    [Senate Hearing 119-122]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 119-122

                         THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST
                           FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                          ENERGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 18, 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
    61-238                     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

                                    WITNESS

     Wright, Hon. Christopher A., Secretary, U.S. Department of
      Energy.........................................................     4

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Alliance for Tribal Clean Energy:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   116
    Blake, Robert:
        Letter for the Record........................................   128
    Blake, Robert et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   132
    Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine et al.:
        Letter addressed to Secretary Wright, dated June 17, 2025....   112
    Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe:
        Letter for the Record........................................   120
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
        Opening Statement............................................     2
        Statement for the Record with accompanying letters from
          tribes and tribal organizations............................   115
    Hickenlooper, Hon. John W.:
        Chart depicting Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
          Energy funding levels since 2019...........................    42
    Lee, Hon. Mike:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Navajo Nation:
        Letter for the Record........................................   122
    Nez Perce Tribe et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   134
    Oceti Sakowin Power Authority:
        Letter for the Record........................................   123
    Scotts Valley Energy Corporation:
        Letter for the Record........................................   130
    Van Dyke, Jeremy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   138
    Wright, Hon. Christopher A.:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
        Written Testimony............................................     7
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    47

                         THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST
                           FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                          ENERGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 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. Good morning. The Committee will come to
    order.
        We will hear today from Secretary Wright, the Secretary of
    Energy, as we discuss the Fiscal Year 2026 budget for the U.S.
    Department of Energy.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary, and thank you for meeting with us
    today.
        When we last saw you before the Committee, back in January,
    you were then President Trump's nominee to lead the Department
    of Energy. You are now five months into that role and you are
    already delivering results. Congratulations on that. This
    Committee has, since then, favorably reported ten additional
    nominees, including James Danly, who is already serving as your
    Deputy, and nine more who still await confirmation by the full
    Senate. I encourage Senate leadership to move forward with
    those well-qualified nominees, who again, have received our
    favorable recommendation out of this Committee, to move them
    forward promptly so that they can get in place and then help
    you implement President Trump's America First agenda.
        The Department's budget in recent years has ballooned. We
    have seen a dramatic expansion fueled by the misnamed Inflation
    Reduction Act, which instead provided tens of billions of
    dollars to fund green energy projects that make energy less
    reliable and more expensive for the American people. Perhaps
    the worst example of this--the Department of Energy's Loan
    Programs Office. The IRA gave it over $300 billion in new
    lending authority, far exceeding the traditional portfolio, and
    the previous administration rushed to approve nearly $100
    billion of those loans in just a few months, more than twice
    what it had previously disbursed over the last 15 years. So I
    want to commend you, Mr. Secretary, for taking strong action to
    protect taxpayers' dollars, including by canceling nearly $4
    billion in funding for worthless IRA projects that were rushed
    out the door hastily, under the dark of night, between election
    day and President Trump's inauguration.
        Under your leadership as Secretary of Energy, DOE is back
    to approving LNG exports consistent with DOE precedent, with
    nearly ten billion cubic feet per day's worth of export
    applications, now green-lighted after the previous
    administration's unlawful pause. Your Department is also
    addressing, in meaningful ways, growing grid reliability
    issues, crises caused by issuing numerous 202(c) orders to keep
    baseload generation online during the most stressed months,
    helping to avoid blackouts, and keeping energy prices stable
    for Americans all across the country. All of this tends to set
    the stage for a return to the Department of Energy's proper
    role, that is, focusing on basic research and development in
    energy and science that foster innovation, strengthen energy
    independence, and reduce energy costs for the American people,
    all while assuring greater reliability. I look forward to
    hearing from you today, and in particular, hearing how you plan
    to continue strengthening oversight, discipline, and
    accountability within your Department, and how you will manage
    programs like the Loan Programs Office, the science labs, and
    new transmission initiatives in a way that will protect
    taxpayers, strengthen our energy independence, and serve the
    best interests of the American people.
        So again, welcome, Mr. Secretary, and I would now like to
    recognize Senator Heinrich, the Ranking Member, for his opening
    statement.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman Lee, and welcome,
    Secretary Wright.
        Secretary Wright, we are here to discuss the FY26 budget
    request, and while this is our first opportunity to ask you
    questions since your confirmation, it's not your first time
    defending this budget. Last week, you testified before the
    Energy and Commerce Committee, and earlier in May, you appeared
    before the House and Senate Energy and Water Development
    Subcommittees. It is clear from those hearings that there seems
    to be a noticeable disconnect between what you have stated
    publicly and the actions taken under your leadership as
    Secretary of the Department of Energy.
        At your nomination hearing in January, I asked you if the
    executive branch has the authority, without Congress's
    approval, to withhold or terminate funding for an activity
    Congress approved in law. You said that you would ``follow the
    laws and statutes of the United States of America.'' On May
    30th, $3.7 billion in awards from the Office of Clean Energy
    Demonstrations were canceled without notice or without
    justification. Cancellation of these awards crosses into
    impoundment territory and is certainly a breach of contract.
    Actions like these will severely damage our country's ability
    to lead in developing and commercializing next-generation
    technologies while ceding ground to our competitors.
        Another way to undermine our leadership: demoralizing the
    scientists and staff at DOE, the largest federal sponsor of
    basic research in the physical sciences. I know you realize
    this because on February 5th, you called DOE staff ``the
    unbelievable humans that are in the room today, that are across
    our national labs, in our cleanup facilities, in our offices
    around the country.'' Less than a month later, however, 2,000
    DOE employees, including hundreds of National Nuclear Security
    Administration employees responsible for safeguarding the
    nation's nuclear stockpile, were fired. That was unacceptable.
    But only after heavy criticism did the Department partially
    rescind the NNSA termination order and scramble to reinstate
    these employees.
