[Senate Hearing 119-47]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-47
MACGREGOR AND DANLY NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
to
CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF KATHARINE MACGREGOR TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR AND JAMES DANLY TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF ENERGY
__________
APRIL 2, 2025
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-023 WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MIKE LEE, Utah, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
STEVE DAINES, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TOM COTTON, Arkansas MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
DAVID McCORMICK, Pennsylvania ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi ALEX PADILLA, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
Wendy Baig, Majority Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Majority Chief Counsel
Jasmine Hunt, Minority Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Lee, Hon. Mike, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Utah............ 1
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
New Mexico..................................................... 2
WITNESSES
MacGregor, Hon. Katharine, nominated to be Deputy Secretary of
the Interior................................................... 3
Danly, Hon. James, nominated to be Deputy Secretary of Energy.... 8
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Consumer Energy Alliance:
Letter for the Record........................................ 89
Danly, Hon. James:
Opening Statement............................................ 8
Written Testimony............................................ 10
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 69
Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
Opening Statement............................................ 2
Lee, Hon. Mike:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Louisiana Alligator Farmers and Ranchers Association and
Louisiana Landowners Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 91
MacGregor, Hon. Katharine:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
Written Testimony............................................ 6
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 49
Patkotak, Josiah:
Letter for the Record........................................ 92
Public Lands Council:
Letter for the Record........................................ 94
Wigglesworth, Alex:
Article entitled ``Park Rangers Battle Australians Seeking
Rare Earth Minerals in Old Mojave Gold Mine'' published in
the Los Angeles Times, February 28, 2025................... 96
MACGREGOR AND DANLY NOMINATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
Welcome to the Committee's third nomination hearing for
this Congress, and this is an important one. This is a hearing
involving two people who will help run the two departments that
this Committee oversees. We will receive testimony from these
two distinguished nominees for the offices of these two Deputy
Secretary appointments, the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Energy.
Each of these nominees has previously been confirmed by the
Senate after having been reported favorably out of this
Committee. Each served honorably in their respective offices.
The two individuals are, therefore, no strangers to this
Committee--Katharine MacGregor, nominated to be the Deputy
Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and James Danly,
nominated to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. Both nominees
deserve to be confirmed, and each has my strong support. I
thank President Trump for sending these nominees to the Senate
for confirmation. In both the Department of the Interior and
the Department of Energy, the Deputy Secretary functions as
sort of the chief operating officer, responsible for a lot of
the day-to-day management and function of each of these
departments, departments that involve a complex, sprawling
series of agencies that directly affect the lives of 330
million Americans.
At Interior, the Deputy Secretary helps oversee nearly
70,000 employees, a $14 billion budget, and it manages 500
million acres--a staggering one-fifth of our nation's land, and
it is roughly two-thirds of the sprawling 28 percent of the
total landmass owned by the U.S. Government throughout our
country. So this role requires supervising the development of
all sorts of things and managing this entity. It involves being
the largest supplier and manager of water in 17 states, of
upholding trust responsibilities to 574 federally recognized
American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. Ms. MacGregor has
done this work before, and she has done well in this position.
In her previous tenure as Deputy Secretary, she oversaw efforts
to ensure responsible domestic energy and mineral development
on public lands and waters, reduced permitting time frames, and
implemented the Department's COVID-19 operational response. She
brings a wealth of private sector and public sector experience,
including her most recent role at NextEra Energy, giving her a
broad perspective on energy development, environmental
protection, and regulatory reform.
At the Department of Energy, the Deputy Secretary plays a
similarly critical role. That Department is tasked with
maintaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent,
reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation, overseeing the
United States energy supply, carrying out the environmental
cleanup from the Cold War nuclear mission, and managing 17
national laboratories. The Department literally keeps the
lights on. We have seen Mr. Danly's work at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, both as General Counsel and later as
Chairman and as a Commissioner, of course. We have read his
dissents, his statements, and his warnings, particularly about
the dangers of distorting markets and overreliance on
intermittent sources of electric power. His legal and
regulatory record demonstrates a consistent commitment to
statutory interpretation grounded in the text of the law and a
deep understanding of the grid's physical and economic
realities. Beyond his professional credentials, Mr. Danly
brings a record of service and sacrifice. As a former Army
officer, he served two tours in Iraq and was awarded the Bronze
Star and the Purple Heart.
I look forward to hearing from both nominees today. Their
roles are vital, their responsibilities immense, and the
decisions that they make in these jobs will reverberate
throughout the American West, and of course, the nation at
large.
With that, I now recognize Senator Heinrich for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman, and welcome Ms.
MacGregor and Mr. Danly.
Before we get to Committee business, I do want to address
the troubling reports that DOE is considering canceling or
renegotiating existing funding contracts with companies, some
of which are already under construction. As I wrote to
Secretary Wright in a letter a week ago, I will remind Mr.
Danly and Ms. MacGregor today, the decision to rescind these
awards rests with Congress, not with the President and
certainly not with the Elon Musk. However, even before these
so-called kill lists were leaked, we already started seeing the
economic impact of the Administration's reckless actions. It is
estimated that more than 50,000 energy jobs have already been
lost under Trump's watch. The Administration's actions are also
constricting the fastest growing and most affordable power
sources, just as demand from manufacturing and data center
growth is surging. This means that energy costs will soar.
Electricity prices are already on track to be the highest they
have been since the 1990s, and terminating projects in the name
of energy dominance is not only ludicrous, it will lead to
higher energy costs directly for households. All of this is
only the newest phase in the Administration's campaign of chaos
in federal agencies and actions that are raising energy costs.
Both the Interior and Energy Departments have been subject
to whiplash in just the last two months. From illegally firing
thousands of employees, only to be required by courts to rehire
them, to announcements that agency buildings would be closed or
sold, or maybe not, to freezing grant funds and canceling
contracts in contravention of federal law only to see some
unfrozen while others still remain inexplicably frozen. This
has got to be about the least efficient way to run a
government. For the Department of the Interior, all of this
mismanagement has real on-the-ground impacts for people and
communities. We have seen closed visitor centers and
overflowing trash cans at parks, field offices that have
shorter hours, and it is harder for people to reach front-line
staff when they have questions. Small businesses are worried if
their permits will get processed. Scientists are struggling to
cover expenses because the Federal Government has backed out of
contracts with them. Our public lands are the birthright of
every single American; however, if something doesn't change,
and soon, at the agencies that care for these public lands, we
could lose that birthright.
I have a number of questions today for both of these
nominees for the Energy and the Interior Departments. Both
Departments were created by statute. They were not created by
the whim of the President. They do not exist at the President's
pleasure. The laws they execute, the programs they administer,
the funds they spend, were enacted, created, and appropriated
by law by Congress. I will be looking for assurances from both
nominees that they are committed to following the law. And I
hope to hear how they will get these Departments returned back
to a path of public service, back on track securing American
leadership and competitiveness, and the responsible stewardship
of our natural resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Okay, let's now turn to our witnesses for
their testimonies. Before your opening testimony, I would like
to swear you both in. If you would both stand.
Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give
to the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?
[Witnesses sworn in]
The Chairman. Thank you.
All right, we will now have opening statements. We will
hear first from Ms. MacGregor and then from Mr. Danly. And
while you are speaking feel free to introduce any family that
you have here with you.
You may proceed, Ms. MacGregor.
STATEMENT OF HON. KATHARINE MACGREGOR, NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. MacGregor. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member
Heinrich, and members of the Committee. I thought I had escaped
DC, but as you all know, sometimes life presents you with
different paths, and I am both honored and humbled that
President Trump has once again nominated me for the position of
Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
As a true hockey family, we have packed the proverbial
stands this morning, and I am blessed to be joined by my family
and friends, including representatives of the 2004 University
of Pennsylvania varsity women's crew team, members of the best
women's hunting group this side of the Mississippi, my best
Alaskan fishing and baking buddy, my favorite astronaut, and
several individuals who have been amazing mentors to me in my
professional career. Finally, and most importantly, I am joined
by my parents, Jean and Peter MacGregor, my aunt and uncle,
Sheila and Dick Sanford, and my brother Robert and his wife
Michele. The three of us are the MacGregor hockey line on the
Congressional hockey team.
When I testified here over five years ago, I explained my
focus to achieve balance in managing America's public lands,
cultural treasures, and natural resources in order to advance
the priorities of our President. I understand the deep personal
connections that so many people have to the lands and resources
managed by Interior. But in my work in Congress and at
Interior, I also learned firsthand how the decisions we make in
Washington impact American families and businesses far away
from DC, sometimes for generations. I remember Senator King
telling me a story about traveling with his grandchildren in an
RV to visit some of our nation's parks, and it makes me smile
because I absolutely remember picnics with my grandparents and
cousins at Valley Forge National Park in Pennsylvania. These
are the happy memories that make us smile even long after our
loved ones have passed.
But I also remember the tough stories of resource
management plan delays impeding economic development in rural
America or a woman denied justice simply because law
enforcement could not reach her due to weather, and of course
there was no road. For the last four years, I have been one of
those people watching DC from afar, all while falling in love
with Florida. From the dangerous beauty of the Everglades and
the invasive species issues we face, the importance of being
prepared for natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires,
the incredible abundance of our offshore waters, the thrilling
call of an Osceola turkey as you watch the world wake up from
inside a hunting blind, or even just the stunning red-orange
glow of Jupiter Lighthouse at sunset, which is managed by the
BLM. But more importantly, in my time in the private sector, I
have learned a lot. I have worked on environmental permitting
and compliance for almost every type of energy infrastructure
project around our great nation and have grown to appreciate
the far-reaching consequences of decisions made in Washington,
the durability of those decisions, and the timeliness of agency
action.
As we all know, if there is a federal nexus, there is a
federal official somewhere saying yes or no, or in the worst
case, just not responding. What I have concluded from outside
of DC is that the American people, your constituents, deserve
better. I cannot imagine any instance where it's just and right
that someone wait over 30 years for the authority to build a
road to connect their community to better services, over 20
years for a habitat conservation plan, 15 years for a final
resource management plan, or over a decade for a pastor in
rural Arkansas to be able to continue to bury his deceased
parishioners in their 100-year-old churchyard only because the
land appraisal for a Congressionally authorized land exchange
sat on someone's desk. It is simply unacceptable, and frankly,
it breaks my heart. This is why so many rural Americans feel
like their government has forgotten them.
Don't get me wrong, I have heard really great stories too.
I was so proud to learn that several of the cold case offices
that we established under President Trump's initiative to
address Missing and Murdered Native American and Alaska Native
women and children had solved several cases after many years.
Many of you on the dais helped us with this initiative. Sadly,
these little victories seem too infrequent. We need to turn
that around. Roads not built, cases left unsolved, appraisal
backlogs, and obstacles to public hunting and fishing, these
are the reasons I would like to return to Interior. I would
like to come back to drive change and efficiency. And in doing
so, I hope we can once again make a difference for the people
who rely upon us to show up and do our jobs. I am honored to
have met with many of you and learn about the many missions at
Interior that are important to you, personally, and to your
constituents. If confirmed, I will always keep the needs of the
American people at the forefront of my mind. After all, it is
they who are ultimately watching us here in DC and they are
hoping for us to work together, consider their needs, and
frankly, get things done in Washington.
Thank you again for having me here today. I would be more
than happy to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. MacGregor follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cotton [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. MacGregor.
Mr. Danly.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES DANLY, NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY
OF ENERGY
Mr. Danly. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member
Heinrich, and members of the Committee. It is an honor to
appear before you again today. I sit before you, humbly, as
President Trump's nominee for Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Energy.
Before I get to my comments, I just want to recognize my
family and friends. Behind me sits my wife, Frankie. The last
time I appeared before the Committee, just like this time, my
son, James, who is an active, talkative, rambunctious 10-year-
old, is not in attendance, but he is watching the hearing, I am
told, as it is happening. For both Frankie and James, I want to
recognize the sacrifices that families of the people who serve
in public service make. Those sacrifices are profound. So thank
you both, Frankie and James, for your support and indulgence
over the years that I have been in government and when I was in
the Army, especially when I was in Iraq. I also have friends
here, including colleagues from throughout my career, among
them the lawyers who first taught me energy law, and my
advisors from my time at the Commission.
As the Committee is aware, the Department of Energy
performs a number of critical functions. The national labs
ensure that the United States is and remains at the cutting
edge of science and technology. The Department is responsible
for auditing and overseeing the weapons stockpile, it manages
environmental cleanup at legacy waste sites, and it promotes
the development and deployment of energy sources and
infrastructure. I believe that my prior roles as general
counsel, commissioner, and chairman at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission give me a unique and important vantage
point on how to achieve the President and the Secretary's
shared vision of ensuring affordable, reliable, and secure
energy for the American people.
