company has said
    that coal is not the most cost-effective choice for new
    investments, and they relied heavily on coal for a very long
    time.
        But I don't think we are going to agree today on the
    benefits of wind and solar versus fossil fuels, so I want to
    focus on what I have heard consistently from my constituents
    concerned about workforce cuts, grant funding freezes, and lack
    of communications from the Department.
        Seventy-five Clean City coalitions work under annual
    cooperative agreements with the Department of Energy to promote
    clean and affordable transportation fuel options. This is a
    program that has strong bipartisan support, but the coalitions
    are still waiting for notification of their contracts or signed
    financial agreements for the project period that started on
    April 1 of this year. Some of the coalitions have heard that
    the agreements are still under review, and the Virginia Clean
    Cities Coalition has reached out to my office with concerns
    that their work will go unpaid and that there will be
    disruptions in their programmings.
        My staff asked the Department of Energy for an update. We
    still haven't heard back. So Secretary Wright, has anybody at
    the Department been instructed to withhold information about
    the status of grants and contracts, or to provide only vague,
    general, ``We have received your request''?
        Secretary Wright. No one has been told to withhold
    information. We are not withholding. We have no unpaid invoices
    or behind on that stuff. We are administering all the existing
    projects, and we are carefully evaluating the projects that are
    committed, which run into the thousands.
        Ms. McClellan. OK. Well, they still have not gotten any
    response on their contracts, and I haven't gotten responses to
    my inquiry, so can you----
        Secretary Wright. We will have to look into that.
        Ms. McClellan. Can you give me a--I would like a specific
    date when the Department will notify the Clean Cities Coalition
    about their contract status. We have been waiting for 2 months,
    and I don't think it is acceptable for community partners or
    Members of Congress to go 2 months without an answer to their
    questions.
        In addition, the Department recently canceled dozens of
    grants issued by the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations for
    carbon capture and decarbonization processes. And your fiscal
    year 2026 budget eliminates this office entirely. Were the
    Department's subject matter experts involved in reviewing and
    deciding to cancel grants?
        Secretary Wright. I am sorry. Can you repeat just the last
    part of the question?
        Ms. McClellan. So the grants issued by the Office of Clean
    Energy Demonstrations that have been canceled--was the
    Department of Energy experts involved in that, or was that
    DOGE?
        Secretary Wright. Oh, that is entirely the Department of
    Energy. We have five DOGE employees at the Department, a very
    small part of the staff, not----
        Ms. McClellan. OK.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. Not involved in any project
    evaluations.
        Ms. McClellan. OK, thank you. Did you personally review any
    of the grant cancellations?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, I do.
        Ms. McClellan. OK. Can you confirm that each awardee was
    given a chance to address any of the concerns raised by the
    Department of Energy before their grant was canceled?
        Secretary Wright. Most of the evaluations we are doing we
    have sent out large data requests that come back. Some of them
    that were more--that were--looked very unlikely to get over the
    hump were notified of decisions, but they have an ability to
    engage back with us, an informal dialog with us. And then there
    is a--two additional appeal processes after that.
        So if we have made mistakes or the projects really are
    beneficial, that will be sorted out.
        Ms. McClellan. Well, I hope--I am glad to hear that. And
    again, I have found it very--I have only been here--this is my
    third year in Congress, but I have been very concerned by the
    lack of responsiveness that I have heard from the
    administration, particularly from the Department of Energy, as
    we try to get answers for constituents that have had either
    grants cut, who have had notifications that they should have
    gotten months ago go delayed.
        And as part of my job as oversight--and I recognize I am in
    the minority party, but I am a Member of Congress, too, who has
    oversight over your agency. And I certainly would hope that
    when Democratic Members of Congress ask questions to the agency
    and our legislative liaisons that we get answers. And when we
    don't, every time I see you I am going to ask you those
    questions directly. So thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Well, the gentlelady's time has expired, and the
    Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee's 1st
    district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Secretary, for being here today. You know,
    Tennessee is well known for providing nuclear services, and
    that is the line of questioning I am going to go down today.
        We know nuclear fuel is essential to the success of
    America's nuclear renaissance and our energy security, and this
    committee led on the Russian uranium ban legislation enacted
    last year, and the legislation provides certainty to the market
    and is a prerequisite for new investment in the U.S. nuclear
    fuel supply chain.
        My question is, Is the DOE committed to continuing to
    implement the ban legislation going forward, including a
    rigorous process to grant waivers to the ban?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, we are, and you are--I think the
    motivation behind the ban I agree with 100 percent, and we are
    working diligently to make America able to agree--to comply
    with that ban.
        But as you know well, today in the commercial power sector
    there is no American-owned enrichment based in the United
    States of America. It is really a sad state we have fallen
    into. We are working hard both through grants and just with
    dialogs with providers in this country. We really want to build
    up as fast as we can commercial enrichment in the United
    States, because, of course we should not be dependent upon
    Russia to fuel our nuclear reactors.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Right.
        Secretary Wright. And I am confident we will get there. I
    wish we were going to get there faster than we are, but we will
    get there, and your actions in legislation and on that bill are
    obviously helping prod it even faster. And I thank you for
    that.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, we are going to talk about some
    ways to do that here in just seconds. So given concerns
    regarding potential circumvention of the uranium ban via China,
    is the administration committed to implementing the
    anticircumvention provisions in the legislation?
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. OK.
        Secretary Wright. Yes, we are.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. Will you work with the committee to
    ensure the ban is implemented effectively?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, we will.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Fantastic.
        President Trump recently released four Executive orders to
    accelerate nuclear fuel in this country, and I am in full
    support of those efforts. And I appreciate the forward-thinking
    and push to advance the High-Assay, Low-Enriched uranium, the
    HALEU, fuel supply chain by establishing U.S. enrichment for
    the next generation of reactors. And I encourage you to keep
    the pressure on.
        However, we know it is going to take a few years to get the
    capacity up and running to meet the demand. And the Executive
    orders direct DOE to look at adding 20 metric tons of HALEU
    through downblending. And my district is home to BWXT's Nuclear
    Fuel Services. And in addition to manufacturing all of the
    Navy's nuclear fuel, they also currently operate NNSA's
    downblending for the tritium program.
        So we have unique capabilities like NFS in the U.S. that
    can help move these critical, pro-U.S. energy policies forward.
    Have you identified enough feedstock material to deliver the 20
    metric tons through downblending?
        Secretary Wright. I should--I believe the answer is yes,
    but I am not sure of that, so I should be careful on that.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. OK.
        Secretary Wright. But----
        Mrs. Harshbarger. OK, you could get back to me on that.
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. More broadly, how is DOE engaging
    industry to support these type of efforts?
        Secretary Wright. We are meeting with all existing people
    that work in the nuclear fuel cycle, people that may enter to
    work into that space.
        And, you know, after the end of the Cold War and the
    decommissioning of nuclear weapons and the flood of fuel that
    put on the marketplace and Russia's strategic interest in
    flooding the market with enriched uranium has really devastated
    the supply chain in the United States for nuclear energy, and
    we need to reverse it.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, we have Oak Ridge, we have Y-12.
    NFS has also been awarded a recent contract by the DOE's NNSA
    to develop a centrifuge pilot plant to ensure domestic supply
    of enriched uranium for defense purposes. So there is a lot of
    energy around domestic enrichment for civilian nuclear power,
    and I appreciate that. But however, there is a lot less
    conversation regarding domestic uranium enrichment for national
    security, specifically for NNSA's deterrence program and highly
    enriched uranium for naval reactors.
        Can you share with the committee what the NNSA is doing to
    advance the so-called unobligated enrichment for national
    security?
        Secretary Wright. It is an active dialog. We do do
    enrichment, as you know, for our own--for our weapons programs
    and our national security reasons.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
        Secretary Wright. And I should say as well, look, Tennessee
    is a nuclear powerhouse. And not only me personally but the
    country: Thanks, Tennessee, for what you provide to the nuclear
    complex, and I believe what we will----
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. You will growingly provide
    to the to the country going forward.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. You know, Oak Ridge has a centrifuge
    technology, and I understand that NNSA selected an industrial
    partner to help advance the lab's U.S.-derived technology with
    plans to build a pilot plant. Can you provide an update here
    for the record on where this program is----
        Secretary Wright. Well----
        Mrs. Harshbarger [continuing]. And where it ranks in NNSA's
    priorities? Because China and Russia----
        Mr. Latta. Well, pardon me.
        Mrs. Harshbarger [continuing]. Aren't sitting idle.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired. So if you
    want to submit that question for the record, that would be----
        Mrs. Harshbarger. OK.
        Mr. Latta [continuing]. Advisable.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. I can do that. I got a couple more.
        Mr. Latta. Yes. Well, thank you.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. We will submit them.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado's 1st
    district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome to my fellow Coloradoan. Mr. Secretary, one of the
    things that frustrates us on this side of the aisle is the
    expression of lofty goals regarding energy expansion and
    operational efficiency. You talked about it in your opening
    statement. And I want to expand on my colleague's exploration
    of the issue of nuclear energy with you, which I know is one of
    the administration's energy goals, is that right?
        Secretary Wright. Yes. Yes, absolutely.
        Ms. DeGette. And so just to let you know, last Congress
    former Chair Jeff Duncan and I worked with the committee and
    the Senate to enact into law a bipartisan bill. I am sure you
    know about it, the ADVANCE Act. It seeks to accelerate the
    deployment of nuclear energy technologies while ensuring the
    protection of public health and environment for future
    generations. I was really proud to be cosponsor of that.
        We had to do that bill because the NRC was already severely
    understaffed and overleveraged. In 2022 the NRC had shrunk by
    23 percent in just 6 years, and over a third of the agency
    personnel were eligible for retirement as recently as last
    year. So this was even before the Trump administration came in.
        So I want to talk about some of the cuts the administration
    is proposing in nuclear energy to the DOE, because what we are
    worried about--the NRC is already struggling, the DOE is
    cutting money. I don't see how we can achieve these lofty
    goals. So isn't it true the administration's budget would cut
    the Office of Nuclear Energy's funding by more than 20 percent?
        Secretary Wright. I believe it is a little bit less than 20
    percent.
        Ms. DeGette. It is actually about 24 percent.
        Secretary Wright. I may be in error.
        Ms. DeGette. OK.
        Secretary Wright. But I will check that. But it----
        Ms. DeGette. The budget also cuts the Advanced Reactors
    Demonstration Program funding by half. Is that correct?
        Secretary Wright. That program----
        Ms. DeGette. Yes or no will work.
        Secretary Wright. That program is phasing down, so yes.
        Ms. DeGette. OK, so yes. Since the beginning of the
    administration, DOE has lost over 20 percent of its staff due
    to terminating probationary employees and employees taking
    deferred resignations. Isn't that correct?
        Secretary Wright. From deferred resignations----
        Ms. DeGette. Yes, so it is about 20 percent, correct?
        Secretary Wright. I don't have final numbers yet.
        Ms. DeGette. OK. I will guarantee you it is.
        And finally, DOE is currently under a hiring freeze right
    now. Is that correct?
        Secretary Wright. That is correct.
        Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, so I want to talk about the
    administration's own stated goals for a minute.
        The President signed an Executive order last month charging
    DOE with bringing three new reactors to criticality by July of
    2026--that is just a little over a year--is that correct?
        Secretary Wright. That is our goal, absolutely.
        Ms. DeGette. OK, that was what the Executive order said, is
    that right?
        Secretary Wright. I don't have it in front of me, but we
    have an aggressive goal to ramp things up in a year.
        Ms. DeGette. I will tell you that I never ask incorrect
    questions.
        [Laughter.]
        Secretary Wright. I wish I was as flawless as you, but I
    will----
        Ms. DeGette. OK, you are not--I am not flawless, but I
    check my facts.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. DeGette. Looking at all reactors built since 1950, are
    you aware that the average build time of those reactors was 8.1
    years?
        Secretary Wright. And dramatically longer these days, but
    yes.
        Ms. DeGette. Yes. Now, are you aware that the average
    application review process can take up to 5 years, and the
    commission phase typically takes 1 to 2 years?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, I think you are correctly
    identifying some problems.
        Ms. DeGette. You are--here's some good news. I have a
    minute and 16 seconds left, so I would like you to explain to
    this committee, given all the cuts that I just outlined and
    given the personnel freezes, how the administration thinks that
    it is going to approve and bring online three new reactors to
    criticality by July next year.
        Secretary Wright. So, number one, there are going to be
    demonstration reactors at the Idaho National Laboratory. These
    are commercial companies that have technologies they want to--
    --
        Ms. DeGette. And they are not going to actually--so they
    are going to be demonstration, not actual energy-producing
    reactors.
        Secretary Wright. That is correct.
        Ms. DeGette. OK. That is number one. Go ahead.
        Secretary Wright. And thank you for your leadership on the
    ADVANCE Act, by the way, Representative.
        Ms. DeGette. You are welcome.
        Secretary Wright. And we--and the work on nuclear, it is
    not directly tied to the number of people. The NRC has grown
    hugely over decades and didn't deliver approved reactors. So
    there is difference between throughput and number of people.
        Ms. DeGette. I don't disagree with that, sir, which is one
    reason I did the ADVANCE Act. But if you are going to have a
    plan even to put these three demonstration reactors up by next
    year, you have to have a--do you actually have a plan of how
    you are going to do that between now and then?
        And if so, I would like you to send it to me, seeing as my
    time is up.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Wright. Yes, and will do.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you. I yield back.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from Texas's 11th district for 5
    minutes for questions.
        Mr. Pfluger. Secretary, good to see you. I never ask
    incorrect questions, either. And the last Secretary, I asked
    questions about how much energy we use, and she had no clue.
        So let's get big picture here. You have extreme expertise
    about how energy in this country works. I am worried about
    everybody who has testified here, especially those recently who
    have talked about data centers and the demand that we are going
    to see, rising demand for electricity consumption, and how we
    are going to keep up with manufacturing.