        In coming months, the Department is reportedly set to lose
    thousands of additional employees to early buyouts. As my
    colleague, Ranking Member Murray noted, taxpayers have spent
    $70 million to pay people not to work at this point, but it
    seems that you may be regretting that decision. The Washington
    Post reported that across the government, officials are
    rehiring federal workers who were forced out or encouraged to
    resign. You know that this is no way to run a business or an
    agency, and I believe that we have to do better. And just
    yesterday, I heard from the national labs that this budget
    would cut funding for the labs by $2.75 billion, or 11 percent,
    compared to Fiscal Year 2024, an estimated loss of more than
    7,700 jobs once fully implemented. Our nation's scientific and
    energy leadership is on the line.
        And let's talk a little bit about energy dominance. In your
    confirmation hearings, you said that you would be an
    ``unabashed steward for all sources of affordable, reliable,
    and secure American energy and the infrastructure needed to
    develop, deliver, and secure them.'' However, last week, before
    the Energy and Commerce Committee, you said, ``I have never
    been for all of the above. And if I said it at one point in
    time, I misspoke. I am against energy sources that make the
    energy system more expensive or less reliable.'' I wouldn't
    call that misspeaking. That's a disconnect. If you truly were
    against energy sources that make the energy system more
    expensive or less reliable, I don't believe that you would be
    propping up the uneconomic J.H. Campbell coal power plant in
    Michigan to produce expensive and inefficient power. A new
    report by Energy Innovation shows that the average megawatt of
    power generated by U.S. coal plants is 28 percent more
    expensive in 2024 compared to 2021. And that means that
    families spent $6.2 billion more on electricity generated by
    coal in 2024 than they would have just three years ago.
        As electricity demand continues to grow, we will not be
    able to meet the energy needs of new data centers while keeping
    household bills low if we prevent the growth of affordable
    clean energy resources. We need a true all-of-the-above
    strategy to adequately deliver our energy goals, and this
    budget fails to deliver on that. During your time as Secretary,
    you have also said that ten percent of Americans in the last 12
    months have received a utility disconnection notice, and that
    one of your goals was to shrink that number to zero by making
    energy more abundant and affordable. That is a worthy mission.
    And yet, this budget eliminates the Weatherization Assistance
    Program, which saves households an average of $372 a year. You
    have often said that artificial intelligence is the Manhattan
    Project of our time. And yet, this budget proposes a 14 percent
    cut to the Office of Science and a 57 percent cut to ARPA-E,
    where our major AI R&D efforts are currently underway. We
    cannot expect to maintain U.S. leadership in emerging
    technologies if we shortchange the office's programs, and most
    importantly, the people needed to do so.
        Lastly, I want to want to raise DOE's failure to respond in
    a timely and substantive manner to congressional oversight
    requests. I have sent four letters on topics ranging from staff
    reductions to funding freezes and project cancellations. I have
    received zero responses. That is unacceptable. You and I may
    disagree on many things, but the need to ensure that Americans
    have access to affordable domestic sources of energy and
    support our research and energy leadership should be shared
    goals. This budget proposal does not support those goals
    adequately, nor do many of the current actions at the
    Department, and I hope we see changes.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        Secretary Wright, you are now invited to give your opening
    statement.

               STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. WRIGHT,
                  SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

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

        The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Wright. We will now
    invite members of the Committee to ask you questions in five-
    minute rounds. I will begin, and then we will have Senator
    Heinrich after me, and then we will alternate between
    Republicans and Democrats thereafter, in order of seniority,
    subject to the early-bird rule adopted by the Committee.
        So I will begin now.
        Secretary Wright, the Energy Information Agency (EIA)
    defines something known as the LCOE--the Levelized Cost of
    Electricity--as ``the estimated revenue required to build and
    operate a generator over a specified cost recovery period.''
    Now, as I understand it, this LCOE calculation does not take
    into account existing generation resources--stuff that's
    already in place spinning out electrons, especially
    dispatchable generation, which is retiring at an alarmingly
    rapid pace. Additionally, wind and solar have been shown in
    many instances to have a negative effect on the levelized cost
    of dispatchable generation. This is because generation, like
    gas, nuclear, and coal, among others, are forced to reduce
    output while still having fixed operational costs that go along
    with those enterprises, all to accommodate for electrons put
    onto the grid by other sources, intermittent renewable
    generation sources.
        I recently introduced a bill that would repeal all the IRA
    subsidies for inferior generation, like wind and solar. Can you
    elaborate on how tax incentives for those generating sources--
    the intermittent sources--actually increase the levelized cost
    of firm resources, thereby increasing costs for consumers at
    the end of the day?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, Senator, thank you for the question.
    It's an issue I am quite passionate about. I worked on solar
    energy in graduate school many years ago and so, as I said in
    my opening statement and have maintained ever since, I am for
    all sources of affordable, reliable energy. I am not for all
    sources of energy, period--only ones that contribute to
    affordable, reliable, secure energy. The levelized cost of
    ownership idea is decades-old, and it came out to compare
    always-on dispatchable sources--the cost with which we build a
    new nuclear plant, a new coal plant, or a new gas plant--
    because they provide the same thing. They provide electricity
    on demand. I compare--it was never intended, of course, for a
    source that you don't know when it's going to be there and when
    it's going to be gone. That's just a completely different
    entity.
        When your child is born premature, and you place that child
    in a life-saving incubator, it's not okay to say it's going to
    turn on when the wind starts blowing or, well, it's on right
    now, but when the sun goes down, it's probably going to be off
    until the morning. There simply are no customers for
    electricity that you may have it or you may not have it. I gave
    it--imagine if you had a competitor for Uber that came out--
    they are called ``no go.'' And it came out and said our
    levelized cost per mile of transport is going to be ten percent
    cheaper than Uber. Everybody should run to that, it's cheaper.
    Now, we don't know when we are going to come pick you up and
    when we do pick you up, we don't know where we are going to
    drop you off, but our cost is ten percent cheaper. They are
    just two entirely different things.
        And so, as you rightly pointed out, what matters is the
    system cost, but if you have sources--and I can talk more about
    the Texas electricity grid later, but peak demand is the actual
    time that you usually get the lowest delivery from renewables.