The utility and natural gas sectors, the subjects I
regulated while at FERC, are a critical component to achieving
those goals. Right now, we face profound challenges. Demand for
energy is growing and we cannot face the difficulty in
producing and delivering it to Americans to ensure the
country's safety and prosperity without tackling a number of
very difficult problems. There are also great opportunities.
America is blessed with the most abundant energy in the world,
we have the best technical minds to harness that potential, and
we have a private sector that stands ready to invest capital,
build infrastructure, and produce the energy that we
desperately need. We stand on the brink of an energy
renaissance in which we can replace growing energy scarcity--at
home and abroad--with energy abundance for the United States
and its allies, improving the lives of our citizens while
ensuring our geostrategic position.
There are a couple of subjects that I would just like to
touch on before I finish.
First, our energy problems and scarcity are driven, in
large measure, by failure to develop needed infrastructure.
America struggles to build things these days. We have an acute
need to build all manner of infrastructure across the country,
but the federal permitting regime has become an impediment to
that development. Interminable delays, legal challenges that
threaten the permits that are already issued, and a
continuously changing regulatory landscape have come to chill
investment. And the result of that is that projects take longer
to build and are increasingly expensive, or worse than that,
they never get built in the first place. It will be difficult
to achieve our goals of ensuring affordable, reliable, and
secure energy to the American people without tackling the
problem of federal permitting.
Second, and relatedly, we have an acute need for electric
generation. The United States is experiencing unprecedented
demand for electricity. And that demand is increasing at an
accelerating rate. Data centers, AI, and reindustrialization
have brought load onto the system at a speed that we have never
been seen before. Maintaining our strategic position in the
world absolutely requires that Americans have access to
affordable, reliable, and secure energy in abundance. I have
spent the better part of a decade directly regulating the
energy markets and the reliability of the bulk electric system.
I can report that we have systematically failed to compensate
baseload generation in order to ensure the retention of
existing assets and to incentivize the arrival of the new
generators that we need to meet the growing demand. This
challenge has to be solved.
Third and finally, we need to recommit ourselves to
America's preeminence as the world's leader in science and
technology. The national labs, which are the crown jewel of the
Department, have been the source of countless advances over the
years, both in pure and applied science. These advances and
discoveries have driven commercial development, spawned new
industries, and ensured American prosperity. Recently, the
national labs have made advances in quantum computing, nuclear
reactors, and fundamental scientific research that promise a
new era of science and engineering. We have to recommit to that
mission to ensure that America continues to maintain its
scientific and technological edge that the citizens of the
United States have relied upon for so many decades.
Again, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members
of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Danly follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0023.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0023.004
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Mr. Danly.
I agree with all of what you said in your opening statement
on the topics that most Americans will think about when they
think about the Department of Energy--things like
infrastructure and permitting reform and electricity power
generation. I want to focus, though, on the last thing you
mentioned there, the national labs, which overlaps with my work
as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I think a lot of
Americans probably don't appreciate that the Department of
Energy is in charge of all these national labs that do
exquisite research and do nuclear energy or quantum computing,
artificial intelligence, and other things. I think they'd be
shocked to know that last year 40,000 foreigners visited these
national labs, and fully one-fifth of those--8,000--were from
Russia and China. It doesn't seem to me like the smartest step
to be letting Russian and Chinese scientists into our national
labs.
What do you think, Mr. Danly?
Mr. Danly. Of course, Senator, I completely agree with
that. And when you say that we are visited, we don't just mean
passing through, we mean actually conducting science in close
proximity to the scientists that are already working at the
labs. The national labs are fundamental, not just to the
research and science I mentioned a second ago, but they also
have national security missions. And when I first learned about
the number of adversarial nations' scientists that are at the
national labs, I was so surprised by it that I thought at first
I didn't hear correctly. It was shocking, the number. And it's
not just a matter of losing the scientific and technical edge I
talked about, it's also a matter of grave national security
interests that has to be looked at and, if necessary, dealt
with.
Senator Cotton. I think most Americans would be shocked to
know that one of every five foreign scientists visiting our
national labs were from China and Russia. And also, though not
in as large numbers, they come from places like Iran and Cuba
and North Korea as well. Do you know how many American
scientists get to go to Russia and China's equivalent of
national labs?
Mr. Danly. None.
Senator Cotton. The answer would be zero. That does not
seem to me to be reciprocal, to use a term that the President
likes. That's why, on the Intelligence Committee, for years, it
has been a matter of bipartisan concern that our national labs
seem to allow these scientists, and they almost seem to compete
to bring them in, because the decisions are made at the lab
level, not at the level of what you might call the headquarters
element of the Department of Energy, drawing on your own
intelligence unit and the intelligence community more broadly.
I have legislation to address this problem. I bet a lot of the
problem, though, can be addressed by you and the Secretary.
So can I get your commitment, Mr. Danly, that you will take
a look at the legislation, you will see what needs to be done
to address this threat, and do as much as you can with your
existing authorities, once confirmed?
Mr. Danly. Absolutely. If I should be lucky enough to be
confirmed, I will work with you to deal with this problem.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
The second topic I want to address, again, something that a
lot of Americans probably don't think about when they think
about the Department of Energy, is the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA), but it's about half of the
Department's budget. They do a lot of very important work for
our nuclear weapons arsenal, a lot of research, a lot of
production. One thing in particular that they do is the
production of plutonium pits for nuclear weapons. We have had a
challenge with this for years. We were supposed to get to the
point where we produce 80 new plutonium pits by 2030. Under the
Biden Administration, that slipped to 2035. Can I get your
commitment that you will advocate for NNSA to get all the
budgetary resources it needs to perform its vital mission?
Mr. Danly. The NNSA is one of the fundamental elements of
American national security. The weapons stockpile is the
ultimate instrumentality of sovereignty for the United States.
And I commit to doing everything I can to ensure, should I be
confirmed, that NNSA's mission is discharged fully.
Senator Cotton. And specifically, trying to get back to 80
pits--what they need to do in New Mexico and South Carolina
facilities?
Mr. Danly. So I am not certain, because I am not at the
Department of Energy, what the necessity is regarding the rate
or level of pit production, but it is fundamental to our
weapons stockpile, and I absolutely commit to doing everything
I can to ensure that the duties are discharged.
Senator Cotton. Okay, thank you.
Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
Ms. MacGregor, I want to start with you. During your time,
both on the transition team or since you've been nominated to
be Deputy Secretary, have you engaged in any discussions about
proposed sales of public land with either Department of
Interior or transition team personnel?
Ms. MacGregor. Senator, while I did gladly serve on the
transition team as a volunteer, in my personal capacity, I did
sign an NDA related to that work. However, I can tell you,
currently, and in my current position, no, I did not engage in
conversations regarding sales of public lands.
Senator Heinrich. If confirmed, can you commit that any
public land disposals will fully comply with existing federal
laws, like the Federal Land Policy Management Act and the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act?
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, absolutely. I fully intend, if
confirmed, to obey the law.
Senator Heinrich. That brings me to a related question,
which is, the Department is currently failing to disburse grant
funding that a federal judge has ruled must be disbursed. If
you are confirmed, will you work to ensure that the Department
follows federal court orders?
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, I am not familiar with that particular
case. However, I know in our discussions in your office, we got
into several of those subjects, and I know they are very
important to you. And absolutely, I will commit to working with
you on that.
Senator Heinrich. The Great American Outdoors Act is a very
positive example of how this Committee, and Congress as a
whole, worked in a very bipartisan fashion, with President
Trump and with previous Secretaries of Interior, to provide
permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and
that has had an impressive impact on states across the West,
particularly in protecting and expanding hunting and fishing
access--something I know that you are very passionate about--
and wildlife habitat.
Can we count on you to continue to carry out this law and
support this conservation legacy that this Committee and
President Trump established in 2020?
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, I am overjoyed for you to highlight one
of the issues that you worked with President Trump on, and
absolutely, we would love to work with you on further
implementation of that Act.
Senator Heinrich. Mr. Danly, I want to start with an easy
one for you. How do you feel about visiting Sandia and Los
Alamos National Labs?
Mr. Danly. As we talked about in your office, sir, I cannot
wait for the opportunity. I love the national labs.
Senator Heinrich. That's the right answer.
[Laughter.]
Senator Heinrich. You mentioned permitting reform, and I
was really glad to hear you bring that up, because I think it
was one of the high-water marks on this Committee in the
previous Congress, but it's not something that we have gotten
all the way to the President's desk. It is not something that
we have been able to get through both houses of Congress in the
same Congress. What are your thoughts on the product that this
Committee produced in the previous Congress and the
importance--I would say even necessity--of coming together
around a permitting reform package to accomplish some of the
goals that you articulated.
Mr. Danly. So Senator, I truly appreciate the effort that
the Committee went through before in trying to streamline and
speed up permitting. Just the briefest glance at my separate
statements at the Commission shows how important this is
throughout the time that I was at FERC. I don't actually know
the specific bills, because there were a bunch of different
ones that were moving around, and we who are not in Congress
have difficulty tracking everything that is happening. But
there were elements of several of the iterations that I thought
were very promising. And just as I have always said before to
the Committee, any help anybody wants with thoughts from me on
permitting reform, I am happy to assist.
Senator Heinrich. I have to pick and choose here because I
am running short on time.
Ms. MacGregor, while you were at the Department of the
Interior, the number of forest acres treated for wildfire
resilience by the BLM saw some modest increases. However, from
2021 to 2023, the BLM treated nearly 50 percent more acres for
wildfire, and that wasn't by accident. It was because this
Committee funded them. In particular, in both the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, it created
funding streams to be able to deal with forest resilience and
prepare to make sure that wildfires are not catastrophic when
they do occur.
Can you commit to continuing to implement the
Infrastructure bill and the IRA programs that are focused
strictly on wildfire risk reduction?
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, I was alluding to that conversation
earlier, but I absolutely can commit to working with you on
everything related to forest management. I know it's extremely
important to so many on this Committee. It is really important
to a lot of humans living in the wildland fire interface, and
it was absolutely a priority of President Trump the last time.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
Senator Cotton. Senator Justice.
Senator Justice. Thank you.
Well, let me lead off by just saying this, you know,
whether it be any of you, any on the other side of the aisle,
anybody on our side--anybody--there is nobody here that loves
hunting and fishing, our public lands all across this
unbelievable country, you know, there is no one here that
worships wildlife habitat more than I. Nobody. And with all
that being said, I have got to just put out a plea more than
anything. I want all of us to realize the magnitude of the
problem that is right on our doorstep. That's all there is to
it, right on our doorstep. You know, as far as forestry
management, I am all in--100 percent. On and on and on and on
and on, but the problem that is facing us today, and we better
listen to this white-haired guy from West Virginia, and it's
just this: we have an energy problem that is astronomical and
it's going to be so, so important, and so big, that we best
better get at trying to do something with all that is in us to
address this situation because it's coming not like a freight
train, it's coming, like Mr. Danly said to me on the phone,
it's coming like bigger than absolutely the demand of World War
II, bigger than any time in our history.
And absolutely, Ms. MacGregor and Mr. Danly, we appreciate
so much, and you are going to do great. You are absolutely
going to be confirmed. Absolutely, I am all in. But with that,
I would say to everyone, okay, it's time to step up. What are
we going to do? What are we going to do? A year and a half from
today, our grid and the demand--we cannot handle it. We can't
handle it. I don't care what you say, you are going to have an
electricity meltdown in this country, and it's coming, and you
are going to have to make a decision. America, you are going to
have to make this decision and this is all there is to it.
We are either going to stick and say, well, we are going to
protect our homes or we are going to protect energy and our job
opportunities. What are you going to do? Because you can't do
them both. There is no way. There is no way. Whether it be that
side of the aisle, this side of the aisle, any of you all,
these nominees absolutely, if we don't do something now, right
now. You talk about up--Creek, now you're there. You're there,
America. And absolutely, if you don't watch out, what will
happen is just this--we will have to defer to people of the
world that are not our allies, but they are our adversaries. We
are going to have to say, okay, you have the leg up. You have
the leg up, not America. That's what is going to happen, and
it's going to happen soon. So all of us, you know, our national
labs, we are protecting with all in us. We do everything we
possibly can, but we have got to get at the absolute issue at
hand, and that is just this, we absolutely, there is no way
that if we don't get moving, and get moving really quickly,
that we are not going to have a colossal problem.