        Just big-picture priorities that you have set out that will
    enable us as a country to set the conditions for private
    industry to meet that demand with adequate supply, I would love
    to hear your thoughts.
        Secretary Wright. Yes. Look, as you know, over the years we
    have created huge regulatory burdens on building
    infrastructure, on building pipelines, on building power
    plants, on building transmission lines. If you make it harder
    and harder and more and more expensive to do things, well,
    guess what? You get less of them, and that is what has happened
    in the United States.
        I heard a comment earlier that U.S. oil and natural gas
    production were at all-time highs in 2023, which was true, but
    that is because it is dominantly on private land and State
    land, and it is not on Federal land. We have had huge Federal
    obstruction efforts. They haven't been entirely effective on
    oil and gas that is produced on private lands and on State
    lands, but when you restrict the ability to build pipelines and
    grow the transportation, you ultimately restrict the growth of
    it.
        Power plants. With the Clean Power Plan, if you build a new
    power plant today you have to have carbon capture and
    sequestration injected underground, like, 11 years from now.
    That is a technology we don't have at commercial scale.
    Massively expensive. A parasitic load of maybe a third of the
    power plant has to go to that thing. People aren't going to
    invest money and build power plants with constrictions like
    that.
        It is--there's a lot of reasons we haven't built as much
    new capacity as we should, and for--it is critical for this
    administration and this Congress that we work together to
    remove these obstacles and barriers that chill investment,
    because we need to lead in AI, we need to win in AI.
        We can lead and we can win in AI, but to do that we need to
    get overly burdensome, truly not-focused-on-environment
    regulations out of the way so capital will flow and things will
    be built. We need some simplification with permitting. We need
    to make FERC move more efficiently. But I will tell you in this
    administration and I know in this Congress there are many
    people working tirelessly to achieve just that. So I am
    optimistic.
        But yes, big changes need to be made.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you for your work on deregulation. Thank
    you for the work to set the conditions so that it allows
    industry to innovate, it allows industry to provide affordable,
    reliable energy that actually works, as opposed to what we saw
    the last 4 years. And on November 5th the American public spoke
    loud and clear.
        I want to talk about the Mexico Pacific LNG export site and
    see if you have an update for us on that, what would be a
    1,000-BCF-capable pipeline to deliver LNG to our partners and
    allies. And is there a status on this pipeline, on the
    permitting request?
        Secretary Wright. Representative Pfluger, say that again.
    Which pipeline?
        Mr. Pfluger. The Mexico Pacific Saguaro Energia, and it
    basically goes from the Permian Basin to the west coast of the
    Pacific with about a 1,000 BCF capability.
        Secretary Wright. I need to check into that, because that
    will not be just DOE on that.
        Mr. Pfluger. Sure.
        Secretary Wright. But I am aware of the project, and I need
    to check into that and get back to you on that.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you for that.
        And so I know there has been some questions on the SPR. You
    know, just how damaging was it to see 300 million barrels flow
    out and--you know, for political expediency? And I know there
    may have been some questions previously asked about this, but,
    you know, what can we do legislatively so that this never
    happens again?
        Secretary Wright. I don't have a good answer to the latter
    question, but I think it is a dialog we should have.
        And as you said, what would the damage--look, there was
    damage to the facilities from drying out oil too fast. That is
    certainly upwards of hundreds of millions of dollars of repairs
    that are going on. It is a reduction in our security right now
    because we have meaningfully less oil stored in our Strategic
    Petroleum Reserve. And I think it is a reduction in confidence
    in the seriousness of the United States.
        You know, Strategic Petroleum Reserves are for strategic
    challenges that may arise in our future that we need to be
    prepared for. And to show that we are willing for political
    purposes to flush away nearly half of our strategic reserve for
    a short-term help in an election, presumably, I think hurts the
    credibility of the United States in how we view energy and how
    we view our strategic security.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you for your leadership. My district
    represents almost 45 percent of the country's crude oil
    production, and they want predictability. They want a horizon
    that they can provide that affordable, reliable energy on.
    Thank you for helping to set those conditions.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired, and the Chair
    now recognizes the gentlelady from California's 7th district
    for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you very much, Secretary Wright, for being here today.
        Now, strengthening American manufacturing and our critical
    mineral supply chain are bipartisan priorities for this
    committee. And it is a top priority for this administration. Is
    that correct, yes?
        Secretary Wright. I didn't hear everything you said, but
    reshoring manufacturing to this country is absolutely----
        Ms. Matsui. OK.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. A top priority.
        Ms. Matsui. All right.
        Secretary Wright. Did I miss----
        Ms. Matsui. Great. Now, the 45X Advanced Manufacturing Tax
    Credit is crucial for onshoring battery and critical mineral
    supply chains. Do you agree, yes? You have to think about it?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, these are more complicated.
    Reshoring manufacturing will not dominantly be about tax
    credits or tax policy. It is more about regulatory
    environment----
        Ms. Matsui. OK.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. Is a much bigger factor.
        Ms. Matsui. OK.
        Secretary Wright. But it could be helpful in that.
        Ms. Matsui. Yes, OK. Now, the lithium mining company
    Ioneer, which has received a nearly $1 billion loan from the
    Department of Energy, has said that repealing the Advanced
    Manufacturing Credit would have a ``very direct impact.'' The
    chairman of Ford Motor Company has said, ``We have built the
    business case around that. If it goes away, it puts in peril
    the plant and the jobs.''
        So why did the House Republicans just pass a bill to kill
    the Advanced Manufacturing Credit? Battery and critical
    minerals industry groups have called the new restrictions in
    Republicans' Big Ugly Bill ``nearly impossible,'' and
    ``effectively, a repeal.''
        Secretary Wright, this bill would require American
    companies to trace the supply chain of every screw, nut, and
    bolt to know information that they cannot obtain, including
    familial relationships of tangentially related parties,
    affiliates of lenders, and more.
        Secretary Wright, you ran several companies. Do you
    seriously believe you could meet these requirements?
        Secretary Wright. I think if you want to resource the
    manufacturing sector of the United States, you don't want
    companies that are just pass-through entities for products from
    abroad. So it is a tricky--it is a sticky subject, but it is--I
    don't think it is black and white.
        Ms. Matsui. Well, could--OK, let's talk about--can Liberty
    Energy meet these requirements?
        Secretary Wright. I believe----
        Ms. Matsui. Do you have documentation that you have met
    these requirements or can meet these requirements?
        Secretary Wright. Well, I--at Liberty Energy we certainly
    were not involved with Government subsidies----
        Ms. Matsui. Right.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. Of any kind, but I don't
    have a specific answer to your question.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Now, I will just say this is a repeal, and
    it threatens hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of
    thousands of jobs in American manufacturing. If the President
    truly believes about American manufacturing, I urge you to pick
    up the phone and stop the Senate from repealing this credit.
        Now I want to turn to another priority I think we can agree
    on. Next-generation geothermal energy has the potential to
    become a critical source of clean energy. Now, Secretary
    Wright, you have been very vocal supporter of geothermal. In
    fact, before joining DOE you invested in Fervo, a leading
    geothermal company. Yes or no, is that accurate?
        Secretary Wright. That is accurate.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. And President Trump even included
    geothermal in his Executive orders to boost domestic energy
    resources. Is that correct?
        Secretary Wright. That is----
        Ms. Matsui. Yes or no.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. Correct.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. So why are congressional Republicans trying
    to kill the clean energy incentives that the geothermal
    industry is banking on?
        The CEO of Fervo, Tim Latimer, whose company you have
    invested millions in, was recently quoted as saying, ``Will we
    bring gigawatts on the grid this decade, or will it be the next
    decade? That is what the tax credits mean.'' It doesn't get
    more straightforward than that. The Republicans' Big Ugly Bill
    kills the new energy tax credits, and that will kill next-gen
    technologies.
        Now, I know you agree with me, because it was reported just
    yesterday that you called for maintaining the clean energy tax
    credits for geothermal at the Energy Imperative Summit, is that
    correct? Yes or no.
        Secretary Wright. That is correct. I think geothermal
    should be included with nuclear as emerging, reliable,
    dispatchable energy sources for those credits--
        Ms. Matsui. OK.
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Ms. Matsui. So will you pick up the phone and push
    congressional Republicans to maintain the energy tax credits
    for geothermal?
        Secretary Wright. I have been doing just that.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you very much. And I would just have
    to say that, you know, the majority of new energy in the United
    States is renewable energy. And I think if we are serious about
    meeting the load growth from AI, then you need renewable
    energy.
        And I realize I am running out of time, and I----
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
    expired, and yields back, and the Chair now recognizes the
    gentlelady from Iowa's 1st district for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking
    Member Castor, for holding this important hearing on the fiscal
    year 2026 Department of Energy budget.
        Secretary Wright, I appreciate your leadership as we work
    to restore American energy dominance and ensure our Nation's
    energy security. Unlike the last 4 years of the previous
    administration, where we were in energy subtraction mode, we
    are now in energy addition mode, and the President's budget
    reflects the important priorities to bring critical investments
    in our national security that I strongly support.
        We face unprecedented growth in electricity demand, driven
    largely by AI data centers and advanced manufacturing, and we
    must ensure that the DOE's programs support a diverse and
    resilient energy portfolio that maintains reliability and
    affordability while fostering innovation. And Iowa is one of
    those States that is an energy addition. With the NERC
    projecting potential demand increases of up to 151 gigawatts
    over the next decade, we need to ensure the Department of
    Energy's programs are laser focused on innovation and
    commercialization, and I look forward to working with you on
    that.
        Secretary Wright, you are requesting $750 million in new
    credit subsidies while cutting administrative expenses in half.
    The program currently has 122 applications totaling 216.7
    billion in requested funding. Can you explain how you will be
    able to process these through the pipeline and how you are
    going to address that issue with a decrease in personnel?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, thank you for the question,
    Representative.
        And in the Department, of course, there is always massively
    more requests than we can achieve. You know, if you offer low-
    cost money, there is a lot of customers for that. So I think
    key for us is to focus in on which are the projects that can
    bring the greatest benefit to the American energy system and
    the American taxpayers.
        And yes, the Loan Programs Office with the current budget
    request is shrinking. Personally, I would love to see it a
    little bit bigger than in the current plans right now. But boy,
    I certainly understand the Congress's and the American
    taxpayers' extreme frustration with the Loan Programs Office
    that it was used wildly irresponsibly in the last 4 years, and
    particularly in the 76 days after the election and before
    inauguration. If I saw more than twice as much money lent out
    or committed in 76 days than in the previous 15 years, I would
    be pretty suspicious of that program, as well.
        So, you know, look, it dug a big hole. And my goal is to
    keep it alive and try to have some scale in it. So next-
    generation nuclear, some critical minerals stuff, potentially
    even geothermal, if there are businesses that can be and will
    be long-term commercial businesses but need a little help to
    get industry started again and it is creditworthy borrowers and
    there is meaningful equity money behind it, I think there's
    some good uses for the Loan Programs Office. But careful and
    judicial, and nothing like we saw in the last 4 years.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. And you answered my followup question,
    so--and I have quite a number of questions I want to try to get
    to.
        The Bioenergy Technologies program has reduced from 275
    million to 70 million. Given the importance of sustainable
    aviation fuel to both our energy independence and aviation
    sector, what is your strategy for advancing SAF development and
    deployment?
        And how will you ensure we don't fall behind other nations
    in this critical technology?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, I think the key area there is the
    last word you just said there, Representative: ``technology.''
    We need to keep--you know, so what we want to support in the
    Department is technology advancement. Biofuels in general are
    challenging, just because the energy density that arrives from
    the sun is not that high. It takes a lot of land to produce
    meaningful amounts of energy. But the more we can get that
    technology better and better, we can increase the energy
    density and grow the future runway for biofuels.
        So we want to focus on driving technology forward and less
    on sort of corporate subsidies to existing technologies.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. And then I am going to ask this question
    and then submit another one for the record on ARPA-E, but--and
    you can address this question in writing to us. But as we work
    to meet the rising electricity demand and modernize the grid,
    one cost-effective solution is reconductoring existing
    transmission and distribution lines with advanced conductors
    that increase capacity without requiring new rights-of-way.
        I know I am running out of time, but if you could address
    for us in writing how the Department is willing to consider or
    incentivize reconductoring efforts, particularly in ways that
    enhance system performance and efficiency while keeping
    electricity reliable and affordable for consumers, I would
    appreciate that, especially as MISO is my grid. And had the
    previous administration been listening to grid operators, as
    suggested by the ranking member, we would have been increasing
    energy production and generation the past 4 years instead of
    subtracting.
        Secretary Wright. And reconductoring is a great solution.
        Mr. Latta. I am sorry, the----
        Secretary Wright. So I am with you.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from New York's 20th district for
    5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome and thank you,
    Secretary Wright.
        Secretary Wright, like many Members before coming to
    Congress, I served in State government, including time at New
    York's State Energy Office, so I would like to try to
    understand the role you envision DOE playing to support its
    State partners with what I hope are yes-or-no questions.
        Do you believe States have a responsibility in supporting
    energy emergency planning?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Tonko. And what about cybersecurity?
        Secretary Wright. We cooperate with all authorities we can
    in cybersecurity, whether it is utilities, businesses--yes,
    including States.
        Mr. Tonko. And what about providing technical analyses for
    public utility commission proceedings?
        Secretary Wright. Yes. Clearly, States play central roles
    in----
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. Utility evaluations.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And what about addressing energy
    affordability challenges?
        Secretary Wright. I think that is a legitimate area for
    States to work in, absolutely.
        Mr. Tonko. Sure. So these are just a few examples of
    activities that both red and blue States are already working
    on, and they rely on State energy program funding to support
    their work.
        The President's budget request zeroes out the Office of
    State and Community Energy Programs, which includes the State
    Energy Program, and proposes rescinding some $47 million in SEP
    funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. How does the
    administration reconcile the need for States to do this
    important energy work while also eliminating funds that enable
    it?