    So you have to have the other grid, the reliable grid, to
    provide electricity at peak demand to keep everyone alive and
    the incubator on. And then we have a whole second grid that
    comes and goes with the weather. And, of course, to manage both
    of those together, it's guaranteed, and data has shown it in
    spades, to be more expensive and a less reliable grid. And
    further, that no-go company that wouldn't fly, if we subsidized
    it and helped them buy these vehicles and stand up a business,
    with the business model that doesn't work, you just cascade a
    problem. They are very unique subsidies, where we spend a
    dollar of subsidy and it doesn't defray consumer cost. The
    government spends a dollar of subsidy and consumers pay a
    dollar extra for their electricity.
        The Chairman. Thank you. No, that's helpful. Very good
    explanation.
        There is a residential solar company called Sunnova that
    received $3 billion--a $3 billion loan guarantee from the
    previous administration's Department of Energy that recently
    filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. And now, Biden's Loan Programs
    Office Director, Jigar Shah, was aware of accusations that
    Sunnova defrauded seniors, selling solar to those who were ``on
    their death beds.'' Despite this, Mr. Shah instructed DOE staff
    to prioritize Sunnova's loan application after attending a
    dinner hosted by a Sunnova Board Member. The Board Member's
    spouse was the former chair of the DNC. The DOE Inspector
    General determined that Shah's actions potentially violated the
    ethical standards for executive branch employees.
        How can the American people be confident that the Loan
    Programs Office inside the Department of Energy is acting in
    their best interest when actions like those taken by Jigar Shah
    have undermined the credibility of that same office?
        Secretary Wright. Huge undermining of the credibility,
    Senator, huge undermining. And it's one of the reasons people
    are mad at me for being slow and process-oriented, but it's in
    response to things like that that we have created this program
    review process where we have a team of cross-functional people
    to evaluate every project of any meaningful scale. If it's a
    few million dollars or more, and there are 500 such projects,
    we are going to evaluate every one of them in a business-like,
    professional manner, not a political manner, not a self-
    interested manner, but a business-like manner. And so, yeah,
    clearly, we need a very different culture at DOE and we are
    working every day to build that.
        The Chairman. Wonderful. Thank you.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Secretary, first-off, will you commit to
    responding to the letters that I have sent your office?
        Secretary Wright. Senator, the most efficient
    communication, of course, is to reach out and we can jump on
    the phone at any time. I know we have done that a few times. I
    am happy to do that much more. My schedule is very tough, and I
    should respond, and will respond to your letters.
        Senator Heinrich. I'm sorry, I should not have to spend
    time in these hearings on this. It's a simple communication
    that I want something formally in writing on. I am not telling
    you how to respond to it. I am just asking you to do what every
    Secretary of Energy has always done and respond to my letters.
    Democrats and Republicans alike.
        Secretary Wright. You bet. You will get a response.
        Senator Heinrich. I appreciate that.
        I want to go directly to the heart of some of what you
    described in your Uber analogy. And first off, do you know what
    the average price per kilowatt-hour that retail customers pay
    across the country is according to EIA?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, it's about 14 cents.
        Senator Heinrich. I think it's 17.1 right now. I bring that
    up because I pay substantially less than that. I am in a
    utility in central New Mexico. Most people formally know it as
    PNM, and I pay about 12 and change cents per kilowatt-hour. And
    yet, their generation is largely clean, mostly renewable with
    batteries. And they have been able to maintain that cost
    profile of just over 12 cents per kilowatt-hour using
    renewables and batteries. And I think you are absolutely
    correct that we should be comparing apples to apples. But
    today, with a little bit of storage, they are able to manage
    the grid with low cost and reliability with renewables. So when
    you paint a picture like they just turn off in the middle of
    the night or when the wind doesn't blow, that's not my personal
    experience. That's not how we are managing the grid today.
        Now, I want to talk a little bit about soaring power demand
    because that's something that you and I both agree on. You said
    that soaring U.S. power demand is a train wreck waiting to
    happen and that it necessitates significant investments in
    regulatory reforms. Doubling down on unaffordable energy will
    not get us the energy that we need. The NextEra CEO has
    recently pointed out that the cost per kilowatt to build a gas-
    fired facility has gone up from $785 back in 2022 to $2,400
    today. And he also stated that retirement of every coal plant
    in America, if we stopped that, would only get us an extra 40
    gigawatts. Natural gas generation, because there is a five- to
    seven-year backlog on turbines now, will likely get us maybe 75
    gigawatts by 2030. And so, I don't want to get into a back-and-
    forth over different energy sources so much as just to
    understand. Did DOE do a modeling process to determine the
    specific impacts of this proposed budget on both supply--energy
    supply--and cost?
        Secretary Wright. Absolutely. We have a team, in fact, that
    develops a model of the grid that looks at the grid by regions.
    And one of the comments you mentioned in your opening statement
    was that we did issue a 202(c) order to keep a coal plant in
    southwestern Michigan open because of small reserve margins in
    MISO, and that plant was being retired without new capacity on
    the MISO grid to back it up. We were criticized for that, and
    two days later there was a blackout.
        Senator Heinrich. Did the State of Michigan agree with that
    analysis? Did you consult with them?
        Secretary Wright. Well, we spoke to the grid operators, the
    utility operator of that company, and had plenty of back-and-
    forth dialogue on that. I think, in general, people realize
    this was a good move for energy----
        Senator Heinrich. Let's go back to the modeling that was
    done on this budget. Can you share that modeling with us?
        Secretary Wright. Sure.
        Senator Heinrich. Great.
        I mentioned in my opening remarks that the President's
    budget would cut funding at our national labs by $2.75 billion.
    At Sandia Labs in my home state, I am hearing from engineers,
    pretty much every time I go home right now, that this will
    significantly affect the Center for Integrated
    Nanotechnologies, national user facilities, research equipment,
    that it will limit fusion research on reactor environments and
    advanced materials and jeopardize environmental monitoring,
    potentially exposing DOE to fines under a consent agreement
    with the New Mexico Environment Department. Did DOE do analysis
    and ask the labs for their analysis on the impacts of this
    budget on their ability to do their mission work?