And the last thing I would add is just this: you know, I am
from little old West Virginia, but little old West Virginia,
along the way, has gotten it right on energy over and over and
over. And little old West Virginia, along the way, stepped up
when we had to have them really step up--really, really step
up. You know, whether it be these terrible world wars that we
had or whatever it may be. We have always stepped up, and we do
know a lot about what we are talking about, about energy.
So I congratulate both of you. I really don't have a
question for either one of you. Absolutely, I know your
testimony is rock solid. I have talked with both of you. I
absolutely believe in both of you and I just congratulate you
on being here. And I would say, for God's sakes-a-livin', let's
go. Let's go. We have got to do something. Let's go.
Thank you all for being here.
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Senator Justice, I also agree
you should always listen to white-haired men from West
Virginia, especially this white-haired man from West Virginia,
because I could have given your same remarks, just not as
eloquently as you did.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have questions for both of you. I am going to begin with
you, Mr. Danly. I believe you know that I am the author of the
technology-neutral clean energy tax credits, and they have
worked out so well in the private sector, that 21 House
Republicans are making it very clear they want them to stick
around. They have said it very explicitly. Now, your role in
this--people don't much know this--is pretty important here
because you guys have the science and Treasury has got the
taxes. So we have got to get you guys in sync, and that is why
I need to start with asking you, for the record, do you believe
that the IRA tax credits have brought more private-sector
investment into the energy space?
Mr. Danly. Thank you for the question, Senator.
And of course, you and I spoke about this when I visited
you in your office. Do I believe that it brought more
investment? I can't be certain about that----
Senator Wyden. The reason I am asking is, 21 House
Republicans think that it sure as hell has.
Mr. Danly. I understand that, but it is impossible to run
the counterfactual to know what investment would have occurred
had those tax credits not been there. Certainly, the tax
credits had an effect on the capital markets. They always do.
Every tax regime has a tendency to bias us or favor one use of
capital over another, as we discussed.
Senator Wyden. Now, as a kind of economic proposition, more
choices, like the Clean Energy Tax Credits, mean more
competition and the opportunity to hold down costs and prices.
Do you share that view?
Mr. Danly. The details of any particular incentive regime
matter to that answer, and I am not certain----
Senator Wyden. But the economic theory.
Mr. Danly. No, no, but if we were to take that to its
logical extension, that would mean a 100 percent taxation rate
and a 100 percent incentive rate would yield the best possible
outcome, and of course, that's not true. So actually getting
the levels of incentive right to achieve the objective that
Congress has, which, of course, is Congress's authority, that
is an Article I function. I don't quibble with any of that. I
just don't know what the counterfactual would be for
investment.
Senator Wyden. What I am going to do is, I am going to hold
the record open to give you some examples where it's clear that
can help lower prices. More choices, more competition. We'll go
back and forth on examples because I think I've got more of
them than you do.
Thank you.
Mr. Danly. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Let me go to you, Ms. MacGregor. I
appreciated our visit. I didn't get a chance to talk about one
forestry issue that I feel very strongly about, and that is
doing more prescribed burns, because we have to get out there
and get serious about this granular material and all the stuff
that we hear from the experts. Senator Manchin and a group of
us, on a bipartisan basis, worked on this. We made a start, but
I am of the view that we have to dramatically increase the
focus of the Federal Government.
And you'd be in a position to do something about it. We
need to increase this because, in our part of the world, if we
don't get out there in the cold weather months, which is one of
the reasons these cutbacks have been so harmful--we do our best
prescribed burn work when it's cold. And you can get in there,
and you can get both sides--labor and business and
environmentalists--and you can really make big strides. But
now, we have reduced the number of people we got, and that hurt
us when we have had some cold weather, when we could have been
out there, and we have got you here who can tell us that yes, I
want everybody to know on a bipartisan basis, I am serious
about prescribed burns making a bigger difference in terms of
fighting these infernos that we have today. And in our part of
the world, they are not fires. They are not your grandfather's
fires. They are infernos. And we need this prescribed burn.
Your thoughts?
Ms. MacGregor. First, Senator, I just wanted to thank you
for spending time with me. I loved our conversation and I also
enjoyed your thoughts on grazing as well and how that can be
used as a management tool. And I know that that is something
that has been important on this Committee. How about you and I
go out with a drip torch and get to work?
Senator Wyden. I'm going to quit while I'm ahead.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleagues, and there is
tremendous interest on a bipartisan basis in this prescribed
burn issue. The question is the urgency of it. Everybody's got
their laundry list. In our part of the world, we are 3,000
miles from Washington, DC. We want people to be actually
hearing us, and it sounds like you are open to further
discussions. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you very much. And I
appreciate your patience with me. I have multiple committee
assignments that are pulling me in three different directions.
I may have to leave later for another committee hearing, but
bear with us on that.
Ms. MacGregor, I would like to start with you.
The nationwide housing shortage is something that some
states are experiencing more than others. We experience it to a
particularly acute degree in the West, and in my home State of
Utah, where the Federal Government owns two-thirds of the land.
And that severely restricts the housing supply. Now, there is a
law in the books, the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, that
authorizes the Department of the Interior to lease or convey
federal land for public purposes. Under the law, a public
purpose is defined as ``for the purpose of providing facilities
or services for the benefit of the public in connection with,
but not limited to, public health, safety, or welfare.''
In your view, could housing be considered a public purpose
for purposes of Recreation and Public Purposes Act?
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, I think it could.
The Chairman. And in the event that it couldn't,
recognizing that some might see it differently, or to address
any ambiguity, I have introduced legislation called the HOUSES
Act, which follows the template of the Recreation and Public
Purposes Act to independently allow for that.
Now, I was pleased to see recently that there was this
announced partnership between the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the Department of the Interior to address
housing affordability in the West. Any idea what actions the
Department of the Interior could take to help tackle the
housing crisis?
Ms. MacGregor. Well, sir, I first want to say that we would
love to work with you on that endeavor, and I know that for
technical assistance, we offer it to every member of the
Committee when it comes to drafting legislative ideas that are
creative. And I know housing has been a big issue, not just in
the West, but throughout our country. And I recall, you know,
working on this in the first Trump Administration with
particular attention to Park Service employees because housing
for Park Service employees tends to be one of the greatest
obstacles to get that workforce out into these very rural, or
sometimes difficult, or maybe more expensive areas so that we
can have the workforce we need to keep our parks open.
But when it comes to some of the opportunities there, I
think, you know, the R&PP Act has some issues with it. For
instance, the reversionary clauses can be difficult and tie up
potential home ownership with the full transference of land. I
think when people think about owning a home, they believe it
belongs to them and that the land is theirs, not that it could
pulled back by the Federal Government or by a township based
upon not fulfilling the needs of the Act and its original
statutory form.
The Chairman. Right.
Ms. MacGregor. So I think working on that, working on
environmental reviews and efficiency will actually help make
better use of that Act.
The Chairman. Yes, no, I think that is right and it's one
of the reasons why in the HOUSES Act we deal with that by
leaving a short reversionary interest for a period of 15 years
just to make sure that it remains in use as single family
housing during that duration. Once that 15-year period has
elapsed, the reversionary interest goes away.
Mr. Danly, let's turn to you for a moment. President Trump
seeks to attack and limit the waste, fraud, and abuse occurring
within the U.S. Government, in the government spending, you
know, $7.2, $7.3 trillion a year, the crumbs that fall from
that table are going to be pretty large, and it leaves room for
people to make mistakes along the way. But some of those
mistakes end up being very big and very costly. Recently, a
number of projects, grants, and contracts that were mandated by
law, such as the laws like the Infrastructure Investment in
Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, have been exposed as
problematic in one way or another--unnecessary, duplicative, or
otherwise an issue. For example, the Department of Energy
recently canceled a $247 million contract for appliance
standards.
If confirmed, how will you commit to working with Congress
to make sure that DOE is not frivolously spending taxpayer
dollars or spending taxpayer dollars on unnecessary,
duplicative, or wasteful projects?
Mr. Danly. Thank you, Senator Lee.
Every government agency head and all of their subordinate
officers are required to stop waste, fraud, and abuse wherever
it is found. Every contract that the government signs and every
set of funds that the government commits has to be done in
accordance with the law and in accordance to the preconditions
established by the agency's regulations, and the terms of the
contract have to be honored. This is everything from the basic
predicate requirements for the contract to the milestones and
conditions. President Trump has outlined a very bold vision for
reducing waste in Federal Government spending, and I am
absolutely dedicated to the same purpose. It is the only way to
properly steward the taxpayers' money, and government should
constantly be on the lookout for ways to find greater
efficiencies.
The Chairman. And strictly speaking, outside the context of
its own branch, neither the legislative branch nor the judicial
branch is typically a contracting agency. In other words,
contracts may be entered into within the legislative branch for
the legislative branch, or within the judicial branch, likewise
for the judiciary. But typically, for the government,
generally, contract decisions overseeing the performance of a
contract, entering into the contract, signing the contract,
even in some circumstances, anticipatorily repudiating a
contract for reasons deemed necessary and appropriate by the
executive--those are executive decisions, not legislative or
judicial ones, typically. Is that right?
Mr. Danly. Of course it is. And not only does every branch
have their own obligations, the executive branch spending--I
don't know what the percentage is--but 99.99 percent of the
money in contracts from the government has, obviously, a much
weightier duty to ensure that those dollars are spent properly
and, you know, there are efficiencies, not just in the way that
government conducts its business through contracting, but in
the ways that the contracts are awarded and in the types of
solicitations that the government undertakes. It is a
fundamental problem, and there is a huge amount of money that
is spent that doesn't need to be.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator King, you are up next.
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. MacGregor, one of my principal concerns as the Ranking
Member--we call ourselves Co-Chairs--with Steve Daines on the
National Parks Subcommittee, is staffing at the national parks.
Ten or fifteen years ago--well, let me just put it in
perspective: In the last 15 years, staffing at the national
parks has fallen by 15 percent, not counting the cuts that have
been made in the last couple of months. Visitation at the
national parks has gone up 15 percent. So we already had a
staffing problem. So my request to you is stop cutting people
at the national parks and start hiring them because the parks
are a gem of America. People visit them. They expect them to be
maintained. They expect them to be open. They expect to be able
to not have to wait in long lines in order to get into a park.
So can you commit to me that we are going to stop cutting
in the national parks and we are going to start to rebuild that
very valuable staff?
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, so many members of this Committee
raised that issue because I think they and we understand how
important it is to keep those parks open, especially for
tourism and economic dollars that are flowing into your
communities. So I absolutely will commit to you on making sure
that we work to have the appropriate staffing levels to keep
those parks open and get as many people as possible into them.
Senator King. Well, I would hope that the appropriate
staffing levels would be somewhat higher than they are today
given the fact that we already have a 30 percent gap in what's
happened, forgetting about the recent cuts. So this is
essential and I think it would be a great disservice to the
American people to compromise the availability of our national
parks.
The second thing on national parks is maintenance. As you
and I discussed, the Great American Outdoors Act, I think, was
one of the signal achievements of the first Trump
Administration, which had a big piece of money for deferred
maintenance. The problem is, we are still deferring
maintenance, and I fought all the way up to the Office of
Management and Budget in the prior Administration to try to get
the maintenance budget increased. It's a false economy to not
make repairs. They are only going to have to be done in the
future and they are going to cost more.
Will you work with us and work with the Congress to
increase the maintenance budget at the national parks? It's not
very exciting, but it's something we have to do.
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, coming from the private sector, I
understand the importance of O&M dollars on an annualized
basis, but I will say this--it is interesting, and there is a
lot to dig in on, on the implementation of the Great American
Outdoors Act. I find that--we talked about how, you know, we
worked to advance this amazing legislation, and now the
maintenance backlog has somehow gone up. We have a lot of work
to do together on this, and I absolutely commit to working with
you on it.
Senator King. Well, one way to keep it from going up is to
quit digging the hole, and that's what we are doing right now.
Mr. Danly, I agree with you about permitting reform. I was
one of the supporters of the bill here. I am hoping we are
going to be able to bring that bill back to life and perhaps
improve it. I assume you agree that part of the permitting
reform has to be transmission, because we are all talking about
increasing electricity. The electricity has to get somewhere,
and transmission is one of real serious bottlenecks right now
in sort of reinventing our electric system. Do you agree?
Mr. Danly. So to date, the real problems with federal
permitting haven't been seen in transmission because other than
the backstop siting authority----
Senator King. Are you serious about that, because we have
some transmission projects in the West that have been pending
for 20 years?
Mr. Danly. So for the most part, other than when you have
federal land crossings, which do, of course, occur in the West
far more than they do in the East, but the places where we have
the greatest sets of constraints--the highest congestion
costs--are in the East more than the West. This is typically--
obviously, there are examples where that's not true. Most
siting and permitting happens at the state level for
transmission. There is only--for transmission lines, generally,
there is the backstop siting authority that was re-enacted
again.