        Secretary Wright. Well, obviously, there's multiple ways to
    fund State energy offices, and the most logical way is by the
    State government. So whether there is a Federal Government role
    in funding State energy offices, I think it is pretty
    legitimate to say it shouldn't be funded by the Federal
    Government, it should be funded by the States.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, that is----
        Secretary Wright. I met with a Governor yesterday, a
    Democratic Governor. So we cooperate with States, no matter
    what. Funding of State energy offices, that is probably better
    left to States.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, you know, there is talk already about
    adding on the cost of Medicaid to States, providing--asking
    them to have skin in the game for nutrition assistance
    programs, having them enable EPA activities. The list goes on
    and on. And so this is piling up a lot on the States, and I
    don't know if it is realistic.
        But putting aside 2026 funding, I have heard concerns about
    DOE staff reductions, particularly the Golden field office
    having lost one half of its workforce that are essentially
    stopping State energy program grant review processes. Many
    States are currently waiting for approval for their next
    allocation of previously appropriated funds. Can you give us
    some insights, sir, into what is going on in SCEP, and whether
    you are committed to getting previously appropriated funds
    allocated to States in a timely manner so that they can
    continue the type of work that we have previously discussed
    here?
        Secretary Wright. Well, I think the main funding out of
    SCEP is done on an annual basis, and those are usually, I
    think, delivered in July. And we are working towards that goal.
    And I think we will make that goal or be very close to it. So I
    don't think you will see a huge disruption there.
        Mr. Tonko. I hope so.
        And I know many Members and President Trump have expressed
    concerns about rising energy costs. DOE has a critical role in
    promoting energy affordability, especially through energy
    efficiency, which is often the most cost-effective option to
    lower utility bills.
        In May, DOE claimed to be saving Americans $11 billion
    through the elimination or reduction of some 47 rules,
    including numerous energy efficiency standards. But according
    to DOE's own analysis, just 12 efficiency standards would save
    more than $54 billion, which is nearly 5 times as much in
    utility bill costs. Therefore, people would see their net costs
    increase by some $43 billion. In addition to this being another
    major blow to energy affordability, this action would be
    illegal.
        Secretary Wright, the law forbids weakening energy
    efficiency standards once they are finalized. Are you aware of
    that provision?
        Secretary Wright. I am sorry, Representative. Repeat the
    last sentence.
        Mr. Tonko. Yes, the law forbids weakening energy efficiency
    standards once they are finalized.
        Secretary Wright. Well, I can assure you we are following
    the law----
        Mr. Tonko. OK.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. And very carefully reviewing
    these things, but we think that consumers should choose the
    trade-offs they want to make, and not the Government. Making
    people buy more expensive----
        Mr. Tonko. Right.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. Less effective appliances--
    --
        Mr. Tonko. But back to those energy efficiency standards, I
    am citing section 342 of the Energy Policy and Conservation
    Act. And in 2004 a Federal appeals court ruled that DOE could
    not weaken efficiency standards once they are finalized. So
    Secretary, are you aware of that ruling?
        Secretary Wright. I can assure you that the legal team at
    the Department of Energy that is heading up these efforts is
    aware of these laws and being very careful to comply with the
    laws while at the same time restoring choice and freedom to
    American people.
        Mr. Tonko. Right. This attack on energy efficiency
    standards is not only harmful to Americans, but I believe it is
    illegal. So Mr. Secretary, I hope you reconsider this action.
        I request, Mr. Chair, unanimous consent to add to the
    record this policy analysis document from the Appliance
    Standards Awareness Project on the effects of the proposed
    rollbacks of efficiency standards on consumer energy costs.
        Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Tonko. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Latta. And----
        Mr. Tonko. And with that, I thank you and yield back.
        Mr. Latta. And the gentleman's time has expired, and the
    Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan's 10th
    district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary Wright, for being here and for the hard work that you
    and the Trump administration are doing to advance an America-
    first energy agenda. Republicans are advancing an all-of-the-
    above approach to ensure that we remain global energy leaders.
    And I like what you have said: all sources that actually work
    in reality.
        Mr. Secretary, I am extremely encouraged by your agenda. I
    look forward to working with you and your team to ensure that
    we are prepared to meet the moment and continue to excel in
    global energy production. So I am just going to jump right to
    the questions because your time is very precious.
        In 2024 NERC's long-term reliability assessments, they
    stated that the greatest threat to our power grid is our shift
    to intermittent resources and premature retirements of thermal
    generation. NERC's 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment also
    projected that the Mid-continent Independent System Operator,
    MISO, which covers my district in Michigan, will experience a
    4.7 gigawatt shortfall by 2028 if current expected generator
    retirements occur.
        In your discussions with MISO, have they discussed how any
    current State net-zero policies have contributed to current
    cost increases to consumers and expected power shortfalls in
    the future?
        Secretary Wright. Absolutely, Representative. Thank you for
    the question. And look, many people at DOE have been in dialogs
    with NERC and with MISO about these issues.
        But I think you hit the nail on the head. Like, what do we
    want? We want to reshore manufacturing to Michigan. We want to
    bring data centers to Michigan. We need to grow the supply of
    affordable, reliable electricity in Michigan. And closing
    plants--the coal plant, for example--with 15 years left in its
    average lifetime, closed for political reasons--closed to show
    virtue signaling, you know, ``we are going to move away from
    coal''--that is not in the best interest of Michigan ratepayers
    and Michigan citizens.
        And--but yes, utilities get bullied and influenced by State
    politicians and national politicians that have political
    agendas around energy that are often not aligned with
    ratepayers and citizens in those districts.
        Mr. James. So premature closures in the past----
        Secretary Wright. Premature closures.
        Mr. James [continuing]. Have greatly increased the
    likelihood that ratepayers will pay a higher--thank you for
    that.
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Mr. James. I have heard back--you were mentioning the J.H.
    Campbell Coal Plant in southwest Michigan. Can you please walk
    me through the administration's reasoning for this order, the
    emergency order? Could you articulate the reasoning for that?
        Secretary Wright. Yes. And again, along the lines you just
    discussed, MISO, the system operator in which this plant exists
    in the Midwest, is the lowest reserve margin we have, meaning
    the greatest risk of blackout. And of course, it is the
    industrial heartland of the United States.
        Mr. James. And there was one recently.
        Secretary Wright. There was a blackout two days after we
    issued that order to keep that coal plant open.
        Mr. James. So when opponents were saying the White House
    claims--claims--that the intermittent nature of solar and wind
    generation will lead to energy shortages and fail to meet the
    surging electricity demand, 2 days after they said this, there
    was actual shortage.
        Secretary Wright. Correct.
        Mr. James. So it sounds like you reacted quickly, and you
    reacted at least on time to make it--not make it worse.
        Last question. I am very concerned that, even though we are
    trying to keep as much power online as possible, that this is
    going to directly result in increased rates for people in the
    State of Michigan. I am sure you are aware that Consumers
    Energy filed a complaint with FERC against MISO, seeking
    compensation for keeping open the J.H. Campbell coal plant this
    summer.
        I look forward to working with you and your team to make
    sure that reliability in our region is strengthened while not
    being financially punitive to our energy customers in Michigan.
    As MISO is a large organization where this power is dispatched,
    it is going to benefit the larger organization. And so
    therefore those costs should necessarily be spread out, as we
    all have to make sure that we are cooperating to make sure that
    we keep our power high and keeping our costs low.
        Is there anything that I have missed that would more
    accurately reflect the administration and your actions
    specifically related to that coal plant?
        Secretary Wright. I think you are very well spoken, right
    on. And I share your interest for a reliable, affordable grid.
    That is what our citizens and our ratepayers want, and that is
    what we need to work towards.
        I would also encourage you or thank you for your efforts on
    the Big Beautiful Bill. The reforms in there in energy policy
    will not only save Americans money by stopping the 30-year-long
    subsidies for intermittent energy sources, not only will the
    Federal Government save money, but by putting--stopping the
    rapid increase in intermittent sources on grids, we will reduce
    stress on grids and reduce costs.
        Mr. Latta. And the----
        Secretary Wright. So thank you for your leadership in this
    area.
        Mr. James. I appreciate your support.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time----
        Mr. James. Hopefully, we can make consumers whole.
        Mr. Latta [continuing]. Has expired.
        Mr. James. Thanks, bye bye.
        Mr. Latta. And----
        Mr. James. I yield.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
    the gentlelady--oh, I am sorry, the gentleman from Texas's 33rd
    district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Secretary Wright, thank you for being here today.
    Congratulations on your appointment. I know that we have had
    some, you know, good news in the oil patch and some interesting
    news in the oil patch, and I wanted to just ask you a few
    questions particularly around everything that is happening
    nationally.
        Your fiscal year 2026 budget proposal guts proven
    bipartisan energy programs, some of which directly support our
    domestic workforce and ensures American energy dominance.
        And here is what is not in your budget that I wanted to
    talk with you about: a plan to deal with the consequences of
    mass deportations in the Permian Basin.
        As you know, the Permian accounts for nearly 50 percent of
    the oil production. That is around 6 million barrels a day. And
    that production doesn't rely just on rigs and engineers, it
    depends on a workforce. And many of those dangerous jobs in the
    oil patch--as you know, because you have been in the oil
    patch--you know that many of those dangerous jobs are performed
    by people in this country that are undocumented. And so if ICE
    were to hit Midland or if they were to hit Odessa, I don't
    think there is any plan in your budget to replace those workers
    or that lost production.
        In Odessa, studies show that undocumented workers make up
    about 13 percent of the workforce. That is one of the key hubs
    for Permian operations. And I have seen other anecdotes where
    oil field service companies in Midland have only about 5 or 10
    percent of their employees with genuine papers.
        And so, as you know, those aren't soft-skill jobs. Those
    are people that are out in the heat, people that risk injuries
    to their hands and to their, you know, their limbs. And they
    are having that hot Texas heat. I am sure you have been out
    there in the summer. As someone from Fort Worth, I have been
    out there in the summer, and I can--and I think we all know
    that it is hot.
        Where in your budget--and this is a question that I have
    for you--where in your budget do you account for the impact of
    potential mass deportations on oil production in the Permian
    Basin? Because if Stephen Miller wants 3,000 people a day
    deported, which has been deported--reported that he does, what
    are you going to do to replace those workers?
        Secretary Wright. A great question, Representative. And
    yes, you are correct. I have worked for years out there,
    employing thousands of people in that region, and a large
    number of them are relatively recent immigrants from Mexico and
    from further south of the border, tremendous, hard-working,
    awesome workers.
        But certainly in my company, all of them are here legally,
    they are not illegal immigrants. I am sure there are some, but
    I would suspect the percent that are illegal is quite small.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes.
        Secretary Wright. You gave a number of 13 percent. That may
    be one small community. I--
        Mr. Veasey. Did you use third-party companies for--to hire
    employees, where they weren't hired directly by you but they
    were brought in by a third party that had their papers and had
    their Social Security numbers already ready, or did you hire
    all of those people?
        Secretary Wright. We hired all of those people. We have
    an----
        Mr. Veasey. And you used the E-Verify system to--OK.
        Secretary Wright. Correct.
        Mr. Veasey. So let me ask you a question. If ICE were to
    show up to Midland today and do a large-scale deportation, and
    it were to get a little bit rowdy, would you support the
    President calling in the National Guard to Midland, Texas, or
    west Texas like he has in Los Angeles?
        Secretary Wright. Look, in due respect to all the great
    immigrant workers that are--that work in that region and work
    across our country, you need to respect the difference between
    those that came here legally and those that are here illegally.
        Mr. Veasey. What about the people that are going to have
    their TPS status revoked? A lot of them probably work in the
    oil patch. I mean, you hear the stories. And you can go down to
    the oil patch and see it. For anybody that hadn't been down to
    Texas on the Democratic side or the Republican side, they can
    go down to the oil patch and see for themselves.
        What about the people--the TPS people that are going to
    have their status revoked? That could be very disruptive to the
    oil patch.
        Secretary Wright. Yes, the workforce in America is
    critical, and a lot of the workforce in the United States are
    immigrants from overseas, and they are awesome contributors to
    our society. I think the line is just between who is here
    legally and who is here illegally.
        Mr. Veasey. Let me ask you another question. Is it easier
    to drill, baby, drill with no employees? Or is it easier to
    drill, baby, drill having to go around, let's say, EPA
    regulations?
        Secretary Wright. Wait. The first, having to----
        Mr. Veasey. Is it easier if--is it easier to drill for oil
    with no employees, or is it easier to drill for oil having to
    work around a few EPA regulations?
        I would think it would be harder to drill for oil without
    any employees.
        Secretary Wright. You definitely need employees to drill
    for oil, absolutely.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes, OK, thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Texas's 12th district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Oh, I am sorry, I didn't see the gentleman from Colorado--
    or Oregon in front of me, but the gentleman from Oregon is
    recognized for 5 minutes. I am sorry.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. So I am from
    Oregon, and the Columbia River runs across the north side of
    it. And of course, we have all these dams that generate--I
    think the nameplate is around 36,000 megawatts, and the
    continuous about 16,000 megawatts. So it is hugely--obviously,
    hugely important.
        It happens that the Biden administration entered into a
    nonbinding MOU with Tribal and--breach of certain of those dams
    for using--or ratepayer dollars to ostensibly create solar and
    other intermittent sources to offset the reduction in
    generating capacity that would occur when the four lower Snake
    River dams were breached.
        I obviously oppose that. I held a hearing up in Washington
    State as chair of the Water Subcommittee on Natural Resources.
    We had 400 people show up that were adamantly opposed to dam
    breaching, and we went through all of the obvious
    justifications for keeping those dams.
        I believe the MOU is still in place, and I am hoping that
    the Department will put an end to it and say, ``Look, we are
    not going to spend money in replacing, ostensibly, the power
    generated by these dams with solar or otherwise.''