        Secretary Wright. The budget has not been allocated down to
    individual labs and all that, but all of the allocation of
    funds and decisions of how it will be impacted will be done on
    a lab-by-lab basis, but no, this budget, unfortunately, comes
    from the tough world we are in today, where we, the American
    taxpayers, pay a dollar of tax and the Federal Government
    spends a dollar of thirty. It's just an unsustainable problem
    we are on. I share a passion for the national labs, like you
    do. My goal is to grow, not shrink the output of top quality
    science at our labs. But do we need to be a little wiser and
    get the political science, not the real science, out of labs?
    Do we need to be a little bit more efficient in running labs?
    We do. But are we going to gut the technology and science in
    what we are doing in fusion and nanotechnology at the labs?
    Absolutely, we are not.
        Senator Heinrich. Chairman, I am out of time for now, at
    least until the next round.
        The Chairman. Senator Justice.
        Senator Justice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    and all the folks that are on the Committee.
        I want to do just this--you know, we are so blessed to have
    this man, it's off the chart. And I apologize--I apologize for
    your service that you have absolutely dedicated to all of us in
    every way and then you have to be grilled. You know, we want,
    and we always would stand up--I would always stand up for, you
    know, good answers--good answers. This man says over and over
    and over, I am an energy guy. I understand this absolutely as
    well as anybody in this room, I guarantee it--guaran-flat-tee
    it. Now, with all that being said, he has said over and over,
    what he is tasked with is affordable, reliable energy. That's
    what we have got to have in this country today. And if we don't
    have that, we are in real trouble.
        Now, we know, I know, I will promise you this, we can
    volley back and forth, but absolutely, with all in me, I would
    vouch for this man right here. That's all there is to it. He is
    just that good. If you can't see his passion, you are not
    looking. That's all there is to it. He is eat-up with passion.
    He is stuck on ``on'' all the time. And absolutely, he has
    knowledge off the chart. Chris, I appreciate you. I really do.
    And I will fight a buzz saw for you any day. That's all there
    is to it.
        I can tell you just this, that from an energy standpoint,
    if we don't get our act together, a year from today, a year and
    a half from today, we are hitting the fan. That's all there is
    to it. We are absolutely on a plane and we are flying right at
    the ground and we are going to hit the ground if we don't do
    something. This man can lead us. He can lead us with knowledge
    and his passion. He can lead us to where we don't hit the
    ground. And with all that being said, we all know, we are going
    to have a decision to make. How is it going to feel to make the
    decision? You are going to make the decision either for homes
    or really and truly for industry and jobs and AI and on and on
    and on. You are not going to be able to do both unless you have
    got a real leader of the band, and that's why I vouch for this
    man with all in me.
        Now, I can go on and on and on, but there is a fella, his
    name is Jim Billings. He ran a small seed corn company. They
    asked Jim Billings a long time ago to write an absolute
    critique of what he did because he was being bought out by a
    bigger company. And basically, what Jim Billings did is, he
    wrote 13 pages of the single space, and I have told you this
    before. And then, he laid his pencil down and sat back and then
    he decided to write and he wrote, ``see the right man in the
    right job and they are motivated.'' And he put his pencil down
    because that's what the President does. Our President
    recognizes the energy situation. And the last thing I would say
    is just this, tell me a time in history--tell me a time in
    history that we have progressed without abundant, cheap, and
    now clean energy. There is nothing about this man that wants to
    damage our environment, our lands, our waters. He wants to lead
    us. And I truly believe our President wants to do the same
    thing.
        Mr. Chairman, I am done. Thank you so much.
        The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, good to see you. We had a chance to say
    hello earlier. I invited you again to the Tri Cities. You said
    you think you are coming sometime soon--this summer or fall. So
    we look forward to seeing you there and being with you.
        The Hanford budget and the Tri-Party Agreement--there have
    been cuts to the Hanford office, they lost 94 people out of
    their 308 Department of Energy workforce. These are managers.
    There are various issues with the budget request. So how do you
    plan to meet the Tri-Party Agreement with the budget and
    workforce depletions?
        Secretary Wright. Yeah, a huge part of the effort at the
    Department, the first few months, has been to right-size the
    Department, which is to look at how do we do things today and
    what is a more efficient way to do that? The Department head
    count grew well over 20 percent over the last four years. And I
    would say there is no evidence that it was more productive at
    the end of those four years.
        So again, as a business man, except for during COVID, I
    never laid anyone off in my entire career. So I don't take the
    personnel decisions lightly. In fact, I take them very heavily.
        Senator Cantwell. I think a big moment is coming at
    Hanford, so, you know, I wish I could--anyway, we will see each
    other in the Tri-Cities, and we will go over it, but----
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Cantwell [continuing]. For a long time, there were
    lots of schemes about how we were going to clean up Hanford.
    But guess what? Vitrification is on the move. So now there is
    so much more the Federal Government can do in meeting the
    budget to meet the Tri-Party Agreement because we are actually
    on our way. So I guess, you know, we will talk about this in
    more detail, but that's what is at stake here. The normal
    funding is missing the opportunity to actually get this project
    that has cost us so much over such a long period of time, where
    we really need it to be. So that's the key point, but we will
    go over those details.
        Do you support baseload hydropower online?
        Secretary Wright. Absolutely. Hydro has been a great
    resource for this country.
        Senator Cantwell. Okay. So you think--you consider that
    part of baseload power?
        We have--Senator Murkowski and I have a bill, basically
    giving tax credits at very low cost just to help keep the
    efficiency of the hydro system. As we look at all the
    challenges we face with new power demands, making that system
    as efficient as possible is really critical, and we consider
    that baseload power. So I am just asking. Maybe you can look at
    the Murkowski-Cantwell bill.
        Secretary Wright. Yeah, I would view it as baseload power
    to the extent that we can repower and increase the yield from
    existing hydro assets----
        Senator Cantwell. That's exactly what we are talking about.
        Secretary Wright. They are quite beneficial to our
    electricity grid.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you. They are beneficial in a lot
    of ways, but definitely to the grid. So thank you for that.