Senator King. Right.
Mr. Danly. But, of course, transmission has to be part of
the solution--or part of the discussion--because as the demand
grows and we have to have a more robust transmission system,
both to meet NERC reliability standards and simply to get real
power to its destination, we are going to have to increase
transmission lines all over the country.
Senator King. And that has to be part of the solution.
Quickly--research. You talked about research. One of the
things that disturbs me that's going on now in the
Administration is cutting research money all over the place--
the Department of Health and Human Services, even research on
Alzheimer's, which I absolutely don't understand. The
Department of Energy is one of the leading research parts of
our government, and I think you mentioned basic research being
important that's not immediately commercially valuable so it's
not going to be done in the private sector. Fracking was
invented under Department of Energy research grants back in the
80s. And do you agree that we have to maintain the research
budgets, not only at the national labs, but in places like NREL
and the other work that the Department of Energy is doing in
research on energy development, generally?
Mr. Danly. Yes. The Congress has charged the Department of
Energy with conducting this research. As I mentioned in my
opening statement, the number of advances we have had has
changed America's commercial outlook and has created new
industries. And the money spent on basic research whether--I
mean, the national labs found quarks. These are things that are
not commercially viable on their own, but if improved, the
sense of the world----
Senator King. I, myself, wouldn't know a quark if I fell
over one, but I understand.
Mr. Danly. Nevertheless, they are important.
Senator King. Yes, sir.
Mr. Danly. Yes, I absolutely agree with you that this
research is important and is central to the function of the
Department of Energy.
Senator King. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope we can have a second round
because I have a few more questions.
The Chairman. Senator Hyde-Smith.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
certainly welcome you both here, excited that you are back,
very excited about your nominations, and I want to associate
myself with the remarks of Senator Justice. I think you are
going to do a fantastic job, and thank you for your willingness
to do this.
And I want to start with Ms. MacGregor. I sure enjoyed our
visit, and we talked about the Vicksburg National Military Park
in Mississippi and the Natchez Historical Park sites that are
in Natchez, Mississippi, and I certainly would love your
commitment on helping reach our goals there. We are looking at
several things--a visitor center--but Mississippi's number one
tourist destination is the Military Park, and we are very, very
proud of that.
One of the other things is the offshore oil and gas
exploration and production in the Gulf of America. It is
crucial to both the President's energy agenda and to the
economies of the Gulf states. Revenue from lease sales supports
our states and funds mandatory programs such as the Land and
Water and Conservation Fund, and mandatory lease sales in the
Gulf would further boost this revenue. And I support Senator
Cassidy's bill to mandate two offshore oil and gas lease sales
per year for the next 10 years and look forward to working with
him and this Committee to advance that legislation. And where I
am from, so many of our residents there have employment there.
We know what fossil fuels do and they have really, really been
in dire need in the last few years.
But do you consider continued offshore oil and gas
development vital to our nation's security and economy? And
will you support our efforts to mandate lease sales, especially
if the Department works on the new five-year leasing plan?
Ms. MacGregor. Senator, thank you for the question, and I
truly enjoyed--I love our visits together. Absolutely, I can
commit to you with working on that legislation. I know that the
Gulf of America has been one of the largest energy producing
provinces in our country for decades and the innovations that
come out of that offshore province have been exported
throughout the world, but ultimately that was created and
innovated here in the United States. And I would like to see
that province produce long into the future. As the statute
requires, we need to make those resources available for
national need, and I think the American people would like to
see their prices come down in energy. So I absolutely will work
with you and the Senators on various solutions for that.
Senator Hyde-Smith. And the invitation certainly stands
open for the Military Park. I would love to host you there.
Ms. MacGregor. I would love to come. Thank you. Love to.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Mr. Danly, thank you for being here. I
cannot tell you how excited we are that you are willing to do
this, and look so forward to working with you. As we know,
reliable, affordable energy and a resilient grid are critical
for continued economic growth, especially in companies that
make investment and expansion decisions based on access to
inexpensive, reliable energy. As demand grows, so does the need
for more baseload power, and I believe nuclear energy continues
to be at the forefront of the conversation providing more safe,
clean, reliable power to meet those growing demands. And we are
very excited about this and we are looking forward to some
growth.
What steps do you see the Department of Energy taking to
advance nuclear, including new technologies such as small
modular nuclear reactors?
Mr. Danly. Thank you for the question, Senator.
In fact, in most of my discussions with the members of the
Committee, the subject of advancing nuclear energy has been
very common in all the talks that I have had. Probably the most
important thing that the Department of Energy can do--and in
fact, has done, right, the first civilian nuclear power
demonstrations were done in a national lab where the Department
of Energy started the entire process of creating civilian
nuclear power--is to continue the work that is being done in
Idaho National Lab to prove and have demonstration cases for
SMRs and next-generation nuclear power. There are any number of
regulatory and commercial hurdles to commercialization of
nuclear, all of which I would love to see either overcome or
changed. I don't see a way that we can meet the demand that we
are facing without having nuclear power as part of the
solution. Right now, it makes about 20 percent of the total
generation in the United States, but if we increase our--load
at the rate that I think we are going to, we are going to have
to build more nuclear to provide that baseload generation. And
so, the Department of Energy is going to be key to that.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, and I am out of time.
The Chairman. Senator Gallego.
Senator Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I feel like I am
going to sound like a broken record because when you are this
low on the dais, everyone takes all of the great questions, but
number one, to echo Senator King's comments on staffing at our
national parks, and I spoke earlier with you about this--in
Arizona, we are entirely dependent, especially in the northern
Arizona region, the economy is entirely dependent on our
national parks and tourism. So we want to make sure that there
is some good thought and forethought before we have more
layoffs, and if possible, to bring back these workers because
there actually are not that many in Arizona to begin with, but
the fact is, they produce billions and billions of jobs because
they get such a great experience visiting our, I think you
said--did you say gems or gyms as I was walking in?
Senator King. Gems.
Senator Gallego. Jams?
Senator King. G, E, M.
Senator Gallego. G, E, M. Okay, sorry. English is my second
language so sometimes things will--and then just moving on,
further conversations on SMRs and nuclear power. When I was
meeting with Secretary Wright during his nomination, we talked
about the need for more nuclear energy deployment, especially
in Arizona. We have a three-prong problem, which is a good
problem. People want to move to Arizona because it's a great
state. They have great weather, and great representation in my
opinion, but we also have a great economy, which is a highly
skilled, high-energy economy, whether it's chips or the
ancillary businesses that feed into chips, and we have data
warehouses that are moving in to Arizona because Arizona, for a
lot of its problems that we do have when it comes to forest
fires, the likelihood of us having any type of massive, massive
emergency that is going to destroy these data warehouses that
are worth billions of dollars is slim to none.
So what does that mean? We have an energy problem coming up
in Arizona. Thirty percent of our energy portfolio is nuclear.
I would like to see it grow. And so, I want to make sure that
we can do anything we can to do that, including fixing
regulatory burdens and hurdles or anything else. So I would
love to make sure that we have an ability to work with that in
a bipartisan manner because the country that can deploy quicker
and faster nuclear energy is going to be the country that is
going to be able to really own the next 100 years. And AI is
really important, but AI only matters if you actually can
energize it and actually create it and move that energy.
So since everyone took my questions, I will go into
something more deeper with Ms. MacGregor here in terms of
drought in Arizona, especially with Glen Canyon, something that
I think you worked on when you were on the House Natural
Resources Committee with me. In the last four years, we have
learned from Reclamation that Glen Canyon Dam has design flaws
that limit its ability to pass water at low elevations, which
is really bad when we have drought. So we need to fix this dam
as soon as possible and we need the ability to pass water
around the dam if hydrology gets worse--so, if we just don't
have enough snowmelt. I raised this issue with Secretary Burgum
in his hearing, but I would like to just ask you too. Will you
make fixing this dam that delivers water to approximately 30
million people in the Lower Basin a priority?
Ms. MacGregor. Senator, I know that we had a great
conversation about drought in the West and how that impacts
water users in your state, especially for hydropower too, I
believe. And I am curious about some of the decisions of the
last Administration, and I know that was an alternative, I
think, that was scoped in one of their initial reviews of
alternatives. So I will absolutely commit to working with you
on that and other issues related to drought in the West.
Senator Gallego. And back to the drought questions, Arizona
is where whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. The
Colorado River supports a total $1.4 trillion economy, and then
it's a primary water source for now 40 million people across
seven western states. It also, of course, supports 5.5 million
acres of agriculture, tribes, 11 national parks. Since 2001,
the Colorado River community has been grappling with risk and
uncertainty in available water supplies at increasing
intensity. Would you please just share your thoughts on the key
priorities that DOI will use to avoid the need for crisis-to-
crisis management and provide greater predictability in
available water supplies for our communities?
Ms. MacGregor. Absolutely. I know that the law of the river
is incredibly important to so many. I think it's the seven
Basin States. They are almost all represented on this
Committee, and I know there are a lot of opinions reaching
across all those states and their needs, and not just the
states, but tribes, and as you said, the 40 million people who
depend on that--getting it right.
My hope is ultimately that that is what--and remains and
has been successful in the past--is a state-brokered solution,
and Interior will be playing a role in that. And I think that
is one of the important issues facing the water and science
hallway in that Department.
Senator Gallego. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Senator Cassidy, you are up next.
Senator Cassidy. Okay. Thank you both, because I had a
chance to meet with you both, and some of these questions seem
like what we have talked about. I just want it for the public
record, if you will.
Ms. MacGregor, last week the Department of the Interior's
Office of Natural Resources Revenue announced its 2024
disbursements to the four states along the Gulf of America. As
expected, the revenues from oil and gas development from GOMESA
far exceeded the $375 million cap. Now, if the cap were higher,
there would be dollars there to help rebuild coastline to
protect communities from hurricanes like Katrina or from, which
hit both of our states--Ida, Harvey, et cetera, because we know
that when you build out your wetlands, that you absorb the
impact from the hurricane, which means that your settled areas
have less damage. We use that money in our state for flood
protection and for coastal restoration by a state
constitutional mandate.
So that said, I have a bill--the RISEE Act--which would
lift the cap on state funds under GOMESA, ensuring that states
hosting energy development directly benefit from those
activities. Given your experience as Deputy Secretary of the
Interior, how important is an effective model for revenue
sharing?
Ms. MacGregor. Thank you, Senator, for the question, and I
think with you hailing from Louisiana, and now me, from
Florida--hurricanes--I have a renewed appreciation for their
devastation. And I, when it comes to revenue sharing, I
absolutely agree with you. It is the law now. It's in GOMESA.
We are required to faithfully execute on GOMESA when it comes
to revenue sharing, and as many of the Senators here on this
dais also know, those dollars are also dedicated to the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, which has impacts in everyone's
districts. So I look forward to working with you on that and I
understand that it is important to all four Gulf states.
Senator Cassidy. And so, to that degree, how would you
envision working with the Secretary to leverage offshore energy
in the Gulf of Mexico--excuse me, I'm sorry, I can't help it--
to support energy dominance?
Ms. MacGregor. So for leveraging greater offshore oil and
gas in the Gulf of America, we will--we have a lot to work on,
and I think it's important that Senators understand we will
obey the law, we will follow the contours of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act, as required, but I do think the
American people would like to see more than just two to three
lease sales. Historically, in the past, we have had, really,
quite a few prodigious lease sales, and not just in the Gulf of
America--Alaska and beyond. And so, I know the resources are
concentrated a lot on the Gulf of America and up in Alaska, and
we look forward to working with everyone on measures that will
further embrace offshore energy.
Senator Cassidy. Mr. Danly, Louisiana is currently home to
more than 60 percent of the current LNG exports, and a large
number of LNG projects are in the pipeline--excuse the pun--
awaiting permitting approval. And I appreciate what President
Trump, Secretary Wright, and the Department of Energy have done
to help unleash this LNG bonanza, if you will. What can DOE do
to further eliminate barriers through LNG exporting, including
through improved permitting?
Mr. Danly. Thank you for the question, Senator.
It should probably come as no surprise that I care a lot
about LNG exports. I worked on the subject from the Commission
side for years. The most important thing is to return to the
statutory standard in Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, which
has the inverted presumption for the granting of permits to
non-free-trade-agreement countries, where you have to
demonstrate affirmatively that the export is not consistent
with the public interest, which is an analytical rubric that
requires the examination of a handful of different elements in
the application but return to that standard which had been the
standard, invariably, for decades beforehand.