        Can you--have you been brought current on this situation?
        Secretary Wright. Absolutely, Representative. We are
    working that issue and have been working that issue for several
    weeks now.
        I agree with you entirely that those are great projects
    that were built decades ago in our country, and generations
    have benefited from that hydropower, which you can ramp it up
    when we need more power and you can ramp it down when we don't
    need it. That is highly valuable power. And you can never
    replace something like that with wind or solar, because you
    don't know when they are going to be there and when they are
    not there. They are totally different things.
        Like, we don't have a bag to store electricity in. The
    critical criterion of an electricity grid is that it meet
    demand at peak time.
        Mr. Bentz. And that function as a gigantic storage device
    that--and those sets of dams up and down the Columbia River and
    the Snake Rivers is hugely important to intermittent power, is
    it not?
        Secretary Wright. It is hugely important to our grid,
    absolutely. They can reduce the damage of intermittent power
    sources, but even without intermittent power sources you need
    to be able to have higher electricity at times of peak demand
    and less electricity at times where demand is low, and
    hydropower allows you to do that. They are tremendous
    resources.
        Mr. Bentz. There is no doubt that we are engaged in an
    existential battle when it comes to artificial intelligence.
    And there has been a number of server farms owned by many
    moving into the Northwest. I think they are going to be a huge
    part of us ultimately winning that race.
        But there seems to be a disconnect when it comes to the
    absolute need for additional electrical generation. I see that
    we have basically a flat production curve--flat--and China has
    one that is shooting straight up. What is your plan? What is
    the Department's plan to do--to catch up, if you will?
        Secretary Wright. We need to pivot the direction we have
    been on in this country.
        You know, again, during the last 4 years we spent tens of
    billions of dollars to do two things: to subsidize the
    installation of intermittent sources--peak demand in PJM, where
    we are right now, inauguration night at 4:00 a.m., wind was 2
    percent of electricity, solar was 0. Together, between the two
    of them, 2 percent of peak demand. That is when it matters. If
    you are not there at peak demand, you are just a parasite on
    the grid because you just make the other sources turn up and
    down as you come and go.
        So we are trying to reduce the barriers to investment in
    reliable, dispatchable sources such as hydropower. And we are
    doing everything I can together with this Congress through the
    Big Beautiful Bill to reduce the subsidies that put
    intermittent, unreliable sources on our grid. We pay people to
    put stuff on our grid that ultimately makes our grid more
    expensive. If you subsidize something, it better be cheaper or
    subsidize something and getting a more expensive product at the
    end.
        Mr. Bentz. And could you----
        Secretary Wright. That is a big loss.
        Mr. Bentz. And could you also--it certainly is.
        Can you also address the fact that, with intermittent
    power, you have to have a backup? Thus you double the cost,
    triple the cost because you can't just rely upon wind when the
    wind doesn't blow. So you have got to have that backup. So that
    is driving up the cost of that particular source of power, is
    it not?
        Secretary Wright. Well, correct. And we are raising--we are
    inadvertently making all these other energy sources have to
    back them up. If you build a natural gas power plant, for
    example, and then the sun shines and you have got to turn it
    down, and then the sun goes behind a cloud and you have got to
    turn it up, that is a much less efficient way to run a power
    plant.
        Our electricity markets have rewarded low-value
    electricity, and we have subsidized to put more of it on.
    Germany and Denmark and England have shown where this leads:
    deindustrialization.
        Mr. Bentz. It certainly does. Thank you so much.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired, and yields back. The Chair now recognizes the
    gentlelady from Washington's 8th district for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Before I even start, as I listen to the bashing of
    intermittent sources of energy it occurs to me that we could
    resolve all of those issues if we got sensible permitting
    reform done. And there is a bipartisan bill that I would love
    to see us work on together to do just that.
        Thank you for being here today, Secretary Wright. Like many
    of my colleagues, I am very concerned about the staffing cuts
    that have taken place under your leadership. It seems to me
    that the rollout of these cuts, especially in Washington State,
    has not been strategic or tactical. They have been
    indiscriminate and arbitrary, and are often followed by an
    ``Oops.'' And you know better than anyone that Department of
    Energy employees are some of the most educated, nimble,
    strategic Federal workers, and really have irreplaceable
    expertise.
        So it doesn't look good, and it doesn't bode well for your
    reputation to kneecap such an important agency at a time when
    energy needs are skyrocketing and we are facing a climate
    crisis and need to decrease emissions.
        So I would like to highlight the issues at the Bonneville
    Power Administration. I only have 5 minutes. You know what
    Bonneville does: It is a balancing authority that keeps the
    lights on in the Northwest, keeps electricity flowing. We have
    got engineers and operators who manage the grid 24/7 and the
    linemen who go out in the worst weather and repair that grid.
    And every single person there is necessary. They also do this
    at zero cost to taxpayers. This is all ratepayer-funded. And so
    to take a DOGE to that and fire people makes no sense for any
    explanation you might give.
        So my first question is, I just want to know, were you
    aware that Bonneville was already encountering a workforce
    shortage before this year's staffing reductions?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, I was aware of that.
        Ms. Schrier. So if you were aware of that, and you were
    aware of the fact that it would not save taxpayer dollars, I--
    why did you do this? Why did you offer early retirements and
    then do it again and fire probationary employees, only to then
    realize--but you already knew that we needed those employees.
    Like, what was your thinking there?
        Secretary Wright. First of all, for clarification, the
    headcount at Bonneville Power Administration--which is a
    fantastic agency, I met with them last week, and we are
    discussing exactly how to address their long-term problem of
    people--they were well understaffed at the start of this
    administration. Their headcount is not meaningfully different
    today from what it what it was when I arrived. And in fact,
    what I am working with them on right now is how we can grow the
    number of linemen at Bonneville Power to assure safer--safe
    delivery of reliable power there.
        Ms. Schrier. So I also talk with Administrator Hairston on
    a regular basis. And, of course, one of the things they were
    talking about was raising salaries to compete with the private
    market. And the other is, of course, you know--I think you were
    just lucky that you can do this ``oops,'' people take the
    retirement, and then they actually choose to come back. We
    could have been in a much different situation, and private
    energy companies were pursuing these very skilled workers.
        I just want to know: Can I have a commitment from you that
    you will freeze--that you will lift the hiring freeze, make
    sure we hire more, and work with Administrator Hairston to make
    sure that Bonneville is fully staffed?
        Secretary Wright. Absolutely, we are working with the
    administration right there. I do think we need to hire some
    linemen at Bonneville Power Administration, and I will work to
    get that done.
        Ms. Schrier. Just to be clear: We need linemen, we also
    need the next generation of engineers who will balance this.
    And so I really need a commitment that it will be linemen and
    others who will build and hold the expertise that we really
    depend on to keep the lights on at Bonneville.
        Secretary Wright. Absolutely, we will work with Bonneville
    on that to navigate through these times and keep that agency
    staffed and delivering high-quality service. It is important.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you. I only have 37 seconds left, so I
    am going to mostly make a point here.
        You were just talking with Congressman Bentz about
    hydropower and the benefits of being able to turn it up or down
    to meet demand. It turns out that even better than turning on
    and off turbines is to actually use excess energy to make
    hydrogen, because that is one of our energy sources in the
    future, and we need all of the above as energy needs are
    skyrocketing.
        And so I would just like to emphasize that the uncertainty
    about grants and tax credits for hydrogen hubs around the
    country--and particularly my passion would be green hydrogen--
    is really imperiling the ability to put more energy sources on
    the grid and is putting a thumb on the scale for oil and gas.
    And I would object, as one of the hydrogen hubs, to that.
        Thank you, and I will yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from Texas's 12th district for 5
    minutes for questions.
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being here today.
    Very interesting hearing.
        I agree with Mr. Veasey that the men and women out in west
    Texas are a very important part not only to the people of
    Texas, people of the United States, but people around the world
    in supplying energy. And I want to stay in west Texas, but not
    go that far--west Texas, and talk about Abilene.
        Abilene Christian University has one of the two permits
    from the NRC to build the next-generation reactor. The DOE
    committed in 2019 to provide the fuel and salt for the project,
    as it does for every existing university research reactor. Will
    the DOE support this advanced nuclear project by honoring that
    commitment?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, that is our intention. And the
    Department is working with Abilene right now to figure out
    the--you know, it is a different type of fuel in a molten salt
    reactor design, how to accommodate that request. But I am quite
    proud and impressed by the work going on at the university, and
    we certainly want to support it.
        Mr. Goldman. Can you give us some sort of, in your mind, a
    timeline for when we see where they are now to where they will
    be in 5 to 10 years, perhaps?
        Secretary Wright. A timeline on where----
        Mr. Goldman. Of where that reactor will be. Will it be
    online? Will it be working? Will it be--I mean, are they
    testing from now until a decade from now?
        Where--in a perfect world, where would you like to see them
    in 5 years or 10 years?
        Secretary Wright. Oh, in a perfect world--in a reasonable,
    regulatory regime, which is a huge part of our agenda--
    absolutely, that should be selling electricity 5 years from
    now, and I sure hope it is.
        Mr. Goldman. Me too. Mr. Veasey there talked about the
    workforce. So one of the potential roadblocks to building in
    nuclear energy is the workforce. How will the DOE budget
    request increase support for universities and technical and
    community colleges to train the next generation of nuclear
    scientists and skilled workers to be able to support the goal
    of the nuclear build-out?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, that is a key thing. You know, we
    have had--as I say, nuclear hasn't been sexy for a few
    generations because we haven't done much with it. And we--it
    is--when I speak and go around, I want to get young people
    excited again and wanting to go into this industry. But the
    only way that will happen is if things are happening. If we are
    building reactors and they are selling power and businesses are
    growing, that is going to draw people into the industry.
        And for us, for research funding and our efforts in the
    commercial space, if we can focus our dollars on things that
    make the American energy system better and that consumers want
    to buy, those are the businesses that will grow, that are not
    going to be blowing with the wind of government subsidies. We
    need sustainable industries that can grow because customers
    want to buy their products. That is what will bring people into
    that industry, and I--and that is what we need to have happen
    with nuclear.
        We need--once we can build some reactors and get some
    efficiencies and drive costs down, I think this industry can
    really take off.
        Mr. Goldman. And one of my colleagues across the aisle
    earlier was bragging about the Texas grid, and that--the wind
    and the solar especially, but those are subsidized, correct?
        Secretary Wright. They are.
        Mr. Goldman. And so--and our other entities on the grid,
    nuclear, natural gas, coal are not subsidized, is that correct?
        Secretary Wright. That is correct.
        Mr. Goldman. OK. So----
        Secretary Wright. In fact, they are penalized.
        Mr. Goldman. Right, thank you. So----
        Secretary Wright. Forced to turn on and off all the time.
        Mr. Goldman. Right. So to that point, we obviously need
    more power in Texas. There is no doubt about that.
        What is your thought of how Texas goes about to create more
    power? Well, the power needs in the future for us.
        Secretary Wright. Well, one of the houses in Texas--I am
    not sure if it was the House or the Senate--passed a bill. I do
    not believe it----
        Mr. Goldman. It was the House. Well, it has passed them
    both, but yes--but go ahead.
        Secretary Wright. Passed them both. And I think that that
    is a very--electricity is complicated. And again, as I was
    discussing before--because you got to balance supply and demand
    at all times. But I think that Texas proposal that, if you are
    going to bid into the electricity market and be treated like
    everybody else, you have got to be able to provide 24/7 power.
        I always say to people, would you pay the same amount of
    money for an Uber that you didn't know when it was going to
    pick you up or where it was going to drop you off? That is just
    not the same product. We need to have people bidding into a
    marketplace that are both delivering the same product, which is
    24/7 electricity, because that is the only thing customers will
    buy.
        Mr. Goldman. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thanks for your
    time.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield the rest of my time.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
    back. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas's 7th
    district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Chairman Latta. A lot of Texans
    in here today. Obviously, this is very important to our to our
    State and our constituents.
        And so I thank you, Secretary Wright. I think this has been
    an important and useful hearing for all of us. And I have made
    a lot of notes and a lot of questions on a lot of things this
    morning. I hope we can get to all of them. I kind of think we
    can't, but let me start as I planned, which is letting you
    know, Mr. Secretary, that I represent Houston, the energy
    capital of the world, which is home to 11 percent of United
    States' energy jobs, and there are more than 4,700 energy-
    related firms, and where I understand you have many friends,
    Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Wright. The energy capital of the world. I agree
    with you 100 percent.
        Mrs. Fletcher. It sure is, and my colleagues here are tired
    of hearing me say it, but it is important. And the issues that
    we are talking about today are really important to my
    constituents. And the number-one thing I am hearing from them,
    as well as from people in the business across the country, is
    the need to know the rules and regulations and the
    requirements, to be able to trust that long-term projects can
    move forward and that they can get the approvals they need.
        And certainly, I agree with my colleagues who have said we
    have got to tackle permitting reform in this committee, in this
    Congress, and have good, bipartisan, durable permitting reform.
    That is a huge issue. They need permitting certainty. They need
    investment certainty. They need to be able to plan, as you well
    know from your experience. And before making these
    multibillion-dollar investments that Americans across the
    country are going to rely on, they need to be able to rely on
    the process itself.
        And so I agree that the process can and should be and must
    be improved. But what we are seeing right now is really a
    destruction of the process across the board, a destruction of
    the legislative process, a destruction of the administrative
    process. And it is causing chaos that is going to continue for
    years to come.
        And so, in response to a question from Mr. Latta earlier
    this morning, you said the administration is focused on
    bringing in private capital and that that is an important part
    of your work. But this environment is not conducive to
    investment for private capital. And we are seeing the
    rescission of government capital that has been greenlighted in
    the past to move some of these projects forward.
        And they are not crazy ideas, and they are not firms you
    have never heard of. The announcements that my colleagues have
    already talked about from the demonstration programs have been
    cut. In my area there are grants to ExxonMobil and other
    household names that are doing this important research.