        Do you support eliminating 45V? Maybe this was asked by my
    colleague while I was gone, but 45V, the Hydrogen Production
    Tax Credit, was proposed to be eliminated. Do you support that,
    or where are you on the hydrogen tax credit?
        Secretary Wright. The government record in picking winners
    and losers and subsidizing in energy is a very poor one. So my
    default position is, the less government involvement on the
    scales of energy sources, the better. I realize in the real
    world, that's not possible. So we have got to get rid of--you
    have got to prioritize which ones are the most offensive, and I
    mentioned wind, solar, and battery certainly as technologies
    that we have subsidized and they have led to more expensive
    electricity. I would put them, maybe, as the most offensive.
        Hydrogen--it's tough with the math to see how, in the long
    term, it becomes a meaningful commercial energy source.
        Senator Cantwell. But again, there are lots of chapters
    here, and we could, again, talk about them.
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Cantwell. But I actually think getting rid of the
    tax credits that we have, some of the other ones, broadly, are
    going to lead to an increased electricity cost. And so, can I
    get you to tell me about the hydrogen hubs, whether you support
    the hydrogen hubs and moving forward on this?
        Secretary Wright. So we have put together, as I am sure you
    have heard, and we have published it on the website, you know,
    this project review process. We have a cross-functional team
    that evaluates every project. We are going through 500
    projects.
        Senator Cantwell. But is that data cull a way to kill the
    projects, or do you really believe in funding some?
        Secretary Wright. Oh, absolutely. We are funding plenty of
    projects right now and we don't stop funding any project. We
    are funding all of the existing projects right now, and when we
    evaluate them, no, plenty of projects will pass. Plenty of
    projects will pass. For other projects, we will say, hey, can
    you modify it this way to make it much more beneficial? Some
    projects will be modified and some projects will be ended.
        Senator Cantwell. What application are you most excited
    about in the hydrogen hub area? What application? Fertilizer?
    Jet fuel? Something else? What are you most excited about?
        Secretary Wright. Well, so, the highest-value use of
    hydrogen, right? So it's expensive to produce but there are
    high-value uses of hydrogen, like we produce it today
    commercially because in refining it's very high-value in
    fertilizers, materials, in chemistry. The problem is, what is
    the cost to produce the hydrogen, and are there uses of it
    where the value is above the cost?
        Senator Cantwell. Yes.
        Secretary Wright. I say energy is about two things. It's
    just about people and math.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, we think, going back to the 45V--my
    time is expired, but in looking at green hydro, which we have
    in the Northwest, it drives down the cost and provides sources
    for very hard-to-serve, hard-to-decarbonize big sectors of the
    economy.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.
        The Chairman. Senator Hyde-Smith.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Mr. Secretary, for your willingness to serve, the tenacity you
    serve with, and you bring so much to the table, and we are very
    grateful for that, and you continue to do it every day, to just
    impress us.
        I, too, want to invite you to my home State of Mississippi.
    It's pretty hot right now, but the humidity today here, I
    think, is matching it. But we have just positioned ourselves
    for greater artificial intelligence, infrastructure growth, so
    many things, like many states that you talk to, the members
    here. We have attracted several significant investments, like
    Amazon Web Services, the hyper-skilled data centers from many
    major companies that we are excited about, but, of course, what
    is crucial for supporting fast-growing AI is reliable energy
    and affordable energy.
        The Mississippi Power Play initiative was recently unveiled
    by our state leaders, and it is about increasing energy
    production, but also ensuring that those things that follow--
    the affordability of that, the reliability of that, and access
    for all of these companies that are choosing to come to our
    state. But we are uniquely positioned to use underground salt
    caverns that offer energy storage to enhance the grid
    reliability in high-peak seasons. We are fortunate to have
    that, but moreover, the state established an artificial
    intelligence regulation task force to guide the state as so
    many new technologies come onboard, as the AI demand
    proactively comes addressing all of these issues. The state has
    really stepped up, and our state leadership is doing that with
    the stakeholders' collaboration and the workforce training
    that's going to take place for the programs to support all of
    these initiatives. So we are really excited about this in
    Mississippi.
        But you would see firsthand that we are working to shape
    America's path forward in energy independence and AI dominance
    and aligning perfectly with our national security, our economic
    growth goals, and the potentials that are there. So I believe
    your insight is going to greatly benefit this country, is going
    to greatly benefit Mississippi in our efforts to strengthen
    this, and I am honored that you are at the helm.
        In your testimony, you mentioned reorganizing the visions
    within the Energy Department, including refocusing the Office
    of Fossil Energy on its original mission of supporting fossil
    energy production. Thank you. Will you discuss how the
    Department plans to strengthen this mission and find innovative
    ways to help achieve the President's goal of energy
    independence through the reorganization of the Office of Fossil
    Energy?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, thank you.
        So it's actually one of our smaller budgets, the Office of
    Fossil Energy, even though it's over 80 percent of American
    energy. When I was born it was sort of mid-80 percent. It's
    mid-80 percent today. So it's the dominant source of energy in
    the United States and the world, but it has been a commercial
    success for a long time. It doesn't need a lot of involvement
    from the Department, except for permitting, getting out of the
    way, and issuing LNG permits so you can build infrastructure.
    But we do have some money to invest in next-generation
    technologies. So there is some research funding in fossil
    energy.
        The part that was removed was, you know, several hundred
    million dollars that was focused on reducing greenhouse gases.
    I have written about climate change for 20 years, so it's a
    very real thing, but funding things that, you know, take a ton
    of carbon out of the atmosphere at a several-hundred-dollar
    cost, and if you look at what's the benefit from reducing that
    ton of carbon--that's this so-called social cost of carbon,
    which is very hard to calculate--but the previous
    administration went through torturous math of almost no
    discount rate and assumed that agricultural productivity
    declines, despite the 50-year upward trend, that people won't
    get air conditioning as the planet gets a little warmer. They
    did all sorts of just crazy--they use a climate scenario that
    has been widely dismissed as completely implausible called
    RCP8.5--and they stretched it up to $100 for the social cost of
    a ton of carbon.