Senator Cassidy. Let me ask you as well, in Baton Rouge
last Friday, LSU and the Idaho National Laboratory signed an
MOU to accelerate technology and talent development in
Louisiana to benefit the rest of the nation. This is the first
formal partnership between a national lab and a Louisiana
university. So I am just going to ask: How can you ensure that
DOE labs prioritize research supporting my state's energy and
manufacturing sectors?
Mr. Danly. So I am not at the DOE, and I don't know the
details of all of these partnerships between universities and
the labs, but I am happy to talk to you as much as you want,
should I be confirmed, to ensure we have as much cooperation
between the institutions as we can get.
Senator Cassidy. That would be good because, if you will,
we have the ecosystem that is developing the technology for not
only our nation, but for the rest of the world. And obviously,
I would like my Louisiana talent to be able to benefit from
that development being supported by the DOE.
Mr. Danly. I think it's fundamental to the DOE's objectives
with the national labs in its research mission to get as much
talent as we can from wherever it is possible. We want the
absolute best scientists and engineers working on the hardest
problems.
Senator Cassidy. Sounds great. Thank you. I yield.
Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Senator Cortez Masto.
Oh, sorry, Senator Hirono, I apologize.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Welcome to both of you. As part of my responsibility to
ensure the fitness of the all nominees who come before any of
my committees, I ask the following two initial questions, and
we will start with Ms. MacGregor.
Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted
requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical
harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
Ms. MacGregor. I have not.
Mr. Danly. No.
Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
Ms. MacGregor. I'm sorry, have I ever?
Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
Ms. MacGregor. I have not.
Mr. Danly. No.
Senator Hirono. For Ms. MacGregor, on DOGE's list of
federal lease terminations, on that list is the Ironworks
Building in Hilo, Hawaii. This building currently houses U.S.
Geological Survey employees that work for the Hawaiian Volcano
Observatory, which was destroyed during the 2018 Kilauea
eruption, and this building provides temporary office and
storage space while the permanent Hawaiian Volcano Observatory
is built on the campus of the University of Hawaii at Hilo,
planned for completion in two years. This move to terminate the
lease with no clear plan on where these employees will work or
store their equipment in the interim makes me question this
Administration's regard for the important role the volcano
observatories play in keeping our communities safe and
informed.
Do you believe that the USGS Volcano Hazards Program is
important, and if so, what will you do as Deputy Secretary to
ensure that USGS employees in Hilo are able to carry out their
critical lifesaving work?
Ms. MacGregor. Senator, thank you for that important
question. And I want you to know that in the first Trump
Administration, I spent quite a bit of time with the USGS
Hazards Team, especially on some of the seismic systems
installed up in the Pacific Northwest related to earthquake
early warning systems. I know how important they are to
communities, and while I am not in the building, I haven't seen
a list of cancellations. I will absolutely work with you on
your needs and for those of the people of Hawaii.
Senator Hirono. Okay, that sounds as though you consider
their work to be very critical and that they obviously need a
place to work from and store the things that they need. So we
will work to make sure that that happens? Should you be
confirmed, of course.
Ms. MacGregor. Yes, I will work with you, especially on a
lot of the hazard systems, yes.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Also for you, in your 2019 testimony before this Committee,
you noted that your introduction to the Department's mission
was through visiting Valley Forge National Park and that
visiting national parks drove your passion for American history
and your understanding for the importance of preserving these
special places. Similarly, during Secretary Burgum's nomination
hearing earlier this year, he asserted that, and I quote, ``We
have to protect every single inch of our national parks.''
There are currently hundreds of mining claims within and
thousands more near national park boundaries threatening the
preservation of these special places. A couple of weeks ago,
President Trump issued an executive order directing Secretary
Burgum to prioritize mineral production and mining-related
purposes as the primary--as a primary use of federal land with
mineral deposits.
My question to you is, how would allowing companies to mine
in or near national parks preserve ``every single inch of our
national parks?''
Ms. MacGregor. Well, Senator, I am unfamiliar of any
situation where there is mining directly in a national park.
Can you give me an example that you are referring to that I can
take a look at?
Senator Hirono. Well, there are hundreds of mining claims,
and if the President says that these are the claims that can be
acted upon, you are going to be directed to let them do so, I
suppose. That is the question.
Ms. MacGregor. I think, when I hear----
Senator Hirono. How does that comport with the Secretary's
desire to protect every single inch of our national parks?
Ms. MacGregor. It sounds like we might have a little bit of
a misunderstanding of--when I hear public lands, I think
multiple use and public sustained yield under FLPMA lands,
multiple use lands managed by the BLM, not by the National Park
Service. And my understanding of the protections under the
Organic Act and the establishment of these national parks,
their maintenance, and their continued management----
Senator Hirono. So you would say--excuse me, my time is
about pretty much up--but you would say that allowing mining in
our national parks would be probably incompatible to the desire
to save----
Ms. MacGregor. I can't----
Senator Hirono. I mean, you would want to save these
treasures as a priority.
Ms. MacGregor. Senator, I am not familiar of any national
park, and I could be completely wrong, but of any national park
where there is mining within the boundaries of the park.
Senator Hirono. No, the President wants you to go there
then.
Okay, we obviously are going to need to see what happens
because he wants these federal lands to be used for extraction
purposes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
both of you.
Ms. MacGregor, I enjoyed our conversation. I am looking
forward to you being back to fix a lot of things. Many of the
issues that we spoke about in my office related to federal
lands, better consultation with Alaska Natives, extending as
well to restoring what we do with our multiple-use lands,
natural fires, natural hazards, like wildfires, producing more
of our energy, a lot to do.
And Mr. Danly, you have been before this Committee multiple
times as well. I am looking forward to working with you to help
address some of Alaska's energy challenges, everything from
microgrids, to geothermal, to advanced nuclear, and I want to
follow on the comment that was made by the Senator from
Arizona. I just came from a critical minerals discussion this
morning, and as I look to our opportunity to be able to access
these great resources that we need, until we figure out how to
deal with power in some of these remote areas, it's going to be
really hard to do. And I look at small modular reactors, the
advancements that can come from here as a real opportunity.
I want to address a couple of questions to both of you.
Hopefully, they should be very quick and easy. I know that you
are not in the building yet, I get that. But we have all
watched as we have seen this effort to reduce the size of
government, and certainly within the Department of Energy and
the Department of the Interior. I have been concerned and have
expressed how many of these employees have been treated in this
process. I would ask that you both commit, if you are
confirmed, that you will abide by the statutory requirements to
notify Congress of any plans to reorganize, restructure, or
implement reductions in force. I am also the Chairman on the
Interior Appropriations Committee that has oversight here. We
have sent letters to the Secretaries themselves with regards to
the requirement in law about advanced notification, and then,
just from my perspective, as a Senator who represents a state
that has a lot of public lands and big federal presence, we
have a lot of engagement and interaction with you.
So I would just ask, again, if I can have your commitment
that you will be transparent with us about what is coming and
to abide by the statutory requirements to notify.
Ms. MacGregor. Senator, we will--I can commit to obey all
federal laws when it comes to any of the efficiency efforts
that we are working on.
Senator Murkowski. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Danly. I also commit to following the law for all of
the efficiency efforts.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
I have had an opportunity to talk, not only to you, Ms.
MacGregor, but certainly, my colleagues here on the Committee
know that we are facing a situation in Alaska with declining
production in Cook Inlet with regards to our natural gas, and
in facing what I think is really an unforgivable direction, and
that would be the prospect of LNG imports and potentially from
Canada. So I would ask both of you to partner with me, with the
delegation, to advance the Alaska projects and to support
development of our resources so we can avoid the reliance on
energy imports. For a state that has as much as the State of
Alaska has, there is no good reason that we should be relying
on Canada to keep our lights on.
So do I have that commitment from the both of you?
Ms. MacGregor. You sure do. And I was just as shocked when
you informed me of that. And I look forward to working with you
on those issues.
Senator Murkowski. Great, thank you.
Mr. Danly.
Mr. Danly. It's crazy to think that Alaska would be
importing energy.
Senator Murkowski. It is crazy.
Mr. Danly. I absolutely commit to working on that with you.
Senator Murkowski. Yes, you know--you both know--we have an
awful lot to offer there.
Ms. MacGregor, I want to take you back to some of our
greatest hits from when you were in the first Trump
Administration. Some of the alphabet issues that you worked
on--ITRs, PLOs. We have got to be making progress with that.
Certainly, the President's executive order is going to help us
there, but I also raised with you the issue of BIA probate and
the extraordinary backlog that we are dealing with. It should
not take five or ten or more years to resolve these probate
cases. And I would just ask that you put a priority on these
issues so that we can deal with something that has not only
impacted us greatly in Alaska, but I think in so many other
parts of the country as well.
Ms. MacGregor. I am so grateful that you raised that issue.
I had never even heard of it before, but the first thing I
thought is, if it's impacting you and the people of Alaska, it
must be impacting so many more on this Committee and other
parts of the States. So I look forward to working with you on
that.
Senator Murkowski. Great, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my time is expired.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to both
of you for your past public service and your willingness to go
back into the maelstrom.
I will start with you, Ms. MacGregor, and thank you for the
time to come and visit. You know, the staffing cuts that were--
there were the major cuts, and then people were put back, but
even though they've been reinstated, there is another plan out
that a quarter of all DOI employees are on the chopping block.
And I think the volatility certainly has staff that I know in
Colorado--and people that have reached out unnerved, and there
is a level of anxiety there. And obviously the decisions that
get made that I think you will have a voice in--I hope you will
have a voice in--on staffing that will have consequences, have
reverberations, in terms of how we use those lands in terms of
conservation and recreation, not to mention energy production
or critical minerals.
What are your plans--or how do you look at trying to ensure
that the staff have that spirit, which--the good culture that
any group needs to perform at a high level while they are
working to protect some of our most valuable resources?
Ms. MacGregor. Well, thank you, Senator, and thank you for
meeting with me. I had a great meeting with you. Talking about
Pennsylvania was nice. When I review a lot of this, I have been
watching, just like you all have, with media reports. I am not
in the building, as we have talked about already, but I think
there is a lot of, you know, questions I have, but I also think
there is a lot of spin, and that tends to happen in these sort
of instances. Ultimately, I support the President's efforts to
achieve efficiency in the Federal Government. I think the
endeavor to achieve efficiency should be applauded. But I also
agree with you that to achieve efficiency, you have to have
talent to move permits, you have to have the talent and you
have to have an inspired workforce to be able to do the work.
So I fully understand that that's part of the job going in
the building, and I look forward to working with a lot of the
same excellent career employees that I worked with the first
time around and working to get moving on a lot of the actions
we need to take at the Department.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, well, again, I am no stranger to
trying to make government more efficient. As mayor and as
Governor, we did a hiring freeze for, I think, two and a half
years when I was mayor as a way diminishing the workforce, but
we found ways to use efficiencies to actually deliver more
services to people at a lower cost. But I spent a quarter of my
time in the agencies talking to the workforce and making sure
that they were fired up and knew how valuable they were. I
don't see that happening right now and I find it very
concerning.
And Mr. Danly, the same question to you, with similar
circumstances, I suspect.
Mr. Danly. I am not at the Department of Energy, so of
course, I don't know the details of anything that's going on
there. I have read the same press accounts that everybody else
has. You know, I am no stranger to dealing with the personnel
end of administrative agencies. I was the Chairman of FERC, and
I dealt with the personnel there, and I plan to do what I have
always done before when my advice was sought, which is seek the
input of the employment counsel and the ethics counsel at the
Department, whenever making decisions regarding employment.
Senator Hickenlooper. All right, got it.
And I wanted to also talk to you a little bit about this
effort to gain energy dominance, but a lot of the clawbacks
that are being discussed, of funds that were originally
appropriated to support projects to build advanced energy
technologies and make investments to try and get electricity
more reliable, more affordable. The last number we saw was that
the DOE may rescind up to $104 million of Colorado-based awards
alone. And that's a rumor. I don't think there is--let's throw
that number out, and let's throw that number away, but there is
probably going to be a large number because there is a real
push to try and find these savings. In many cases, these funds
were already appropriated by and through Congress and they are
for things like grid efficiency or grid reliability, or some
other form of advanced technology.
Are you willing to commit that you will obey the law and
make sure that we don't rescind funds that have been
appropriated legally for these, I think in many cases, really
important energy projects?
Mr. Danly. So again, just like I said before, I have seen
the same press accounts everybody else has. Actual rescissions,
as far as I know, haven't occurred yet.
Senator Hickenlooper. Right.
Mr. Danly. And I don't know what the plans are, if there
are, in fact, plans.