        And so I think that this environment isn't conducive to
    that investment is the overwhelming and resounding message that
    is coming from my district. So I really want to share that with
    you, because I think working outside the legislative process
    isn't going to help solve some of the problems that are most on
    their minds. And so I think it is really important.
        And one of the first notes I made when you were talking
    earlier this morning is that America doesn't back down from big
    challenges, right? I wrote that down too. To tackle big
    challenges we need big ideas, and that is where DOE comes in.
    That is where we are able to do the research at the labs and to
    do things to really scale some of these ideas. And we have seen
    it.
        I know a couple years ago we spent a lot of time talking
    about carbon capture. Certainly, we know that that has been
    something that industries used, you know, for decades and
    decades doing EOR and other things, and that has great,
    promising ability to help us address the emissions challenges
    that we have. And yet, you know, we need to use the resources
    that we have at DOE to try to address some of these challenges.
    And so I hope that we won't see your budget cut some of the
    important and innovative research.
        And I do have a specific question on research coming from
    the budget that I want to ask you, but it ties into something
    else you said earlier today. You mentioned the impact of Winter
    Storm Uri in Texas in 2021, and we really can't understate what
    a tragedy that was. I lived through it in my home in Houston,
    but not that far away from where I live a little boy froze to
    death in his bed when the heat went off. That is what we are
    talking about when we talk about the importance of these
    issues.
        And from your testimony, it seems to me like you might not
    know that FERC found that 87 percent of the unplanned
    generation outages were because of fuel issues related to
    natural gas, not renewables. So I just want to make sure you
    know that I am happy to share that with your team. And I don't
    want to confuse you. I am the cochair of the Natural Gas Caucus
    here. I fully believe in the importance of that. But these
    issues are life-and-death issues for our constituents.
        And so I want to note that your budget for fiscal year 2026
    includes a 50 percent cut to the National--Natural Gas
    Infrastructure and Hydrogen Technologies program within the
    Office of Fossil Energy. And I want to know if that includes
    weatherization research and development. And because I have
    spent the whole 5 minutes talking, I am going to have to ask
    you to reply for the record with the answer of what those cuts
    are.
        But this weatherization technology across the spectrum is
    just critically important, and so----
        Mr. Latta. And the gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mrs. Fletcher [continuing]. I hope you can answer that for
    me.
        Thank you so much, Chairman Latta. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
    North Dakota for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Well, good afternoon now, I think
    officially, Secretary Wright. So great to see you here. I still
    remember meeting with you in Bismarck, North Dakota, a couple
    of years ago and your very inspiring comments there. So great
    to have you out here in this role, and I really very much
    appreciate your work to both provide the right signals to the
    markets, to make sure that we are incentivizing things
    correctly, and to make sure that we are really trying to let
    the energy industry develop on its own without putting our
    fingers too heavily on the levers ourselves.
        So thank you, and I want to support you in those efforts.
        I want to talk a little bit about the reliability issues.
    Given that NERC's assessment today is that two-thirds of our
    systems in the U.S. don't have enough power to meet demand
    given certain circumstances today, and we are looking at
    retiring 115 gigawatts of baseload generation, and we are
    seeing significant demand increases--all of that looks like a
    huge train wreck to me and to many others.
        So today I introduced a bill. It is called the Baseload
    Reliability Act, and it will give DOE, FERC tools--and the grid
    operators--tools to help slow down the retirements, at least in
    time for new baseload or dispatchable resources to be brought
    on that is kind of equal in nature in how it responds to the
    grid. So I want to invite your look at that and your support in
    that.
        And one of the things that we need to do and be doing is
    actively tracking where those planned retirements are and how
    they might impact the grid. And I just wanted to ask, is that
    something that your office is already doing and working on?
        Secretary Wright. It is, Representative, and thank you for
    not just your comments and question here, but for your
    leadership. You have been an outspoken person in what I used to
    call or call energy sobriety, just being thoughtful.
        Look, there's no clean energy sources, there's no dirty
    energy sources. They just all have different trade-offs.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Right.
        Secretary Wright. But you--but we produce energy for one
    reason, which is to better people's lives. So having a reliable
    grid that is as affordable as possible and that can grow so we
    can bring industry and more job opportunities to our States and
    communities is just critical for doing that.
        And so, yes, it is a thing we are doing right now because
    we now are seeing significant demand growth signals. People
    want to build data centers. I have met with every one of the
    hyperscalers and a whole bunch of people that want to bring
    industrial factories and plants back to the United States. I
    think it is awesome. It is awesome for our country. It is
    awesome for blue collar workers. It is something I really want
    to see happen.
        But that is their biggest worry. ``Hey, if we come here,
    how am I going to navigate through FERC or whatever to be able
    to build a power plant? How am I going to know I have reliable,
    affordable power going--it is going to take me, you know, $10
    billion to build my plant. It is going to run for 40 years. I
    want to know what the--how I can get confidence in the energy
    thoughtfulness of the United States on that price.''
        And so, when people want, you know, tens of gigawatts of
    more power and we are shutting down facilities with decades
    left on their lifetime, that doesn't look so thoughtful. So,
    yes, we have a team in our Office of Electricity that is
    looking at grid reserve margins across the different areas of
    the country. And we are looking at planned retirements, and
    then we are going to try to proactively engage with all of them
    of why is this asset retiring? Does it make sense? Is there a
    better plan here? And if it is retiring, what is going to
    replace it that is equally dispatchable and firm-reliable and
    won't add to the cost of the grid or increase--either increase
    the cost or reduce the reliability of the grid.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Good. My bill would make what you are doing
    into law and basically require it so that, before anybody could
    retire a unit in one of the regions that have an elevated
    reliability risk, they would have to prove that it is being
    replaced in advance by equally reliable power. And then, if it
    isn't, then it would give you and FERC tools to require that
    they run, and some financial support to help cover those costs
    so it doesn't fall on the ratepayers.
        And I view this as being a--you know, this might be a 5-
    year thing. This might not be forever. But right now we are
    behind. So let's stop retiring. Let's make sure we are bringing
    new resources on as quickly as possible. And I stand with my
    colleagues across the aisle to work on permitting reform to
    bring things up as quickly as possible. But meanwhile, we need
    to keep what we have. That should not be a partisan statement.
        Thank you for----
        Secretary Wright. I----
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you for your leadership there.
        Oh my goodness, I am already out of time.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has----
        Mrs. Fedorchak. I look forward to working with you.
        Mr. Latta [continuing]. Expired, and yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes the gentlelady from New York's 14th district for
    5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Before
    I dive into my questions, I just wanted to clarify some of the
    exchanges that happened recently.
        First and foremost, there was a kind of an insinuation that
    after confirming that solar and renewable energies receive
    public subsidy, there was a little bit in the exchange that
    folks may have insinuated or taken from it that fossil fuels do
    not receive public subsidy.
        That is not what you are saying, right? Correct, Mr.
    Secretary?
        Secretary Wright. Oh, nowhere near of the same magnitude.
    And it is very--there is controversy about how to count them. I
    would say no meaningful subsidies today for oil and gas in the
    United States.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. I think you are right in that there
    is a disagreement in that, because I think what most people
    consider a subsidy is public use, public resources going to an
    industry or corporation. And in 2022 alone we are looking at 10
    to 52 billion dollars in direct subsidies, anywhere between--
    again, depending on how you count it--1.5 to 7 trillion dollars
    globally in the fossil fuel industry receiving subsidy, in
    addition to tax breaks, in addition to also public lands.
        I was the chair of the Energy and Mineral--ranking member
    of--the chair--Energy Mineral Resources Subcommittee on Natural
    Resources. And the public lands alone that we had leased for
    pennies on the dollar for oil companies to drill on, I think
    those would be considered subsidies, but there may be a
    difference of opinion there.
        Additionally, the other thing that I wanted to clear up as
    well is this exchange previously on the immigrant workforce for
    many of the oil fields and the industry. You stated that there
    is a difference between ``illegal immigration'' and legal
    immigration, but what is your stance on the ending of legal
    status for immigrants in the United States who are here
    documented?
        Secretary Wright. The devil is in the details, so I don't
    know enough about the issue you are raising to give a comment.
    I am very passionate about immigration and all that----
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK, yes.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. But I am not sure exactly
    the question you are asking.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So there are hundreds of thousands of
    legally documented immigrants here, many that work in the
    energy sector that, you know, are here under different kinds of
    authorizations, one being temporary protected status that Mr.
    Veasey had raised. And the administration is ending this status
    that provides a path to work permits, legal work permits for
    huge sectors of the workforce in the United States. Are you
    supportive of ending these work authorizations?
        Secretary Wright. Again, I am not actively working on
    immigration----
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. Policy and all that. I don't
    think I have a thoughtful----
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Understood.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. Response to that.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Understood. I will get back to my
    question line.
        In a February interview with Bloomberg, when asked what oil
    prices you are targeting as Secretary, you stated, ``Lower is
    better.'' And I take it you stand by that statement, correct?
        Secretary Wright. Yes. In general, lower is better because
    there's far more consumers than producers.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And even if that means oil company stock
    prices falling?
        Secretary Wright. I don't think American consumers should
    worry about the stock prices of oil and gas companies.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Great.
        Secretary Wright. You do need a healthy sector to actually
    produce, but that is what a market mechanism does.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Right.
        Secretary Wright. It is--the cure for high prices is high
    prices, and the cure for low prices is low prices.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And I think we are in agreement there.
        Given your statement on aiming for lower oil prices, what
    are your stances on the President's tariffs that are increasing
    costs of production?
        Secretary Wright. There's lots of impacts, and there's lots
    of things that impact the cost of production. Most of what the
    President is doing is going to meaningfully lower the cost of
    production. But his agenda to try to reshore heavy industry
    manufacturing in the United States, I think it is good for the
    country in the long run.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. I would like to reclaim my
    time.
        You know, there are several--there is an industrywide
    consensus here. There has also been a survey in March of oil
    and gas companies by the Dallas Fed, which were littered about
    complaints around uncertainty. Companies in this survey
    commented on the rising costs for materials like steel, which
    was subject to a 25 percent tariff at the time and is now
    subject to a 50 percent tariff as of June 4. Steel is,
    obviously, a very important input in oil and gas production and
    energy production writ large.
        Mr. Chair, I would like to seek unanimous consent to enter
    these complaints into the record.
        And Secretary--
        Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
        Secretary Wright, how does the President's tariffs plan and
    policy, particularly around steel, align with lowering costs
    for reducing uncertainty?
        Mr. Latta. Well, if I could interject, the lady's time has
    expired. If you could answer that in writing, it would be
    appreciated.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
        Secretary Wright. I will do that.
        Or we can talk another time.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Great.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The lady's time has expired, and the
    Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina's 7th
    district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Secretary Wright.
    Thank you for your testimony today, for joining us.
        I represent the 7th district of South Carolina. It was one
    of the fastest-growing regions in the country. From the beaches
    in Myrtle Beach to the industry hubs of Florence, we are seeing
    a surge in population, in investment. And of course, with that,
    Mr. Secretary, comes energy demand.
        Our economy is being transformed by advanced manufacturing,
    high-tech data centers, and a world-class digital
    infrastructure. And thankfully, South Carolina is leading by
    example. Over half of our electricity is generated by nuclear
    energy, which is clean, reliable, stable, is resilient. We are
    home to facilities like the Robinson plant in the district,
    which represents enormous potential for large-scale nuclear
    reactor development. We have a skilled workforce--South
    Carolina always has in this industry--and we have institutional
    expertise.
        What we need now, I think, and what we have had problems
    with in the past under prior administrations is we need a
    Federal partnership to match that ambition. I think we have
    heard on the Oversight Committee last year the delays with the
    DOE under Secretary Granholm, about how the problems that they
    were facing--and that they at least were envisioning ways that
    they could cut through the red tape and make sure that we could
    plug in nuclear power in an affordable way in this country.
        As you are aware, South Carolina is a leader in that
    national--or the nuclear energy, certainly with the Robinson
    plant and several others. What specific actions would you like
    the committee to consider, whether it is new legislative
    authority or regulatory streamlining, to ensure that the Loan
    Programs Office can fully support this next wave of nuclear
    development and deliver results for communities like mine in
    South Carolina?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, great, great question.
        The nuclear power industry has been hampered by, you know,
    a growing regulatory burden. I have used this example before,
    but if you brought Grand Central Station, the train station in
    midtown Manhattan, you know, to the NRC, it could not be
    permitted as a nuclear power plant because its radioactivity is
    too high. That is just naturally occurring radioactivity in the
    granite in the building.
        So they use a thing called linear no-threshold. High-
    threshold radiation we know is very hazardous to human health,
    and then they extrapolate how hazardous, and they extrapolate
    that all the way down to zero to say that the tiniest amount of
    radiation, you know, is harmful. And so the thresholds below
    which you have to get are very hard to achieve and very
    expensive.
        I lived in Colorado before I got my new job. There is a lot
    of extra radiation just living at high altitude, flying in an
    airplane. So to me, what we need is just reasonable regulation.
    Everybody wants to protect the environment and human health. My
    gosh, you know, we are a----
        Mr. Fry. But specifically about the Loan Programs Office,
    how can that be synthesized? What can we examine with that from
    a congressional standpoint to make sure that that advancement
    occurs?
        Secretary Wright. Sorry about that. On that, so we have put
    in a request. You know, we are concerned right now. We spend
    over $1.30 for every dollar we collect in taxes, so everything
    is very skinny right now. But we put in a $750 million credit
    subsidy request. If that got raised up and increased my lending
    authority for--to support nuclear projects, unquestionably that
    would be helpful.
        The first nuclear plants that will be built won't be cheap,
    because the industry hasn't built much for 30 years, Vogtle
    aside. But we haven't built much for 30 years. And I can assure
    you it will be used responsibly behind credit-worthy equity
    investors. I think it a helpful tool to get----
        Mr. Fry. Something like a VC Summer in Jenkinsville, South
    Carolina, potentially?