        So if that's the negative impact, should we spend $300 to
    reduce a cost that maybe is $100? And that's a stretch. A more
    credible estimate maybe is $10 or $20. And then, America is
    only four percent of the global population. So should we spend
    $300 to save a quarter? That's, you know, clearly that math
    just doesn't add up. The Department will continue to support
    technologies to maybe find better ways to reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions. It is a real issue, but we should be credible about
    it and not just throwing money out of it because it's expensive
    and, you know, for a coal plant, for example, the dew
    sequestration, basically, you lose a third of the power out of
    the plant to inject the CO2 underground. So we are,
    as you and I, when we first connected, we are about common
    sense, things that make sense. If we can spend a dollar and get
    $2 of benefit, we will do that every day and on Sundays too,
    but we want to critically look at things. Is this making our
    country better? Is this making our world better or not?
        Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you. Your approach is very
    refreshing.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
    Mr. Secretary for taking the time and for your public service
    on this.
        I want to go into a little bit of the issues around climate
    change again and the cost per carbon because I think they are
    widely debated, a lot of criticism that the costs are not
    significant. I have that liability that I actually studied this
    stuff way back in--you know, I got my master's in earth and
    environmental science, as we discussed, in 1979, when we called
    it the greenhouse effect. But it is a little unnerving, as I
    went through my geology years, all through the 80s, that much
    of what was predicted then, that I was skeptical about, has
    come true. And it's extreme weather, the droughts, specifically
    in the western United States and southwestern United States
    that were widely predicted back then.
        And we look at the costs there, so I think when we look at
    the value of carbon, we have to begin assessing some of these
    issues. In places in California and Florida, people can't get
    home insurance, right? In Florida, from 2023 alone, there was a
    90 percent increase in what people had to spend to get their
    homes insured. Miami was 322 percent in 2024. Tampa, 213
    percent. You look in California, and I am sure my associate, my
    colleague here will go into this even more--only 31 percent by
    one measure--only 31 percent of residents still have insurance.
    They can't get insurance.
        So this is the result of either these extreme weather
    events of rain, you know, these rivers in the sky, or it's
    wildfires. In each case, how do you reconcile, if you begin
    looking at those costs, the benefit that you get from
    renewables and clean energy if eventually we are going to have
    to address climate change? One way or another, if this is
    continuing to grow at the level it is, we are going to have to
    address it somehow.
        Secretary Wright. So Senator, I always appreciate your
    thoughtful approach to all of these issues that interplay
    between energy and climate change. And so, yes, many pieces
    there. And as you and I have talked, the world has been
    decarbonizing in the way we produce energy for about 200 years,
    you know, going from wood, to coal, to oil, to natural gas.
    Nuclear probably is going to be the biggest growing energy
    source sometime in the future. Today, it's natural gas, but we
    have moved down that lower carbon intensity-ladder, and I think
    eventually we will get to, probably, a carbon-neutral energy
    system, but yeah, it's likely generations from now. And so, we
    have tried to accelerate that. You mentioned it, you know,
    globally, the world has spent--it depends on how you count it--
    somewhere between $3 and $10 trillion on wind, solar, and
    batteries, and last year is the first year they passed three
    percent of global primary energy. So it has been a very
    expensive--it has been an energy resource maybe intended for
    decarbonization----
        Senator Hickenlooper. We have made great investments in it.
    We don't argue that. The world has made great investments and
    we have seen the price come down dramatically.
        Secretary Wright. We have seen the price per unit of
    electricity from them come down, but everywhere they have had
    meaningful penetration they have led to more expensive
    electricity.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Well, would you say, in Texas, you
    look at their--so Texas has 80 percent more wind and solar than
    any other state in the country. And yet, when you look at it,
    they have among the very lowest costs of electricity to a home.
        Secretary Wright. They have the most expensive electricity
    of the southern states. So it's kind of--Texas does have lower-
    cost electricity, as do many states across the country, but not
    because of wind and solar--I would say, in spite of wind and
    solar. The alternative is Florida there that--both of them
    dominantly run on natural gas, but Florida did not load its
    natural gas grid with just massive amounts of wind and solar
    that make the grid turn up and down all the time and drive up
    prices. So Texas has done, you know, better than New York or
    New England, for sure, but its electricity is affordable not
    because, but in spite of wind and solar.
        But let's come back to your comments about insurance. These
    are very real, very human issues. We do have trouble with
    insurance markets. I would maintain this is the way markets are
    regulated, the way they are controlled, and their restrictions
    on freedom to compete, because, if you look at the losses from
    extreme weather damages that are paid out by insurance--insured
    losses from extreme weather damage--it has been on a multi-
    decade downward trend--not an upward trend, but downward trend.
    Over 20 percent decline over the last 30 years. Deaths from
    extreme weather have declined over 98 percent. So extreme
    weather is not actually exploding and growing as everyone says.
    Drought is actually on a downward trend in the U.S. and
    globally, so----
        Senator Hickenlooper. Well, we will take you down on the
    Colorado River when you think that--we have got 10,000 years of
    data on the Colorado River, and that's a drought that is not
    slowing down. I am out of time, but I will come back for a
    second round, I promise.
        Secretary Wright. Let's go down the Colorado River
    together, my friend.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Well, absolutely, and I hope when you
    are coming back to Colorado at some point, I want to go out to
    NREL too, as well, but we will get to that in the second round.
        Secretary Wright. We would love to.
        The Chairman. Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I know five
    minutes go quick, so I am going to jump right into it. The
    first couple of questions may seem off-topic, but there is a
    point. Please humor me here.
        You are a science guy. Cybersecurity is a top concern for
    the country. Should we be embracing policies to ensure people's
    privacy or security or should we be trying to do both?
        Secretary Wright. Both.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you.
        We love our freedoms in America. Should we be pursuing
    policy that ensures public safety or protects civil liberties
    or should we strive to do both?
        Secretary Wright. Both.