I absolutely commit to following the law. The focal point
of my entire career so far is doing honor to the statute, and I
will follow the law in discharging the duties of the
Department.
Senator Hickenlooper. All right, well, I appreciate that.
I thank both of you. I think both of you are in crucial
positions that are going to have--you are going to have a lot
to do with what happens in the next couple of years, and we
appreciate your service.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Chairman, thank you.
I am going to jump right in, Ms. MacGregor. In Montana, we
are facing serious hurdles to implementing forest management
projects due to litigation. Our forests no longer have loggers
in them. They are crawling with lawyers. That's a problem. The
situation was exacerbated in 2015 when the Ninth Circuit issued
that Cottonwood decision. Today, as I speak, we have 300
million board-feet of timber tied up in litigation in Montana.
Region 1, over 500 million board-feet tied up because of
litigation. That Cottonwood decision creates a cyclical
procedural requirement to consult under the Endangered Species
Act. After a new species is listed, new critical habitat is
designated, or ``new information'' is found. We just need to
get the Ninth Circuit Court to be congruent with the other
circuits, and that is essentially what the Cottonwood fix does.
It has passed this Committee with strong bipartisan support. So
we are ready to act on it yet again. We are going to need help
getting it across the finish line and certainly on the
President's desk.
We have seen hundreds of projects across states in the
Ninth Circuit that are delayed because we have the Forest
Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attempt to meet this
ambiguous standard with no on-the-ground impact. We have this
legislation, again, with strong bipartisan support. So my
question is, would you commit to working with me and working
with Congress, to ensure that a permanent solution is found,
either through administrative action or through this
legislative fix?
Ms. MacGregor. Senator, thank you for that important
question, and it's probably no laughing matter. Forest
management, I know, is life or death in a lot of your states.
We absolutely commit, and I personally commit to working with
you on that, and I know that getting--like I said in my opening
statement--certainty so that these actions can continue is
incredibly important. And I should say, I was very inspired by
all of you in the efforts you all led to amend NEPA for the
first time in 50 years in the Fiscal Responsibility Act. And I
know when you come together, this body can do amazing things
that help us implement our laws in a more efficient way.
Senator Daines. Thank you. There are just so many wins if
we can get this problem fixed in terms of improved wildlife
habitat, improved economic benefits, and overall improved trout
habitat in the streams that get hammered with the silting from
the major disastrous wildfires. So lots of benefits, not to
mention, we literally have had football games on Friday nights
in Montana canceled because of air quality. This is not the
smog of LA, this is smoke coming from these wildfires. So it's
a health risk as well. And then, we, of course, have the tragic
examples of firefighters losing their lives trying to fight
these very hot and robust fires.
Mr. Danly, a question for you. With your experience at
FERC, you have firsthand knowledge of our energy and
transmission needs. Our energy demand is only projected to
grow, as we talked yesterday. And to meet this demand, we must
expand our energy production, not replace it. With rising
demand, and I will tell you, every time I meet with a tech CEO
today, the conversation is not about the constraint of the
workforce. The constraint is energy as we want to move forward
here with a significant increase in data centers and so forth
to meet the demands of AI and quantum computing. With rising
demand, we also need to ensure we can maintain our grid
stability. And the key to grid stability is going to be more
baseload power. Doing this will ensure we have access to
affordable, reliable power, 24/7 and year-round. And as we
talked yesterday, our transmission systems are crucial to
deliver this power, but we need to expand our systems if we are
going to bring new projects onto the grid. In Montana, the
Department of Energy is involved in numerous energy and
transmission projects that will help enhance our energy
dominance and support our energy needs.
My question, Mr. Danly, is how do you envision the
Department of Energy strengthening partnerships with our
states, with our communities, and with energy companies to
expand energy production and to expand transmission across the
United States?
Mr. Danly. So thank you for the question, Senator and I
appreciated the conversation we had in your office yesterday.
The Department of Energy has innumerable different programs
that are designed to either promote the commercialization of or
help with the improvement of the preexisting facilities that
are fundamental to keeping the transmission system working or
developing new generation. And the President and the Secretary
have both shown extreme enthusiasm for the idea of getting as
much new generation online and interconnected as possible. And
the Department is going to use every one of the tools at its
disposal to ensure that we have as much generation available
and as resilient a bulk power system as we can get.
And you are correct that the constraining factor for all of
the tech companies right now is power, not just the amount of
delivered real power, but also the interconnection sites that
are available to actually connect the facilities to the bulk
power system and the availability of power that is on a
reliable basis. It can be very challenging in constrained areas
to achieve both of those. And we will not be able to meet the
commercial demands of our companies if we don't ensure that
there is more power available.
Senator Daines. Thanks, Mr. Danly.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Daines.
Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Mr. Danly, during your FERC nomination hearing before this
Committee in November 2019, I asked you then if you agreed that
renewable energy should continue to play an important role in
our nation's energy mix. And you replied, ``undoubtedly.'' Then
in response to my follow-up question, you agreed that
renewables like wind and solar power can be reliably integrated
into the power grid. Do you still agree with that today?
Mr. Danly. Thank you for the question, Senator, and I
remember that confirmation hearing like it was yesterday. Yes,
they can be integrated. There are challenges to integration.
It's not the same type of generation that the bulk power system
was built on from its infancy. And when you reach a certain
threshold, those challenges become multiplicative. And so,
there are thresholds that can be reached where it becomes more
difficult. But yes, the idea that in a time of demand like we
are facing now, that we would turn away any megawatts that are
available seems irrational to me, but there are engineering
problems that attend to use of intermittents.
Senator Cortez Masto. In response to another follow-up
question, you agreed that states hold the authority under the
Federal Power Act to establish the resource mix that best
serves their customers. Do you still hold that position?
Mr. Danly. The law hasn't changed, and neither has my
opinion. The states are granted the authority to determine what
generation is within their borders.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
And then, this is a question for both of you. As you've
heard from some of my colleagues, we have been concerned by
what you might be walking into in your respective departments.
We're seeing decisions by the current Administration, from
tariffs, to firings, to restructurings, that are undercutting
our national and local economies, including in emerging and
critical industries like outdoor recreation, travel, and
tourism. The chaotic executive orders and actions often have to
be walked back or reversed, such as--and we have heard a little
bit about this--the firing of federal firefighters, or in my
state, nuclear safety officials within DOE's National Nuclear
Security Administration. So my question to both of you is, and
I will start with you, Mr. Danly--if confirmed, will you commit
to transparency on future actions taken by you and your
departments and prioritize substantive responses to overdue
questions that me and my colleagues have requested in letters?
Mr. Danly. So this Committee has seen my correspondence in
my response to your letters before when I was a Commissioner. I
did not give you the pro-forma one-pagers, I had these 90-page
missives that completely laid bare everything at the
Commission. I have no problem telling this Committee or any
Member of Congress anything they want to know about what we do.
Senator Cortez Masto. Great, that's a yes. I appreciate
that.
Ms. MacGregor.
Ms. MacGregor. Senator, I also agree with you that sunshine
is always important for this Committee and also for the
American people to understand how their government is working.
So we will work with you.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Ms. MacGregor, much of the West has been experiencing a
historic drought, and I think one of my colleagues may have
asked this question of you already, but let me further
elaborate. Nevada is one of the several Basin States that
relies on water from the Colorado River. We are currently
engaged in negotiations to set the guidelines for future water
allocations because we also know that the current guidelines
expire in 2027, and we need to start now, and we have started,
even before now. But the new operations have to be in place
before the end of 2026 to avoid confusion and conflict for the
entire Southwestern United States. Despite 20 years of
collaboration, the Upper and Lower Basin have not yet reached
an agreement. The Department of the Interior must be a leader
to bring the seven Basin States together on these alternatives
and develop the post-2026 guidelines.
As Deputy Secretary, how will you prioritize this process
to ensure the Basin can reach a consensus and avoid litigation
before time runs out with the necessary guidelines that we have
to pass?
Ms. MacGregor. Senator, thank you for that question. I was
able to enjoy several meetings with many Senators on this dais
about this particular issue. And I know that avoiding
litigation on this incredibly important Basin is absolutely a
must, and it's going to be a priority of the Department to work
together with the seven Basin States, tribes, water users,
hydropower generators, everyone--the 40 million people who rely
on a smart solution that must be state-led.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I am looking forward to
that. We need that involvement. And I--if you don't know, the
Senators in the Basin States, we all work very well together on
this particular issue, and we are looking for that involvement
from the Department of the Interior as well. So thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Echoing Senator Cortez Masto's comments on the entire Basin
States working so well together, because you know how critical
that is, and we had that conversation in my office just
yesterday.
But Ms. MacGregor, I definitely appreciated the opportunity
to go through some of my priorities with you when we met
previously, and I hope you took away from our meeting the
constant theme of collaboration on so many of these intricate
and complex issues, including but not limited to the recently
established national monuments in California. As I mentioned,
these protected landscapes, we crafted very intentionally to
ensure that there is no energy potential that is being
compromised as a result of the designation of the Chuckwalla
and Sattitla National Monument, and I think you have that
confirmation through the endorsements of these monuments by
energy utilities and energy developers. I raised the same
background with Secretary Burgum, both in our conversations and
in writing, that the Department's review that has been called
for--public lands must include meeting with the stakeholders
that were involved--stakeholders that include the Congressional
delegation, the Governor of California, the state's energy
agencies, local officials, and notably, the tribal leaders who
actually spearheaded the movements and the creation of these
monuments.
And so, it took me a little bit by surprise when last month
the Administration issued, but then rescinded, a fact sheet
that suggested that the White House terminated the recently
designated national monuments, all despite the fact that the
President, in my opinion, doesn't have the legal authority to
undo a monument under the Antiquities Act. I am not sure if you
were involved at all with the crafting of the executive order
and/or the fact sheet, but I guess my first question would be,
are you aware of the broad, bipartisan, local, and tribal
support for the Chuckwalla and Sattitla National Monuments?
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, I have closely watched that monument
establishment.
Senator Padilla. Is that a yes?
Ms. MacGregor. Yes.
Senator Padilla. Okay, because we want to get you on the
record recognizing the broad-based support for the creation of
these monuments.
Now, more broadly, as a matter of policy, do you believe
that local communities and tribal leaders should have a say in
the management of their public lands?
Ms. MacGregor. I think local involvement is something that
everyone on this dais agrees with.
Senator Padilla. Okay, well, I am talking just about you,
not the folks on the dais. You are the nominee before us----
Ms. MacGregor. Local involvement is embedded in almost all
the Organic Acts at the Department, so, yes.
Senator Padilla. Good, good. Good-faith consultation and
engagement is what we are looking for.
Now, as the Department did under the first Trump
Administration, will you commit to releasing any rollbacks that
you may be considering for public comment prior to taking
action, if you are confirmed?
Ms. MacGregor. Senator, it's hard for me to commit on a
completely hypothetical question related to the Antiquities
Act, especially given that the Antiquities Act of 1906 has the
designation of monuments purely within the ambit of the
President of the United States. But I do know that that
monument and many monuments are important to you and the State
of California, and I will absolutely work with you. But I
haven't seen any direction from the President yet. I am
familiar with that of the past, but I have not seen any yet,
unless I have missed something related to a review of our
national monuments.
Senator Padilla. Okay. I wasn't trying to debate the
Antiquities Act, just referencing what seemed to be the policy
in the first Trump Administration of sharing publicly before a
natural effort to roll back, and I would hope that continues in
this second Administration.
A question in my time remaining for Mr. Danly. California
proudly was the first state in the nation to launch a hydrogen
hub. We refer to it as ARCHES, which will facilitate a network
of hydrogen production sites to catalyze the use of hydrogen
throughout California, and frankly, jump-start the hydrogen
economy, not just in California, but across the country. The
California hub enjoys bipartisan support from our California
delegation. However, last week, the Department of Energy ``cut
list'' reportedly included ARCHES and other hydrogen hubs to be
cut. So I want to point out that ARCHES, again, is not just
critical to California, but critical to our national economy.
If confirmed, would you commit to working with California
to ensure that funding is not arbitrarily taken away?
Mr. Danly. Thank you for the question, Senator. And I have
had a series of inquiries like this along the way. Of course, I
am not in the building, and I don't know what is being
contemplated, but I am obviously happy to work with any member
of the Committee on any of the subjects that the DOE is working
on in their state.
Senator Padilla. And should you be confirmed, would you be
willing to commit to meet with the ARCHES staff before any
final decision on cuts are made?
Mr. Danly. Again, I am not certain what, should I be
confirmed, what my schedule is going to be like or what the
normal fora are for engagement. I don't know what the rules
are----
Senator Padilla. Meeting with the leadership of the hub
that may be on the chopping block, but one of the most
important hubs in America.