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Mr. Fry. That would be like a prime example of that?
        Secretary Wright. Certainly. Absolutely. So I think--I am a
    believer that energy sources with time should stand on their
    own. But if you see an emerging thing like nuclear reemerging
    or geothermal just emerging, I think a Loan Programs Office for
    a finite time period there can be helpful to launch those
    emerging sources.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you for that, Secretary. And looking ahead,
    how do you envision the Department supporting utilities and
    developers, investors trying to build out grid infrastructure
    that can handle the next generation of nuclear and data center
    load, particularly in rural areas? I think that is a big
    concern probably on both sides of the aisle, is a recognition
    that we need these things in rural communities.
        Secretary Wright. Yes, and I did--we have heard permitting
    reform on both sides of the aisle. It is very important. We
    need to be able to build things in this country again, which is
    transmission lines or even just reconnecting transmission
    lines. We need to be able to build that infrastructure and----
        Mr. Latta. And if I could----
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. Connect plants where they
    are.
        Mr. Latta [continuing]. Interject, the gentleman's time has
    expired. But if you would like to also answer that in written
    form, that would be great.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Massachusetts' 4th district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Secretary, welcome. I appreciate your testimony today. You
    have spoken a lot about the power of markets to deliver energy
    dominance for the United States. I agree. I believe in markets.
    I think they work well, and they are the key for us to control
    our own energy destiny as a country.
        Would you agree that one of the roles of government in
    making markets work better is to establish technology-neutral
    policy with clear, consistent, predictable regulation?
        Secretary Wright. Yes. Clear, consistent regulation is very
    helpful for industry.
        Mr. Auchincloss. And technology neutral?
        Secretary Wright. That--it depends what you mean by that
    word.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Well, the reason I ask is I represent
    Massachusetts, which had a number of projects in the works for
    offshore wind. And I understand a lot of my colleagues don't
    think offshore wind is going to work. I understand some
    investors don't think offshore wind is going to work.
        Shouldn't markets be able to decide that for themselves?
    Like, if they are able to put steel in the water and deliver
    power reliably, why should the Federal Government cancel that?
        Secretary Wright. I think it is a--I understand where you
    are coming from, Representative. It is a complicated question.
    And----
        Mr. Auchincloss. Do you agree with what Secretary Burgum
    has done, where he has functionally issued a moratorium against
    offshore wind, including for States and developers that are
    willing to take on the risk and see if it can deliver?
        Secretary Wright. The question is who is willing to take on
    the risk. The history of offshore wind, first in Europe and
    here, has been a train wreck. It has been higher electricity
    prices and less stable grids.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Right. And State governments and private
    developers are well able to see the same track record that you
    are able to see. They are proposing to innovate and develop and
    take risks just like geothermal or nuclear. And I am not a
    technology expert for clean energy. I don't know if it is going
    to work. What I do know is I don't understand why one
    bureaucrat in Washington, DC, should be able to say yes or no,
    especially when you are pointing out, rightfully, that
    investors are not going to want to put billions of dollars down
    on the table over a decadal time span if a new administration
    comes in and rips up the contracts, right?
        I mean, does this send a good signal to investors that they
    can put hundreds of millions of dollars down and it gets thrown
    out overnight?
        Secretary Wright. It is a challenging issue of what the
    right thing to do with wind power. There is also a lot of
    public outrage just because the footprint, the physical
    footprint and the footprint of waters, is large. And so there
    is a growing movement of----
        Mr. Auchincloss. Let's be candid.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. Rural people----
        Mr. Auchincloss. The outrage is because there were offshore
    wind farms off the coast of Scotland and the President's golf
    course. That is why he is mad about it. And people who want to
    invest in new, clean energy sources should not have to worry
    about whether the next president does or does not like turbines
    off his golf course.
        Let's talk about another issue, an issue where we may see
    more eye to eye, which is geothermal and nuclear. Strong
    supporter of both. I think they are critical. And you have
    already talked about the Loan Programs Office's really vital
    role in potentially both of them.
        I was interested to hear the gentleman from South Carolina
    concerned about the LPO, because he voted, along with all the
    other Republicans in the reconciliation bill, to rescind nearly
    all of the LPO's unobligated credit subsidy.
        Would you encourage the Senate and the House to restore the
    LPO's credit ability to issue loans as part of this
    reconciliation package?
        Secretary Wright. I would.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Great.
        Secretary Wright. I think we have to be cautious and
    judicious with funds. And the Loan Programs Office, as I
    described, has a recent pretty poor track record. So I
    understand the reticence. But yes, I do think it is a helpful
    tool.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Can you talk about the types of technology
    in nuclear and geothermal that you are most excited about? I am
    going to give you a minute here, because I know this is an area
    that you are excited about. Small modular? Are you are talking
    about large reactors?
        And then geothermal, what are you seeing with the superhot
    rock geothermal like the microwave technology. Do you have any
    opinions on where are the most promising avenues of innovation?
        Secretary Wright. Well, I think you mentioned several of
    them.
        So yes, to me, energy should be about humans and math. So
    it is where the math works. So right now, using dry rock and
    sort of depth of shale wells, you know, 6 to 12,000 feet deep,
    that I think is rapidly becoming commercially viable to inject
    water, produce it out the other end, produce electricity.
        Mr. Auchincloss. What about the millimeter technology, like
    from companies out of the plasma lab at MIT that are trying to
    go 7 to 10 miles deep?
        Secretary Wright. Super exciting. So that is earlier stage.
    But yes, should we support research like that? A hundred
    percent. Could that be a big deal? Absolutely, it could be a
    big deal.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Just to be clear: Those kind of
    technologies would rely on both the LPO and the tax credits
    that this reconciliation bill is threatening. I mean, we do
    need--for markets to bring innovation to bear across long-time
    cycles and a lot of uncertainty, you do need public dollars and
    regulation to derisk private capital, yes?
        Secretary Wright. I have advocated in this legislation
    right now to have nuclear, geothermal, and fusion as three
    emerging sources to get tax credit treatment, you know, maybe
    through an end date. Like if you are under construction by
    2031----
        Mr. Auchincloss. And I appreciate that.
        Secretary Wright. It has to have an end date, but I am with
    you.
        Mr. Auchincloss. I understand it.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time----
        Mr. Auchincloss. And you and I both know the reconciliation
    bill does not do that right now.
        Mr. Latta [continuing]. Has expired, and----
        Mr. Auchincloss. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta [continuing]. Yields back, thank you very much.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama's 6th
    district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I want to talk with you about a couple of
    other issues that really impact energy, and that is our access
    to critical minerals and rare earth elements, and the ability
    to process and refine those. I think that it is very clear now
    it is not only a threat to our economy, but to our national
    security.
        Can you address the power needs that we are going to have
    if we are able to ensure the processing and refineries for rare
    earth elements?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, Representative. I think you have
    raised a key point.
        Look, China has made a multidecade strategic decision to
    own the supply chain for rare earth elements and the magnets
    that are constructed from them, and they are in an amazing
    amount of devices across our economy and across the developed
    world's economies. And we are vulnerable right now. We should
    be able to do that in the United States, and it is a case where
    I think we need to figure out how to make that happen.
        I will be next month at a mine in Wyoming. That will be the
    first rare earth element mine opened in this country in 70
    years. But a mine is not enough.
        Mr. Palmer. Right.
        Secretary Wright. We need that processing and refining done
    in this country, and it is an urgent effort to assure a better
    domestic supply of critical minerals that are important to our
    economy and our national security.
        Mr. Palmer. There is basically two types of rare earth
    elements. You have got the heavy elements that require even
    more refining technology, and it is a very power-demand
    industry. In order to meet that, we are obviously going to have
    to build out our generation capabilities. You and I have had
    this discussion before about how we have shuttered almost 300
    coal or hydrocarbon power generation facilities. The
    transmission lines are still there.
        One of the things that I am looking at, and I would like
    for you to comment on it, is looking particularly in some of
    the more remote areas using small modular reactors--which my
    Democratic colleagues, I think, are on board with--to match the
    generation capacity of the SMRs to the capacity of the
    transmission lines, but also look at those as possible sites
    for a processing or refining facility. Any thoughts about that?
        Secretary Wright. I think it is a great idea, as well. You
    are right. These refining facilities, just like data centers,
    are energy intensive, and they are only going to be here if
    they have affordable, reliable energy. And small modular
    reactors and different nuclear technologies are fantastic
    candidates to do just that.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, the other thing about it, too, is that
    when you create this additional demand for power, it is--you
    start pricing out residential and other business and
    commercial. And we want to do this in a way that it doesn't
    raise prices. So we have got to be really smart, really
    strategic about building out our power generation so that we
    not only can address what I think is clearly an economic and
    national security issue in our reliance on China for refined
    critical minerals and rare earth elements, but also at the same
    time not do harm to the economy, not do harm to middle-class
    Americans.
        So, again, you and I have kind of talked about this a
    little bit. You take an all-of-the-above approach, but to do
    this we cannot do it with renewables. You have got to have a
    reliable baseload. And when you have the--on the same power
    generation facility residential, commercial, and then these
    heavy industries, you have got to have a consistent baseload
    that is also able to meet these peak demands. Is that accurate?
        Secretary Wright. That is accurate. I agree very much,
    Representative.
        And I think you make another critical point, not just that
    we need to keep the cost down but to keep Americans on side
    with the reindustrialization of this country. If they see
    factories and data centers come, and all they are--paying their
    bills becomes more expensive, they are not going to support
    what we are doing. But if it brings jobs and economic
    opportunity and doesn't drive up the price of electricity, we
    start an American renaissance of manufacturing.
        Mr. Palmer. I have only been here 10 years in Congress, but
    I have worked for 2 international engineering companies, I ran
    a think tank for almost 25 years, so I have kind of followed
    people who fill your position as Secretary of Energy. And I
    have never in my experience experienced someone like you and
    your whole philosophy. And I would like for you to comment on
    that.
        You put out this publication on bettering human lives, and
    your whole perspective about energy policy is focused on
    bettering human lives. Could you just comment on that?
        And after he finishes, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Wright. Yes, I say only two things matter with
    energy: humans and math.
        Mr. Latta. Ten seconds, thank you.
        Secretary Wright. Right? We only produce energy for one
    reason: to make our lives better. It shouldn't be political. We
    shouldn't give it stupid names like ``clean'' or ``renewable''
    or ``dirty.'' These are just marketing terms. We should be
    serious about energy because we want to better human lives.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you for the job you are doing.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. The gentleman yields back, and
    the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's 15th
    district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr.
    Secretary, for being here today.
        Last August, President Trump promised to cut energy prices
    in half within a year, but it looks like he is going to fall
    far short of that goal. According to the latest forecast by
    your agency, national electricity rates are going to increase
    this year by 5 percent, which would outpace predicted
    inflation. Now we are faced with a proposed budget that will
    raise the prices of electricity and natural gas for everyday
    Americans.
        The Senate is considering a reconciliation bill that would
    kill clean energy tax credits that were created in the Bush
    administration. By definition, this will make energy more
    expensive. Some Senate Republicans acknowledge these changes
    would ``translate into immediate utility bill increases,
    placing additional strain on hard-working Americans.'' Multiple
    studies have shown this would increase energy bills by as much
    as $400 a year for an average household.
        So, Mr. Secretary, please tell me: What is your agency's
    plan to protect consumers from increases on their energy bills?
        Secretary Wright. We need to do everything we can to
    unleash more energy production in the United States and reduce
    regulatory burdens. I think we have accomplished a lot in 120
    days, but the energy system is large and complicated. And can
    you turn this ship on a dime in 120 days? No. But I think this
    administration and the President's actions have done a lot to
    change the trajectory on the energy prices going forward. Most
    energy prices, actually, that consumers see actually are lower
    today than they were a year ago, and they are lower today than
    they were at inauguration.
        Your comment that by getting rid of subsidies by definition
    will make energy more expensive in this rare case is actually
    untrue. The subsidies on wind and solar, which have cost the
    Government over $100 billion, have actually led to not only
    that cost, they have made electricity bills more expensive. So
    they are the worst subsidies in that they actually make the
    product more expensive at the end.
        Mr. Mullin. We will disagree with that assertion, sir.
    Amidst rising costs, your agency, along with Health and Human
    Services, has proposed to completely eliminate programs that
    help families with their bills. Specifically, I am referring to
    the Weatherization Assistance Program, which lowers costs for
    consumers, and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program,
    known as LIHEAP. I am sure you are familiar with that. It helps
    households afford their utility bills.
        Seven million Americans rely on these programs, helping
    families not to have to choose between putting food on the
    table and paying their electricity bill. Last year in my
    district, over 1,600 households used LIHEAP or Weatherization
    Assistance Programs, all of which--almost all of which--were
    elderly, disabled, or those with young children. So please tell
    me why you want to eliminate those programs.
        Secretary Wright. I am very passionate, like you are,
    Representative, about energy costs. I want to do everything in
    our power to lower the cost of energy for low-income families,
    which is number one, which is why the policies over the last 4
    years and broadly over the last 20 years that have made it
    harder to produce energy in this country and have forced onto
    our grid intermittent, unreliable sources that necessarily make
    the grid more expensive to operate--I have said they have not
    only been economic wrong, I view them as immoral.
        In your State of California, you had similar electricity
    prices to California 15 years ago. Today they are twice, and
    you have the highest adjusted poverty rate in the Nation in the
    State of California. And the core of that is making electricity
    expensive, and pushing jobs out of the State, and impoverishing
    low-income people.
        I am with you. We should go the opposite direction, not
    that direction.
        Mr. Mullin. During your Senate confirmation hearing just 4
    months ago, you stated, ``I have studied and followed the data
    and the evolution of climate change for at least 20 years now.
    It is a global issue. It is a real issue. It is a challenging
    issue. And the solution to climate change is to evolve our
    energy system.'' I couldn't agree more, Mr. Secretary.