        Senator Padilla. I suggest this because, for all the talk
    that I am hearing about the need to prioritize affordable,
    reliable energy, I agree, we also need to be advancing clean
    energy for the sake of the grid, for the sake of environmental
    protection, for the sake of public health. We don't have to
    choose between the two. They are not mutually exclusive. We
    should be striving to do both. That's my position. Do you agree
    or disagree?
        Secretary Wright. I would agree.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
        Now, a couple things also to correct the record or to
    comment on some of the statements you made at the outset where
    you make suggestions that some of the funds released at the
    tail-end of the Biden administration were rushed out at the
    last minute without appropriate due diligence and review. In my
    experience, our office has experienced that it came out at the
    tail-end of the Biden administration because of the due
    diligence and the review that took place. We had been anxious
    and pushing the administration for years to move on some of
    these projects. So I just wanted to note that different point
    of view.
        Second, your comment about oil and gas resources in
    America, you seemed to have left out the potential and positive
    contributions of solar and wind and geothermal. You painted a
    picture of the intermittency being a challenge. I point to the
    experience and quantifiable progress made in California when
    they integrated battery storage into grid reliability and
    affordability.
        So, that being said, let me jump back to the key topic of
    today's hearing. I will go back to several of the statements
    you made during your confirmation hearing--your confirmation
    hearing, your statements, Mr. Secretary. You said there were
    three priorities you had. The first was to unleash American
    energy at home and abroad to restore energy dominance. However,
    the budget request proposes a 74 percent reduction in the
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. It zeros out
    the Wind and Solar Energy Technologies Offices and it also
    zeros out the Office of Clean Energy Demonstration, which was
    authorized by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Solar was the
    fastest growing energy source in the world last year. So how
    does completely eliminating the Solar Energy Technologies
    Office advance America's leadership?
        Secretary Wright. So solar wasn't close to the fastest
    growing energy source in the world last year--that's installed
    capacity, not energy produced, that data, and one year is a
    tricky data thing. Solar is growing fast. I have worked in
    solar. I am in favor of solar. And so, we have way over-
    invested resources in hoping wind and solar will, you know,
    will magically transform into something they are not, but solar
    will continue to grow, for sure. All I have advocated is we
    should subsidize it less.
        Senator Padilla. I don't mean to be rude in cutting you
    off, but our data suggests otherwise, and we will certainly
    follow up with questions for the record and beyond.
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Padilla. The second priority you identified in your
    confirmation hearing was that we must lead the world in
    innovation and technology breakthroughs. I counter that with
    your budget request, which includes a 14 percent cut to the
    Office of Science and a 57 percent cut to ARPA-E. Again, there
    seems to be a disconnect between what you say are priorities
    and your budget requests. It has already been raised that these
    reductions would also lead to staff reductions in national
    labs, which we have recognized, you are on the record, these
    are premier research institutions. When you came to California,
    you reaffirmed your commitment to the national labs and you
    said that they were important to maintain and secure a
    ``competitive advantage and security.''
        So unless I got that wrong, how do you expect the United
    States to lead the world when your budget proposal seeks to
    decimate our research and development capabilities?
        Secretary Wright. It does hurt me to cut spending in
    science.
        Senator Padilla. Then don't do it.
        Secretary Wright. I share that passion with you.
        Senator Padilla. Then don't do it.
        Secretary Wright. I share that passion with you.
        Senator Padilla. Then don't even propose it.
        Lastly, and I know my time is nearly up--your third stated
    priority was to ``build things in America again and remove
    barriers to progress.'' However, in May, the Department of
    Energy announced the cancellation of 24 projects, totaling $3.7
    billion in investments under the Industrial Demonstrations
    Program. Now, these funds were intended to support
    unprecedented innovation in the cement, glass, chemicals, and
    iron industries, at the core for the future growth of
    infrastructure in America. And it's not just because a billion
    of the public and private dollars are in California, and the
    thousands of jobs related, but how does canceling industrial
    grants that lead to more industrial jobs further the goal of
    building things in America again?
        Secretary Wright. Because an evaluation showed that the
    projects at the end were not viable. There is no point in
    building a bridge to nowhere. If you make a factory, make a
    product 25 percent more expensive, but customers won't pay 25
    percent, it clears----
        Senator Padilla. Well, the projects that are being cut are
    more than just viable. I would argue they are critical, and we
    will be following up with you, and again, hope for responses,
    as Senator Heinrich has emphasized.
        Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.
        The Chairman. Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Secretary Wright, it's great to have you
    back here. Last week, the EPA announced they have started the
    process to roll back President Biden's anti-energy rules,
    including MATS and Clean Power Plan 2.0. The Biden
    administration specifically targeted Colstrip there in Montana
    with these rules with the express intention of closing it down
    for good. Mr. Secretary, as you know, this would have been
    devastating for Montana jobs, devastating for grid reliability
    and energy production in the region at a time when we need more
    energy. It is vital we continue to expand energy production,
    not shut it down or replace it. That means building more
    projects while ensuring coal plants like Colstrip continue to
    produce baseload power--reliable, affordable power.
        My question, Secretary Wright, is, as EPA and other
    agencies work to rescind and rewrite rules, will you weigh-in
    to ensure that grid reliability, energy affordability, and
    baseload power are top-of-mind for rules that are affecting
    power generation?
        Secretary Wright. Absolutely, yes, Senator. I am passionate
    about that, and in fact, I testified in Congress multiple times
    before I got my new job on just that issue that when
    regulations pursue a narrow agenda and they don't consider the
    broader impacts of what they are doing, they can be destructive
    on our country and on our people. And yeah, I am very
    passionate about those topics.
        Senator Daines. Secretary Wright, thank you. And I will
    tell you, thank you. We truly have a subject matter expert on
    energy in yourself and your experience as a scientist, as a
    leader, and somebody who is not an ideologue, who is very
    pragmatic in trying to solve these important challenges facing
    our country as it relates to energy and the constraints we face
    today.
