[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]