        So despite that clear assertion, your proposed budget
    request rolls back billions from innovation initiatives and
    from clean energy programs, the very efforts that are central
    to evolving our energy system--including those with California
    leadership, by the way, thank you for that.
        Do you believe your energy agency has a role in cutting
    emissions and protecting Americans from the impacts of climate
    change?
        Secretary Wright. The way to cut emissions, as I said then
    and as I say now, is to move to new energy technologies,
    natural gas displacing coal as the largest source of
    electricity in the United States. Coal is still by far the
    biggest globally, but gas is second and growing fast. Nuclear
    is the reliable, dispatchable energy source we have that has--
    there is no such thing as zero, but has lower greenhouse gas
    emissions. Geothermal is another one.
        But again, to try to follow the model of California or
    Germany or England, if you make electricity expensive you just
    impoverish people, and industry just leaves that State. It is
    not part of fighting climate change, it is just part of
    impoverishing people and relocating industry to lower-cost
    energy places. That is not the path for climate change, in my
    opinion.
        Mr. Latta. And the gentleman's time has expired, and yields
    back, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Colorado's 8th district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and, of
    course, thank you, Secretary Wright. So good to see a fellow
    Coloradan here, not the least of which being--I am going to try
    to squeeze in four questions, so I don't have to lay out for
    you the situation in Colorado. So straight to the first
    question.
        We know that in the part of the State that I represent we
    have got a lot of oil and gas workers drilling. Can you talk
    about how the Department, your Department, can work with that
    existing workforce to increase projects that are happening
    around geothermal and that baseload generation from geothermal
    power?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, and great to see you, Congressman
    Evans. I appreciate your service.
        Yes, the next-generation geothermal that is coming along
    right now, we used to call it hot dry rock. Now they call it
    enhanced geothermal systems. It uses oil and gas technology,
    uses shale well technology to drill into dry rocks that don't
    have any hydrocarbons in them but are just hot, and inject
    once--you know, drill and frack wells, inject water into it,
    flow it through the rock, and produce them out of other wells.
        So it is very much the same kind of training and work base
    as people working in oil and gas in Colorado. In fact, the same
    companies are--not only could, but they are interested in
    developing that next-generation geothermal resources.
        Colorado has these resources in place. There is a 400-
    megawatt project under development in neighboring Utah. But can
    that also happen in Colorado? Absolutely. And if that activity
    starts to go, is there a workforce that is excited and willing
    to go into that? Absolutely. Will a number of those come from
    the oil and gas industry? I am sure they will.
        Mr. Evans. Great. Great to hear that. Next question. You
    know, unfortunately, we know that there is an epidemic of
    premature retiring baseload-generating stations. Colorado alone
    accounts for 10 percent of the baseload power in the Nation
    that is forecast to come offline this year. And so, while we
    know we need to reverse that trend, we also know that there are
    certain bottlenecks and regulatory barriers to being able to
    get the dispatchable baseload power that we need.
        So for the present moment, can you speak to the importance
    of variable power--wind and solar--coupled with battery to meet
    the energy demands of the present moment?
        Secretary Wright. Yes. So, look, solar has made tremendous
    technical progress, you know, in the last 10 years, and I think
    continues to do it. So if--for example, if you are an island
    energy grid and you are getting your power from diesel, and you
    could supplement that with solar, you can burn less diesel, you
    can drive down your electricity costs, in domestic United
    States, where we can pull from all different energy sources.
        Solar has applications in some areas and below a certain
    penetration level. But until you can get multiple days of
    energy stored, it is going to be a supplemental energy source.
        But in summertime, where peak demand is near the end of the
    day, if you have solar panels there and you have a few hours of
    battery storage, you can move that late-afternoon electricity
    into the peak demand time before people go to bed. So it can
    play a role, and without subsidies you will get wiser decisions
    about where does it make sense and where does it not make
    sense.
        So nothing in what I have said to get rid of these
    subsidies says get rid of the technology. Solar is going to be
    around, it is going to be around for the long run. And I think
    it continues to grow. But even in an optimistic scenario, it
    doesn't likely ever get to 10 percent of global energy. Not
    just electricity, it is just one slice of energy. But I think
    solar has a future, and any technology with a future can
    survive and should survive without subsidies. You know, 25
    years maybe is enough.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you. And then, let's see, we got 1 minute
    and 4 seconds left.
        So the United States hasn't tested a new reactor design in
    close to 50 years, nuclear reactor design. President Trump
    recently expressed a desire to see a test by July 4, 2026. What
    can Congress do to provide you and the Department with the
    resources needed to expedite the testing of a reactor for
    commercial use by 2026?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, so our goal there is at the Idaho
    National Laboratory--which is our sort of commercial nuclear
    lab in Idaho--they have got a lot of land there and a
    tremendous amount of just fantastic scientists, so--and there
    are commercial businesses that have new reactor designs coming
    up. We want to get them into our test containment vessel and
    run them.
        So I think what--building nuclear as more of a bipartisan
    issue in this Congress has been helpful. Look, to really
    unleash nuclear going forward, the NRC has got to become more
    efficient and more sensible in regulations. We have got to
    get--if you approved your reactor design and it is a small
    modular reactor, you are going to build the same reactor. You
    can't have to start from new every time. We just got to
    evaluate the new site location.
        So commonsense permitting reform at NRC is helpful, and
    that is certainly under the jurisdiction of this Congress. But
    we are working it at the administration level, as well. I have
    got some optimism there, Representative Evans. But yes, it is
    going to take us all working together.
        Mr. Latta. And the gentleman's time has expired and yields
    back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    California's 25th district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Wright, it is nice to meet you. I represent
    California's 25th district. It is the southeast corner of
    California, an area with one of the Nation's most promising
    opportunities for battery manufacturing and critical mineral
    development. It also produces the most renewable energy on
    Federal land than any district in the United States. So we have
    an abundance of solar power, wind, and geothermal energy.
        And I know you are here to discuss the budget, but to
    highlight what this budget means for my district and for our
    Nation's energy future and security, I need to tell you about
    the real impacts of these budgets for the people in my district
    and our Nation's potential, because it determines whether their
    families can breathe clean air, whether young people find good
    jobs at home, and whether rural and low-income communities are
    included in this energy future or left behind.
        You see, critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, nickel,
    and rare earth elements power our phones, cars, and electric
    grids, yet we are far too dependent on foreign adversaries,
    especially China, for their supply and processing, and
    including for batteries. This dependance isn't just an economic
    vulnerability, it is a national security threat that demands a
    bold domestic solution. And that solution, Mr. Secretary, is
    right here in Lithium Valley, domestically located in Imperial
    County within my district.
        We sit on the world's fifth-largest lithium deposit
    accessible through a closed-loop system while we produce
    geothermal energy because it is carbon free, and it basically
    takes the geothermal brine and extracts the lithium out of
    there, and all these other critical minerals as well.
        We have so much lithium that I want to put it into
    perspective. The lithium reserves in Lithium Valley alone can
    supply enough battery-grade lithium to power over 3 million
    electric vehicles, significantly reducing our dependance on
    foreign supply chain while driving domestic manufacturing and
    good jobs. And I know some people are averse to electric
    vehicles, but we have enough lithium to produce the batteries
    that we are going to need for AI and the future industries and
    technology that we need.
        But here is the challenge: Sometimes, you know, they are
    located in areas where we need more development. Imperial
    County is one of the most underserved and economically
    disadvantaged regions in the country. It is an area hungry for
    jobs, hungry for infrastructure and investments. There's been a
    lot of investments already to develop workforce development
    with local community colleges, a lot of investments to pave the
    roads and fix the bridges in order for us to anticipate the
    mass production of this lithium.
        So I want to ask you, you know, how will the DOE help
    ensure that critical minerals funding reaches these rural and
    underresourced regions like Imperial County, and that companies
    in Lithium Valley have the tools, workforce, and certainty
    needed to grow and deliver on this national priority?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, I appreciate very much your comments
    and questions. And yes, affordable, reliable power should be
    for everyone, particularly--rural communities face great
    challenges in this area because you can't bring
    industrialization without affordable energy there.
        I am quite excited about the opportunity with lithium in
    the brine and hot brines to get energy out of it, to get
    critical minerals out of it. I share your passion and
    excitement for that and would absolutely love to see a
    development go forward with that. That is certainly one of the
    things that is--will be evaluated at the Department of Energy.
    But there's a lot of positive ingredients going on for what you
    have got going on in that community.
        Mr. Ruiz. Well, I know that company Energy Source is
    currently negotiating one of the loans with the Department of
    Energy, and I encourage that process to come to completion so
    that we have the capacity of mass producing lithium within
    months, less than a year. And that is something that we really
    need.
        I have sent you a couple letters, so--I am inviting you to
    the district. So I am going to take the opportunity here face
    to face, eye to eye, and ask you if you would commit to come
    into the district, see firsthand what the progress has been
    made in this arena. Your predecessor has done that, and I would
    love for you to come by. And you will see that there is a lot
    of bipartisan support for this development.
        Secretary Wright. I would love to as well. I think it is an
    exciting area of potential development, and I am interested to
    go with you to tour that. A schedule I can't commit to right
    now, but I will go out there with you.
        Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
        Secretary Wright. And I think it is worthwhile.
        I should say one last thing about electric vehicles. I--or,
    I think, anyone in this administration--don't oppose electric
    vehicles. They are neat, and they are dominantly bought by
    wealthy people. We are just opposed to American taxpayers
    subsidizing wealthy people to buy electric vehicles. We are not
    against electric vehicles. And they are like solar. They are
    going to continue to grow too.
        Mr. Latta. If I could interject, the gentleman's time has
    expired, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York's
    23rd district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today and answering
    our questions.
        As a Member from New York State, I have seen firsthand how
    States like mine with overly aggressive, rush-to-green policies
    worked hand in hand with the Biden-era Department of Energy to
    advance their radical agenda, jeopardizing affordability,
    reliability, and price for ordinary Americans in the process.
        So looking at the Department's State energy offices, Mr.
    Secretary, what action is the Department taking or planning to
    take to reset the direction of the DOE's State energy office
    funding to ensure that it better supports affordability,
    reliability, and technological neutrality?
        Secretary Wright. Congressman, I will have to get back to
    you on that, on the State energy offices. I have not been--I
    have been directly involved with talking to numerous Governors
    about energy policy, but not directly through the State energy
    offices. I wish I was more informed on that.
        Mr. Langworthy. OK, great. And we will follow up with you
    on that.
        And has DOE considered creating a funding category
    specifically for States seeking to expand dispatchable energy,
    modernize their grid baseload capacity, or preserve
    affordability rather than aggressively pursuing climate
    benchmarks?
        Secretary Wright. Well, our view on funding has not been so
    much State by State as project by project. But yes, as you
    said, projects that are going to deliver affordable energy and
    drive down energy costs and grow energy supplies, those are the
    kind of projects we are looking to support. And things on the
    other side that are ultimately going to make energy more
    expensive or less reliable, we are--you know, the math on them
    doesn't pencil out as well. So less of the money is going to go
    in that direction.
        Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I would like to
    end my time here focused on President Trump's Executive order
    signed April 8, titled, ``Protecting American Energy from State
    Overreach.'' How is the Department interpreting this Executive
    order?
        And has the Department taken any steps to identify State-
    level energy mandates or regulations that may be inconsistent
    with the Federal interest in energy affordability and
    reliability?
        Secretary Wright. We are looking at that, both through our
    legal team--and I should maybe not--I don't have too much to
    elaborate on that right there.
        But in your State, your great State of New York, I should
    say, is an area I and others in our Department have focused on
    because it affects--the actions of New York have impacted not
    just New York and New Yorkers, but all of New England. So the
    two natural gas pipelines, the Constitution pipeline and the
    NESE pipeline, would have lowered the cost of electricity in
    New York State, lowered the cost of heating, home heating, in
    New York State, improved air quality by converting a lot of
    legacy-fuel-oil-burning heating systems in people's houses to
    natural gas, and brought more natural gas through your State
    into New England so they could also lower their electricity
    prices, their home heating costs, and their ability to build
    industry.
        So to your point, it is sort of a poster child of State
    actions that hurt the residents of your own State and of
    neighboring States. And to go that--take that one step further,
    the tremendous Marcellus Shale that has changed not just U.S.
    but world energy circumstances, it goes under the State of New
    York as well. Western and central New York--
        Mr. Langworthy. I represent the Marcellus Shale in my
    district. And, you know, they have truly stolen a generational
    opportunity that could have transformed our economy, could have
    lowered our home heating costs, and provided plentiful natural
    gas throughout the northeastern States. And as one of the only
    northeastern members on this committee, I think this is an
    important platform to have that conversation.
        And I really appreciate you bringing that up because, you
    know, we have a war on natural gas, unfortunately, in New York
    and many other New England, you know, area States. And it is
    taking our economies in the wrong direction.
        Secretary Wright. I think your leadership here is so
    important. You represent that district. And to give--you said a
    war on natural gas in your State. Well, what is New York's
    biggest source of electricity by far and away? Natural gas.
        Mr. Langworthy. Gas.
        Secretary Wright. And they passed a law saying you can't
    heat your home with natural gas, you have to heat it with
    electricity, which means instead of burning 1 unit of gas, you
    have got to burn 2\1/2\ units of gas at the power plant and
    then transport it via transmission lines and make home heating
    3 times as expensive and burn twice as much gas to do it. That
    is not a war on natural gas, which is what New York relies on.
    That is just a war on common sense and a war on your citizens.
        Mr. Langworthy. Common sense is missing in the State of New
    York. I would love to work with you on finding a plan and
    finding any Federal interest where we can try to repower our
    shuttered coal power plants in the western end of our State
    into, you know, clean natural gas plants, and put some real
    power on the grid, instead of taking power off at all times.
        So I really thank you for being with us, Secretary.