Mr. Danly. I certainly would have no objection to doing so,
I just, it's a little premature to start filling calendars for
a position I haven't yet been confirmed----
Senator Padilla. I am not looking dates and times, just
your commitment and willingness to----
Mr. Danly. I am perfectly happy to work on any of the
projects that the DOE is working on.
Senator Padilla. Okay, we will be following up.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to both of you. I appreciate you stopping by and
visiting with me, and look forward very much to working with
you.
Starting with you, Ms. MacGregor. We have got some
legislative priorities, and I would like your help on it. So I
am going to ask on the record here if will help us. We are
working on the North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act, which
would allow tribes in our state to swap land with the state to
the benefit of the tribes and to the benefit of the state. It
involves tribal-owned land and state-owned land. That's one.
The other is the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library. You
might have heard about it, perhaps Secretary Burgum mentioned
it to you because he has really worked on it hard. It's a great
project. We have worked on it hard. And we have passed
legislation here through this Committee and across and through
the Congress to make it happen, but there is more to do. And
then also the Dakota Water Resources Act, which, actually,
Senator Padilla co-sponsored with me.
But those three are legislative priorities, and I ask for
your help with them. Are you willing to help?
Ms. MacGregor. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
The next is, the Biden Administration implemented on BLM
lands what they call a BLM Public Lands Rule. Essentially, it
closes off about half of the BLM lands in our state--and we
have a lot of them--to oil and gas and closes off almost all of
them for federal coal. And I would ask that you work with us to
roll back that harmful policy.
Ms. MacGregor. I am familiar with that rule, sir. And I
would be happy to work with you ongoing on that matter.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
Are you committed to multiple use on federal lands? It is
the law, by the way.
Ms. MacGregor. It's the law, sir, so yes.
Senator Hoeven. Good.
And then, in a lot of cases, we have split estates on
mineral interests between the Federal Government and maybe the
state or private individuals. Don't you think it's important
that we get timely response from the Federal Government so as
to not disenfranchise individual private property rights or the
states?
Ms. MacGregor. Absolutely, sir. That was in my opening
statement. I think timeliness is incredibly important.
Senator Hoeven. And the same on NEPA reviews?
Ms. MacGregor. Yes, sir, that is also the law.
Senator Hoeven. And then, are you pro-horse or anti-horse?
Ms. MacGregor. It depends on the horse.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hoeven. Good answer. As somebody who was raised
with horses, she knows her stuff. In this case, I am looking
for a pro-horse answer though, because we are working on
legislation to protect the horses in Theodore Roosevelt
National Park, and would welcome and appreciate your assistance
with it, if you are so inclined.
Ms. MacGregor. I have some ideas for you.
Senator Hoeven. Great.
Ms. MacGregor. Some horses.
Senator Hoeven. Yes, yes. But you are willing to work with
us on it?
Ms. MacGregor. Absolutely.
Senator Hoeven. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Danly, we need more baseload for the stability of the
grid, and I mean, I think you coming into this position to work
with Secretary Wright is really outstanding given your, not
only legal background and all that, but your work on the FERC.
I mean, I think that is just a great background for this
position, and so I welcome that. We need more baseload on the
grid. I want you to talk about that and then I also want you to
talk about how we get, you know, carbon capture technologies to
economic viability. We have technological viability, as our
Chair knows, or current acting Chair, I guess. He is actually
our Whip, but I see they are letting him chair the Committee
today, so. How do we get more baseload? How do we get to
economic viability for carbon capture technologies?
Mr. Danly. So this has been--the subject of needing more
baseload power for the stability of the bulk electric system is
a subject that I talked about multiple times, including in
colloquies with you, in front of this Committee when I was at
FERC, and that still remains true. The baseload needs now
though are not merely for the services that are required to
keep the system stable, from spinning mass and the like, but at
this point we need more baseload power simply because we are
having increasing demand for real power delivered. And so, it
now has the dual purpose of we need baseload to shore up the
stability of bulk power system and we actually just need to
deliver more power reliably.
Senator Hoeven. Right, and so, for Maine and New Mexico,
places like that, we need baseload so they don't have problems
getting their power, right? It's really important for our good
friends there.
Mr. Danly. So the Federal Power Act is a national act that
tries to make sure that everybody can have access to power
across state borders. And yes, baseload power anywhere in an
interconnection is good for everybody in the interconnection.
How to get more of it? We have problems with the development of
transmission, which was a subject that had come up before, but
there is also the problem, at least in the areas that are
regulated by FERC jurisdictional markets--baseload power has
historically been undervalued. And we see this in retirements
of assets that still have useful life in them. We see the
scarcity in the pricing in the most recent prints in the PJM
base residual auction, and the way fundamentally to fix this is
to pay rates that are commensurate with the benefits that
baseload power delivers to the power system.
Senator Hoeven. Yeah, see, this is why your experience on
the FERC is going to be very important to DOE. And of course, I
meant to include Washington State in making sure that that
power is there and viable and available on the hottest day or
the coldest day, whatever the needs may be.
But again, I think that this kind of expertise is going to
be very important as we address the issues in our national
grids.
Mr. Danly. It is critical. And without the deployment of
sufficient generation, the United States--AI isn't the only
source of the demand that is rising, but it is a very important
one. The Biden Administration estimated that we were about 18
months ahead in AI development for the language training models
in China. Eighteen months is the blink of an eye in utility
planning terms, and there is real need to develop generation to
meet that.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and also Mr. Ranking
Member, I appreciate it.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just
asking staff if they remember the last time that somebody
voluntarily mentioned the Federal Power Act at a hearing, so
thank you.
Mr. Danly. I would hope that I was that person.
Senator Cantwell. You were. You were.
Well, we will go back in the record and search and see when
was the last time somebody brought it up. We often bring it up
as members, but not a witness voluntarily. So I think it shows
your prowess. So let me just jump right into it.
As it relates to--we will just stick on this subject for a
second. Do you commit to opposing any proposals to auction off
assets, including those owned by Bonneville Power
Administration?
Mr. Danly. I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I had trouble
hearing you.
Senator Cantwell. We don't want to--BPA's a unique
situation.
Mr. Danly. Oh, Bonneville, yes.
Senator Cantwell. Will you commit to not auctioning off any
of the PMA assets, including those by Bonneville?
Mr. Danly. So the Power Marketing Administrations are
fundamental components of the Department of Energy and provide
electricity to huge swaths of territory in America. I love the
Power Marketing Administrations. I just don't know anything
about--I know there have been talks at different times for the
Power Marketing Administrations to be privatized and the like.
I have no interest in that subject historically in my career.
And I don't really know enough about that to give an informed
answer here. It certainly isn't anything I have heard talked
about recently, but----
Senator Cantwell. Yeah, well, maybe, yeah, take a little
homework assignment.
Mr. Danly. Yeah.
Senator Cantwell. Bad idea.
Okay so, PNNL, as it relates to grid modernization,
chemistry, and materials science--will you advocate for robust
resources for our national labs to continue to play a role on
the forefront of innovation as it relates to key energy
national defense applications?
Mr. Danly. I think the national labs are fundamental to
America's geostrategic position in the world, and on top of
that, I am just a really big fan of them.
Senator Cantwell. Well, a lot of great work is being done
there. I invite you to come also and see the fusion technology
in the Pacific Northwest--three different fusion companies that
are underway. I do think we have to think about this, like if
the United States wants to run fast, if we do, if somebody
creates a miracle solution here, how do we get it integrated
very quickly into the grid. So I invite you to come and look at
that.
Hanford--very big issue for us, and Hanford cleanup. I am
concerned about the layoffs from DOGE and retirements. And so,
I don't want to lose qualified workers. One of the major
obligations by the Federal Government is to live up to the Tri-
Party Agreement. And so, will you commit to supporting a budget
that meets the milestones of that agreement, which is previous
energy secretaries committing to a plan for cleanup? So these
are legal commitments that everybody has made, our state, just
as a state where this activity is housed, and obviously,
concern about the environmental contamination played a key role
in getting those agreements. But will you live up to a budget
that lives up to the milestones of the agreement?
Mr. Danly. So fundamentally, the budgets are not the
purview of the position to which I have been nominated, but I
will say this--the cleanup of the legacy waste sites is one of
the handful of the truly core missions of the Department. And I
have every intention of abiding by the agreement, and to the
extent that the Department has obligations to discharge, I will
see them discharged properly.
Senator Cantwell. So you would worry if, like, so many
workers were laid off in the area that you didn't think you
could meet those milestone agreements--that would be something
you would be concerned about?
Mr. Danly. I mean, put another way, would I be concerned,
should I be confirmed, would I be concerned that we didn't have
the workforce to discharge the duties that Congress gave us?
Yes. But that would apply to virtually anything that we are
told to do, so.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I need to get to Ms.
MacGregor.
If I could, last year, we spent 96 days at the National
Preparedness Levels of 4 and 5, which means we are using all of
our available resources to fight fires. Over the last ten
years, that only happened in 2021. So, we are very concerned
about what this year's fire season is going to look like, and
so, we don't want to see a layoff of critical employees that
are going to help us for the future. The Department has a
responsibility to fight here. Will you support--how would you
make sure that we have the workforce that we need as part of
our incident command teams, and if confirmed, will you not
support a production plan, including off-selling of public
lands that would reduce our access?
Ms. MacGregor. Thank you for the question, Senator.
I stated earlier that I think wildfire--and I think I
stated in my last hearing that it is one thing that actually
keeps me up at night in this job--if confirmed--that wildland
firefighters are absolutely part of our essential workforce,
and getting them out there is just as equally important as
wildland wildfire management efforts that the Department, not
only our Department--states, in partnership with us, local
communities, the Department of Agriculture, do to help give
that toe-hold so that we can fight fire better and more
effectively. And I absolutely will commit to you to work on
wildland firefighting staffing to make sure we have what we
need.
Senator Cantwell. I am asking--the two of you are the first
witnesses to come before us since all the DOGE cuts. So I am
asking you, specifically, will you stop any cuts that will
affect wildland firefighting efforts?
Ms. MacGregor. I will absolutely evaluate any proposed
cuts, should they be, you know, proposed for wildland
firefighting cuts, and review those very closely. I can't
imagine a situation where that would occur, but if it did, I
would want to make sure that we are balancing and keeping the
resources we need to fight fire.
Senator Cantwell. Yes, I think most of us would just be
able to agree today. No one here wants those cuts, no one. We
think we need more resources. We think we have a pretty good--
you will see a lot of western members here, and we have a very
good handle on what's happening. We have had to deal with it
for a long time. And so, we had to fight to get the money out
of deficit reduction and back into the firefighting budget.
That was a major bipartisan accomplishment, mostly led by this
Committee. And now, we just want to keep moving forward. The
Palisades fire was more than a wake-up call, more than a wake-
up call. So we need more resources, not less.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Senator McCormick.
Senator McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
our nominees. Congratulations to both of you and your families.
Mr. Danly, I am going to start with you. I am thrilled to
see a fellow Army man come before our Committee, and we are
talking a lot today about artificial intelligence and the
importance of it for our economy and for our national security.
To reap the full benefits of the AI revolution, we need power.
We need an expansion of natural gas production and nuclear
power, in particular, to power the next generation of AI. What
do you think are the biggest challenges to expanding natural
gas production and to increasing nuclear capacity in the United
States?
Mr. Danly. Most of them are regulatory. The actual siting
of generation is left to the states, as was alluded to earlier,
but the regulatory burdens that attend the submission of any
Section 7--that is NGA Section 7 Natural Gas Pipeline--are so
profound that the risk premiums make it almost impossible to
allocate capital rationally. And so, even though over the short
and intermediate term, natural gas is the obvious solution to
plug holes in resource adequacy, especially in areas that have
constrained transmission systems, the biggest problem is the
permitting of natural gas pipelines.
And as far as nuclear goes, you know, we recently had two
new AP1000 units that went live in Georgia. My hope at the time
had been that, once the first company went through the
minefield clearing the path, everybody would follow after them
immediately, and that hasn't happened. And my understanding,
from the people I talk to about it mostly is, first of all,
AP1000s are really big, but the main problem is the rates paid
on the back end in the markets. For any of the areas that the
two-thirds of Americans who are served by FERC markets, it is
impossible to get rates paid, especially at capacity prices,
that are commensurate with the upfront costs and the long-term
ongoing costs of running a nuclear power plant. Even though the
actual cost of delivered power is completely reasonable, it's
everything that goes into the setting, construction
application, and permitting that is expensive, not to mention
the after-the-fact litigation. And so, really these are
regulatory challenges primarily.