        Secretary Wright. I look forward to working with you,
    Congressman.
        Mr. Langworthy. All right, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired, and
    yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Louisiana's 2nd district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I represent Louisiana,
    which has served as America's gas station for the past century,
    drilling, refining, and shipping oil and gas worldwide.
        Just like our innovation, it is traditional energy
    resources--has become an economic boon for America. Investments
    and other forms of energy could transform Louisiana's economy.
    We must do so, and I think you will agree--because you have
    said comments to this effect--that we should do it in a way
    that we protect communities, that we recognize our number-one
    commodity are healthy communities, healthy people, making sure
    that they have access to clean water and clean air. So I
    appreciate your agreeing in that regard.
        Louisiana has the existing infrastructure and skilled
    energy workforce to be a leader in the 21st century energy. Our
    expertise can be leveraged to develop emerging energy sectors
    like offshore wind and hydrogen. Port Fourchon, our deepwater
    port in coastal Lafourche Parish, is ideal for building,
    deploying, and maintaining offshore wind projects.
    Additionally, abundant natural resources and pipeline access
    across Louisiana can support large-scale hydrogen production
    and distribution.
        However, the Trump administration's actions has halted new
    offshore wind leases and permitted--permitting and approvals
    for existing projects. These decisions have cast uncertainty
    over hundreds of megawatts of planned offshore wind capacity.
    Meanwhile, according to a recent Bloomberg report, the current
    vision of the Republican reconciliation bill will severely
    limit the amount of renewable energy capacity the U.S. adds
    over the next decade, when solar and storage capacity would
    drop by 10 percent by 2035. The impact of wind power would be
    most severe, with new capacity shrinking by 35 percent and no
    offshore wind additions in 2028.
        Secretary Wright, in your confirmation hearings you
    committed to an all-of-the-above energy strategy--and I applaud
    that--to include both conventional forms of energy as well as
    renewable energy. But you have appeared before the House
    Committee last month and said, ``I have never been for all of
    the above myself.''
        So which is it, sir? Can we count on you to be for all of
    the above?
        We know that this is important. We know what we have to do
    as Americans. We cannot do the same old thing expecting a
    different result. Our world is changing. Our climate is
    changing. Wouldn't you agree that we have to do better than
    what we have done?
        Secretary Wright. Well, I have been about improvement and
    innovation in energy my whole life. As a 17-year-old kid I went
    to college to work on fusion energy. I worked on solar energy
    in graduate school and geothermal right after. I only got to
    oil and gas a little bit later.
        So Congressman, I appreciate your passion on these issues,
    but I have never been for all of the above. And if I said it at
    one point in time, I misspoke. I have always been--tried to
    always be very careful in my words, that energy is too
    important to mean everything, just do it all. My thing about
    energy----
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Are you against solar?
        Secretary Wright. What?
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Are you against wind? Are you
    against wind?
        Secretary Wright. I am against energy sources that make the
    energy system more expensive or less reliable. Solar has
    applications in many different energy systems around the world.
    Heck, there is probably even a few places where wind itself
    would be a positive for an energy system.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. So these arev--these are all the
    above. These are----
        Secretary Wright. In----
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. We are talking about--and we may
    have to do them in size and scale, but I think you will agree
    that we can't afford to leave meaningful opportunities on the
    table if we want to maximize healthy outcomes for communities
    while making sure that we remain a robust energy producer.
        Secretary Wright. You come from a great energy-producing
    State, and I share your passion for more energy. But mostly
    what we have done with the subsidies through the Federal
    Government for wind and solar has mostly been negative. We have
    incentivized rich people and rich companies to build energy
    things that have----
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I don't want to cut you off, sir,
    because there is so much that we have to say. I just want to--
    --
        Secretary Wright. All right, you go.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana [continuing]. Get a few things in
    real quickly.
        The State of Louisiana Hubs for Energy Resilience Operation
    Hero Project won a $250 million Federal award. There are
    programs like this that are so important for our communities.
    Projects for Together New Orleans, these communities will serve
    the residents for cooling-off places. Their grants have been
    suspended. Can I get you to commit to at least revisiting them
    with me to see if there is a way to revive them and bring them
    in the mainstream?
        These programs matter to the people in my district, and
    they are ones that have been tested, they have gone through the
    appropriation process in a bipartisan way and survived.
        Secretary Wright. Let's look into that together. I am not
    sure exactly what you are referring to, but let's look into
    that.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And Mr. Chairman, if I could have
    10 seconds, I will just say--
        Mr. Latta. Well, the gentleman's time has expired. Votes
    are going to be called in 10 minutes, and we have--
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I just want to correct one record
    on Louisiana blackouts.
        Mr. Latta. But if you could submit that----
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I will submit it in writing.
        There were some comments that were made about blackouts in
    Louisiana. I just want to correct the record----
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana [continuing]. That they may not
    have been told--
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta [continuing]. And the Chair now recognizes the
    gentleman from Pennsylvania, the vice chair of the full
    committee, for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary Wright, for appearing here today.
        Right now the United States is in the pole position when it
    comes to advancing artificial intelligence. But just as in any
    race, competitors, and specifically China, is right behind us.
    By the end of the decade, the data centers necessary for this
    AI could consume almost 10 percent of all electricity in the
    United States.
        In Pennsylvania we have that necessary natural gas that you
    just mentioned to meet the increased demand and beat China in
    the AI race. If America wants to remain in the lead, it will
    require an all-of-government approach to follow through on
    President Trump's Executive orders and restore American energy
    dominance.
        Secretary Wright, your Department--you know this--will play
    a critical role in this work. One of the challenges that you
    will have to navigate is to balance between new energy demand
    for data centers and maintaining reliability for the electric
    grid. Recently, the DOE issued an emergency section 202(c)
    order requiring the operation of two legacy generation units in
    the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania past their planned
    retirements, citing--dutifully noted, as well--concern with
    resource adequacy and reliability.
        Federal policy from the Biden administration that
    disincentivizes the development of new, dispatchable energy
    generation made your actions ultimately necessary. Now, with
    the Trump administration and your leadership, we need to
    expedite these long-delayed reliability measures. How can the
    DOE collaborate with State governments and authorities to
    ensure timely development and connection of new baseload power
    so that the legacy systems can be taken offline as planned?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, that is a great question and
    comments, Congressman. And in fact, just last week I spent an
    hour or so with some developers trying to do a very large
    project in your State that would take a legacy coal plant,
    convert it to natural gas, expand the size of it far beyond
    where it was, colocate data centers there, and that is exactly
    what we want to see happen in this country.
        And as you said, winning the AI race isn't a nice to have,
    it is a have to have. This is a national security issue if
    China gets ahead of us in AI.
        And so what we are trying to do is get lists--and it is not
    just the Energy Department, it is the Federal Government--we
    are trying to get lists of what are the roadblocks for you to
    get this permit or to do that, what are your problems? And let
    us dig into the Government and find out how we can address
    those issues.
        But it is about permitting. It is about moving some of the
    regulatory morass out of the way. Ultimately, we are going to
    have to fix the Clean Power Plan 2.0 that requires this carbon
    sequestration, you know, 10 years out into the future. Like,
    that is just not going to happen. But if that law is in there,
    it is a huge disincentive to build new power infrastructure.
        So there's many things that need to be done. But you are
    right. Pennsylvania, you know, tremendous legacy as a coal
    mining State. Now it has got the greatest natural gas field in
    the world under your State. I think with commonsense
    government, the future of Pennsylvania could be very, very
    bright.
        Mr. Joyce. Well, thank you. And I think that your ability
    to recognize that will allow those data centers to continue to
    be developed in previous--to your point--in previous settings
    that were coal-powered plants moving on.
        Part of ensuring a reliable power grid is creating an
    inviting and predictable environment for new infrastructure
    investment. While it is imperative that we ensure Federal
    dollars are only being used for a worthwhile process, the
    review of many of the grants and loans made by the last
    administration was truly a lengthy one. Even projects that
    align with Trump's administration goals to unleash American
    energy can be left in an unsteady environment as the reviews
    continue to unfold. This dynamic can have a cooling effect on
    the desperately needed investment in generation, in
    infrastructure, and in innovation.
        How can the DOE help provide more confidence to
    stakeholders who need to make time-sensitive investment
    decisions while working through the investigation of waste,
    fraud, and abuse?
        Mr. Latta. Mr. Secretary, if you could, do that in 25
    seconds.
        Secretary Wright. Very fair question, Representative, and
    we are moving as fast as we can. We have got a process in
    place. We have a team in place. We are getting through, you
    know, maybe a dozen or more projects a week, maybe more than a
    dozen projects a week. And so, by the end of this summer or
    middle of this summer, we are going to have clarity on most of
    the big projects. I want to do it as fast as I can, but given
    that track record I got to do it responsibly. But I hear your
    concern, and let's stay in touch.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you again for your leadership in this.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the
    Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan's 6th
    district for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And Mr. Secretary, welcome. We haven't had a chance to
    really meet. I am from Michigan, and I am a car girl. I care
    deeply about the domestic auto industry. It has been my whole
    life.
        But since the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law,
    Michigan has led the clean energy manufacturing boom. We have
    seen over $40 billion in the private investment and more than
    25,000 new jobs created, with projections for up to 167,000
    clean energy jobs over the next decade. And it is happening
    right now in retooled EV plants, battery factories, and in
    rural and underserved communities across my State.
        But 6 months into this administration, we have already seen
    $14.2 billion in investments stalled or canceled in Michigan,
    jeopardizing over 2,600 jobs. This is troubling to me, but I--
    these spendings aren't--these investments aren't just about
    public spending. They have unlocked historic private capital.
        Repealing the Clean Energy Tax Credits risks nearly $40
    billion in Michigan investment alone. And meanwhile, China is
    watching, and they are more than willing and ready to seize the
    market share we are giving up. And I am glad to hear you say
    you like EVs, and I don't want to ban the internal combustion
    engine. I think we need both. I am seasoned, not old enough to
    remember the 1970s, when the Japanese beat us. We weren't ready
    with small cars when gasoline prices went up.
        Well, here is a reality now: The global market wants EVs.
    That is a reality. And China is subsidizing the manufacturing
    of electric vehicles, they are manipulating their currency,
    they are using slave labor. And EVs have to be part of our
    product mix.
        Is forfeiting this market share to the Chinese Communist
    Party a smart manufacturing strategy? Do we have data that says
    canceling these investments helps America's competitiveness?
    And have we looked at how many jobs this is going to cost us?
        Secretary Wright. So, Representative, I love your passion,
    and I want to see Michigan reindustrialize again. It has got
    such a proud, beautiful history, and I truly believe it has a
    proud, beautiful future, as well.
        Mrs. Dingell. We have to make--you and I got to work
    together to make sure we put the world on wheels, and we are
    going to keep the world on mobility. No other country can beat
    us.
        Secretary Wright. I love it, and I agree. I agree. You said
    a lot of things I agree with 100 percent.
        Number one, EVs and internal combustion, we want them both.
    Consumers are going to decide. Electric vehicles are growing,
    and they are exciting, and they are going to keep growing, and
    that is awesome. And Americans should be the best builders of
    electric vehicles there are, period. And I want that
    wholeheartedly.
        China, as you said, illegally subsidizes their
    marketplaces. They are doing it to try to undermine your State
    and your industry. There is no question they are doing that.
        And the United States, I think a lot through tariffs, is
    going to stop these Chinese things that are not built in the
    same setting. You even mentioned slave labor. Literally, that
    is true.
        Mrs. Dingell. I know.
        Secretary Wright. So yes, we have got to reenergize,
    redrive, readvance American industry, and there's many ways to
    do that. I am in line with a lot of those, which is regulatory
    environment, bring capital--in fact, the trip we did to the
    Middle East, everyone thought we were over there talking about
    oil prices. We pretty much never talked about oil prices. We
    talked about, literally, the trillions of dollars that these
    countries are developing by developing their energy resources
    that they want to invest in the United States.
        And what do they want to invest in? They want to invest in
    energy infrastructure in the United States and manufacturing
    and industrialization of the United States.
        There is a ton of private capital that wants to come to our
    country and do the mission you just passionately went on about.
    So I will tell you, this administration and myself personally
    are probably way more aligned with you than you think we are.
        Mrs. Dingell. Well, we are out of time, and I know my chair
    is going to--we have 45 seconds. I want to invite you to come
    to Michigan. I want to work with you on EVs. We have to stop
    giving them a bad name, because we can't compete in the global
    marketplace if people don't know that we here in America are
    going to build those vehicles and outbuild China.
        But they are competing with us. Communist China wants to
    destroy our auto industry, and you and I have to work together
    to make sure that doesn't happen.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair
    recognizes the ranking member, I believe, for a couple of
    documents be put into the record.
        Ms. Castor. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    ask unanimous consent to submit to the record.
        The first is an article from the New York Times from June
    4. The Secretary said in general he supports--he thinks low
    prices are better. This is a great summary: Electricity prices
    are surging, the GOP mega-bill could push them higher. I
    recommend that to you.
        And then----
        Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. Castor. And then the reference to Florida's low
    electricity rates, just--this is--I also recommend for your
    reading. This is--right now, just over the past couple of
    months, they have asked for the largest rate hike request in
    U.S. history up in the panhandle, and we continue to grapple
    with higher rates. So I will recommend that to you.
        Mr. Latta. And without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. Castor. And I thank the Secretary for his appearance
    here today.
        I yield back.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you for those materials.
        Mr. Latta. And seeing no other Members wishing to be
    recognized to ask questions today, Mr. Secretary, we appreciate
    you appearing before us today.
        Members have additional--may have additional questions for
    you. I will remind Members that they have 10 business days to
    submit additional questions for the record, and I ask that you
    be able to submit responses within 10 business days upon
    response--or receipt of those questions.
        I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the
    documents included on the staff hearing documents list.
        And without objection, that is so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        And without objection, the subcommittee will stand
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                [all]