Senator McCormick. Very good, thank you.
And Ms. MacGregor, good to see you the other day. We didn't
talk about this, but I wanted to bring up the question of
critical minerals, which are so necessary to our national
security and to ensuring that we maintain a dominant position
vis-a-vis China, our primary competitor. And China, as you
know, is seeking to get control of rare mineral supply chains
around the world with mineral extraction processing and
refining. As you know also, domestically many of those critical
minerals lie on federal land. It takes years to develop these
mining projects, and the constant delays and overzealous
environmental regulations have, in the past, deterred
investments in these capital-intensive projects.
So what will you do--what can you do to tackle these
challenges to spur mineral development in the United States?
Ms. MacGregor. Senator, that is a great question, and
coming from Pennsylvania, which is one of the original mining
states, I think it's incredibly important that our country
continue to be a leader when it comes to mining, milling, and
production. And in my past position at the Department of the
Interior, I had the stress of reviewing the United States
Geological Survey Annual Mineral Commodity Report that goes
between 18 to 20 different mineral commodities every year where
we are nearly 100 percent reliant on foreign adversaries. And
that worries me very much, especially when we have abundant
resources here and smart regulations to be able to deploy them
and mine them responsibly. And I personally, in the past,
worked on a lithium mine in the State of Nevada, in my position
in the Department last time around. I envision that there are
more opportunities in the future. And if confirmed, I really
look forward to working on that because I think we need to be a
leader.
Senator McCormick. Thank you.
Mr. Danly, I am going to try to squeeze in one more
question about the national labs. This Committee had a meeting
about China and its attempt to infiltrate our universities, our
national labs, as our primary adversary. As Deputy Secretary,
what role do you expect to play in implementing, hopefully,
more robust research security policies at DOE and across our
national labs to make sure we are protecting against the risk
of foreign researchers taking our innovation and technology
elsewhere?
Mr. Danly. Yes, so, I think that's--when I first learned
about the sheer volume of foreign researchers that came to the
national labs and used the facilities in close proximity to the
other researchers, I was really shocked by it. And when I
further looked into it and found that there were very few--
seemingly, at least by the press reports, press accounts--few
constraints placed on that research being done and the choice
and vetting of the people that arrive, I was, again, shocked by
it.
So I don't know the specific actions that I would take,
should I be confirmed, but it is something that I think is
really serious and has to be dealt with immediately.
Senator McCormick. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator McCormick.
Senator King, did you have an additional question?
Senator King. Yes, I wanted to follow up--a very productive
discussion, Mr. Danly. First, I would mention that one of
bottlenecks, Senator, on natural gas is it takes five years to
get a turbine. They are so backed up that that's a bottleneck
in itself. If you wanted to build a gas turbine, you would need
at least five years and then, of course, you have to do the
ancillary transmission. But I wanted to talk about--we often
use the word baseload, and you mentioned earlier in your
exchange with Senator Cortez Masto that renewables--solar and
wind--can play an important role in meeting this energy demand
that is coming. And if you add storage, then you've got
baseload. And I think one of the most important things that the
Department is doing is research into battery storage. I learned
recently that, you will excuse the term, the availability of
battery storage has exploded over the last three years.
Mr. Danly. Please don't use that term.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. Sorry. It has expanded dramatically, how is
that?
And would you agree that this is an important area, because
solar and wind today are the cheapest forms of energy, about
three cents a kilowatt-hour all-in, compared with other
sources. Combined cycle is three and a half cents, but other
sources are much more. And they are also the fastest to the
market. So I hope that you agree that storage is an important
area of research and development in order to expand capacity on
the grid from all sources.
Mr. Danly. Absolutely. Research into storage is, like all
research, incremental, but the change in the effectiveness of
batteries, the rate of discharge, and the total capacity
availability has increased over time. If we could solve the
technical, engineering, and cost elements to storage, that's
not just a matter of allowing intermittent resources to have
more continuous output, it also allows for the delivery of
services to the bulk power system that otherwise would have to
be provided directly by generation, and could solve any number
of transmission constraints that right now we have to have
generators for.
Senator King. Exactly. It could be a peaker. It could have
all kinds of roles on stabilizing the grid.
Mr. Danly. Yeah, it could provide ancillary services that
just because of the geography and the topology of the system
would otherwise only be fixed by putting in, let's say, a
combustion turbine or something like that.
Senator King. Well, the Department is working on a number
of initiatives at NREL and other places on battery development
and technology. So I hope you will be a cheerleader for that
when you get to the Department.
Mr. Danly. Should I be lucky enough to be confirmed, I will
cheerlead the national labs and I am completely behind the idea
of trying to figure out the storage question.
Senator King. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Any other questions on this side? Then I am just going to
proceed to mine.
But congratulations to both of you. Thank you so much for
taking the time to visit with me. Let me start with Ms.
MacGregor.
The Biden Administration's Bureau of Land Management
finalized what was the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan.
They did it on the way out the door, December 2024. It occurred
not even a week after our Governor, Governor Mark Gordon,
submitted his appeal to the proposed plan. The final plan is
going to devastate the people of Southwest Wyoming and lock up
millions of acres of land that the local communities and the
entire state rely upon. The Governor, the state legislature,
the county commissioners, and the local communities all
strongly oppose this plan that came out in the final days of
the Biden Administration. Will you commit to work with my
office and the state to undo this disastrous plan?
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, I am very familiar with that plan, and
I want to say that the law itself has a really important
consistency review that is required to be conducted by the BLM.
And it concerns me when you have a resource management plan
that you work on for years and your ultimate result is
something that ends up inconsistent with what the state would
like. I think that's something we can absolutely work with you
on.
Senator Barrasso. So in terms of before implementing the
Biden Administration's flawed plan, you are going to continue
to work with us?
Ms. MacGregor. Absolutely.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
The Resource Management Plan for Buffalo, Wyoming--the
Biden Administration finalized a Resource Management Plan for
the Buffalo, Wyoming Field Office that is going to ban new coal
leasing in the Powder River Basin, the most energy-rich area in
the country. This short-sighted decision is an insult to
Wyoming communities and harmful to American energy security. If
confirmed, would you work with me to reverse this plan?
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, yes, I will work with you on that plan
as well.
Senator Barrasso. On oil and gas leases, the previous
Administration, I believe, had a disgraceful record on oil and
gas management. President Biden blocked production at every
turn, deferred over 600,000 acres from leasing in Wyoming that
were previously cleared for oil and gas production. Glad to see
there is already a lease sale in Wyoming this year. I think it
needs to continue. If confirmed, will you work to offer
additional acres for leasing?
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, conducting lease sales is a requirement
of the law. I will obey the law and we will issue lease sales.
Senator Barrasso. Great.
In terms of sage-grouse, Wyoming is home to a large
population of the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. For over
15 years, Wyoming has been at the forefront of adopting new
management approaches to protect the species. Our state has led
successful efforts to balance conservation with economic
development. The Biden Administration proposed to designate
over 600,000 acres in Wyoming as Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern, also known as ACECs. That is going to
lock up thousands of acres in Wyoming, halting production and
development across the state. Would you be willing to reopen
the Department's greater sage-grouse management?
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, we worked on the sage-grouse resource
management plan in the last Administration, and I was
interested to learn that this issue is remaining and needs to
be addressed and we will work with you on it.
Senator Barrasso. Great.
In terms of federal grazing, the Department of the Interior
plays a critical role in managing federal lands across the
West. Almost half of the land in Wyoming is owned by the
Federal Government. Land managed under multiple use is required
to be managed without impairment of the productivity of the
land. These are public places that people from Wyoming depend
upon accessing for their livelihoods. Congress directed
grazing, timber harvesting, recreation, as well as energy and
mineral development to take place on these lands. Will you
support the multiple-use mandate of federal lands?
Ms. MacGregor. Absolutely, sir, that is the law.
Senator Barrasso. With regard to the Colorado River Basin,
the Colorado River flows through seven states, and the Upper
Basin includes Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. We need
short-and long-term solutions that provide Westerners the water
that we need. More water storage, improved federal flexibility,
better data, and improved forecasting can help accomplish these
goals. What do you think is the role of the Department in these
negotiations between the Colorado River Basins, which is
currently ongoing?
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, it sounds like I will be spending a lot
of time in Wyoming.
Senator Barrasso. We appreciate it. We would love to have
you.
Ms. MacGregor. I think the role of the Department is
ensuring that we have a responsible solution that provides for
the 40 million people who rely upon that water, but the
solution must be state-based.
Senator Barrasso. Okay.
With regard to the grizzly bear, the grizzly bear is fully
recovered. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of
grizzly bear has been fully recovered for 20 years. Wyoming is
proud of the role that we played in leading the recovery. The
population has been delisted two times, under both Democrat and
Republican administrations. It has been relisted by a federal
judge. The only thing that Presidents Biden, Obama, Trump, and
Bush all agreed on is that the grizzly bear is fully recovered.
But we have federal judges who are taking a different approach.
The Endangered Species Act was passed by Congress to protect
species from extinction. Does it make sense for the Federal
Government to manage and waste taxpayer dollars on a species
that is in no danger of becoming extinct?
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, I believe we are borrowing some great
talent from the State of Wyoming to assist us on a lot of these
issues, especially as it relates to the grizzly bear and the
science behind that decision.
Senator Barrasso. Great.
Mr. Danly, congratulations to you as well. Let's talk about
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Projects--nuclear energy.
Developing first-of-its-kind technology requires time and
resources. This is especially true for nuclear energy. The
Department of Energy's Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program
is meant to help developers overcome these hurdles. It is work
that had begun in earnest during the first Trump
Administration. The program was signed into law by President
Trump. I look forward to continuing this good work in getting
the current projects over the finish line. If confirmed, will
you ensure the Department of Energy remains committed to this
mission?
Mr. Danly. Both the President and the Secretary have
expressed their enthusiasm for next-gen reactors. I think they
are almost certainly going to be part of any solution we have
to meeting power demand. I have every intention of supporting
the program and working with you on it.
Senator Barrasso. Great.
So Russian uranium--last year, Congress passed legislation
to ban imports of Russian uranium into the United States. The
law is intended to revive American uranium production and
strengthen our nuclear fuel supply chain. This is needed to
reliably supply critical baseload power plants. The legislation
must be implemented correctly. The Department of Energy has the
discretion to provide waivers to companies seeking to import
uranium from Russia. Do you agree that waivers should be used
only as a last resort?
Mr. Danly. We need to remove our reliance for uranium on
other countries. It is very difficult to have affordable,
reliable, and secure energy if the fundamental inputs are in
the hands of either adversarial or even hostile nations. And I
absolutely agree that the waivers are designed only for use in
extremis, when you have to have the fuel.
Senator Barrasso. All right, because we are now seeing that
sales of nuclear material are coming from China.
Mr. Danly. Which are coming from Russia.
Senator Barrasso. Which are coming from Russia, exactly. I
am glad you know, because the first Trump Administration
recognized our dependence on uranium imports to fuel our
nuclear reactors as a national security risk. It convened the
Nuclear Fuel Working Group to develop recommendations to
address the issue. As an extension of the work, in 2023,
Congress passed the Nuclear Fuel Security Act to rebuild our
nation's nuclear fuel supply chain. Congress repurposed $2.72
billion in 2024 to support this goal. If confirmed, will you
make it a priority to build and secure our nuclear fuel supply
chain, including enrichment and conversion?
Mr. Danly. Senator, the entire supply chain from beginning
to end for nuclear power has to be absolutely resilient and
redundant within the United States. And the Department of
Energy would not be fully discharging its functions if it
didn't work on that.
Senator Barrasso. Before ending this hearing, any other
questions?
[No response.]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
So for the record, I will ask three questions addressed to
each nominee before the Committee. Will you be available to
appear before the Committee and other Congressional Committees
to represent Departmental positions and respond to issues of
concern to Congress?
Mr. Danly. I will.
Ms. MacGregor. I will.
Senator Barrasso. Are you aware of any personal holdings,
investments, or interests that could constitute a conflict or
create the appearance of such a conflict, should you be
confirmed and assume the office to which you have been
nominated by the President?
Mr. Danly. I am aware of no conflicts.
Ms. MacGregor. Sir, aside from the ones I disclosed that I
discussed and will divest, no, there will be no conflicts.
Senator Barrasso. Great.
Are you involved in or do you have any assets held in blind
trusts?
Mr. Danly. No.
Ms. MacGregor. No.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
I want to thank the witnesses and congratulate you. Thank
you for your testimony.
All Senators, I thank. We had a very good turnout for the
questioning today.
Questions for the record of the hearings are due by 6:00
p.m. this evening.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]