        Last week, Senator Hoeven and I, along with our colleagues
    from the Montana and North Dakota delegations, sent you a
    letter expressing our strong support for DOE's efforts to
    advance American energy dominance, particularly through the
    approval of the North Plains Connector interregional
    transmission project. As you know, the Department's GRIP
    Program awarded a $700 million grant to the Montana Department
    of Commerce for this critical project. When completed, this
    North Plains Connector would extend a 420-mile high-voltage
    transmission line capable of carrying up to 525 kilovolts of
    electricity between eastern Montana and western North Dakota.
    Right now, Montana exports the majority of its electricity,
    including from Colstrip--we go west to states like Oregon and
    Washington. This project would have the potential to diversify
    Montana's generation assets, unlocking billions in private
    investment, and enhance our nation's energy security by
    connecting eastern and western electric grids.
        My question, Secretary Wright: to keep this critical
    project on track to meet its 2032 operational target, will you
    commit to supporting advancement of the North Plains Connector
    GRIP award to ensure that we can move this forward?
        Secretary Wright. So Senator, thanks for that impassioned
    layout of that project. I am quite familiar with the project. I
    have met with the developers of the project as well. Of course,
    it's very, very logical connecting two separate grids together
    to allow flows back and forth. It's a very encouraging project.
    We are committed to following this project review process where
    a crew of people evaluate--not political, not biased for this
    or that--just look at the math, look at the numbers, and is
    this thing viable and beneficial for America? You know, yes,
    no, or it's adjustable. It's modifiable.
        So we haven't finished that on that project yet, but I
    think you make a strong case for the project, and
    interconnections between grids is certainly something the
    United States needs more of.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        My last questions and points here are regarding the small
    refinery exemption. Last week, the EPA released their renewable
    fuel obligations, which will put significant pressure on
    Montana's small refineries. Unfortunately, the Biden
    administration never issued small refinery exemptions and the
    refineries in Montana suffered. DOE plays an important role in
    consulting with EPA over small refinery exemptions, and it's
    important that your voice is heard as EPA makes their
    decisions.
        Secretary Wright, I would ask if you are willing to work
    with Administrator Zeldin to ensure that our Montana refineries
    with the small refinery exemption have the resources they need
    to continue operating?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, indeed, Senator. I said this
    earlier, but I think government involvement in energy has a bad
    historical track record. You raise another example where, you
    know, what maybe sounded like a reasonable idea became a blunt
    tool that says thou must do this. There are all different
    refineries in all different settings and all different access
    to feedstocks, and that rule is not well-suited to the problem
    you have got. And there are ways to address the problem, and as
    you just said, the last administration chose not to address
    those problems, but yeah, I think this administration is very
    practical and wants to look at what trade-off package makes the
    most sense.
        So I hear you, and yes, I am engaged and will continue to
    be engaged with EPA on this dialogue.
        Senator Daines. Secretary Wright, thank you.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you for raising it.
        The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Wright, welcome, thank you for being here.
        Do you support an all-of-the-above approach to tackle
    growing electricity demand?
        Secretary Wright. I have always said in the past that I
    don't support all of the above because that's political--I will
    support your thing if you support my thing. I think energy is
    the infrastructure for life and humanity. And to me, energy is
    about two things--it's about people--humans--and math. And so,
    I support every----
        Senator Cortez Masto. Humans and math--so let me ask you
    this.
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Because we are in agreement on
    geothermal, and I have to thank Senator Murkowski and Senator
    Coons. Yesterday, we had a great conversation about geothermal,
    and it is in your fiscal year budget, which is fantastic. You
    know why it's fantastic? Because we have a lot of geothermal in
    Nevada. But there's not a lot of geothermal in the rest of the
    country. It's in a lot of the West. It's in Alaska. Not
    necessarily in the rest of the country. And I believe that an
    all-of-the-above energy approach is necessary for the states to
    decide what their energy portfolio will be, based on their
    geology, geography, and what they have abundance of. It's not
    political, but it gives the states that choice. And one choice
    we have in Nevada, along with geothermal, is solar.
        And so, my question for you is, in the Fiscal Year budget,
    why did you zero-out funds for solar energy and renewable grid
    integration, which is necessary for many states who are already
    investing in it and necessary for their energy portfolio?
        Secretary Wright. So the EERE Office had a huge reduction
    in its budget but it didn't go away. And things like OCED and
    GRIP got folded into EERE. So these things aren't going away,
    but there is a dramatic reduction in focus. By far, the biggest
    energy expenditure line is----
        Senator Cortez Masto. Why solar?
        Secretary Wright. What?
        Senator Cortez Masto. Why solar?
        Secretary Wright. Just because of the relative over-
    investment in it. We spent four times as much in EERE than in
    hydrocarbons in the last administration, and one provides three
    percent of American energy and one provides 80-plus percent of
    American----
        Senator Cortez Masto. I don't have much time. I am going to
    jump to the next one. But oil and gas have had subsidies for
    decades and they will continue to have subsidies for decades.
    So I don't understand the political decisions this
    administration has made, because I think that's the politics
    that's happening here. You are favoring one type of energy over
    another. But let me jump to my next question because I
    appreciate you being here. So thank you.
        On May 23, President Trump invoked the Defense Production
    Act by issuing a waiver for critical minerals. I support it. We
    need to have critical minerals here. We need to have energy
    independence. Critical minerals are key for that. But one week
    later, DOE canceled 24 projects, including one in Nevada that
    is using innovative solutions to create the country's only all-
    domestic source of alumina. Now, I assume you are aware that
    the U.S. is import-reliant on alumina, as we produce less than
    one-sixth of the aluminum we consume. And I am sure you are
    also aware that China currently dominates global production,
    accounting for roughly 60 percent of the global alumina supply
    chain. So please explain to me how you are making a decision
    when you identify critical minerals that are necessary, but at
    the same time, you are taking away the essential funding for
    this country to be independent when it comes to these critical
    minerals. Why? Why did you cancel those 24 projects, including
    that one in Nevada?
        Secretary Wright. So thanks for the passion on that. I am
    pro solar and pro critical minerals as well. So it really just
    comes down to the devil is in the details. We review every
    project. We are going through over 500 of them, just to say, is
    this project, at the end of the day, going to lead to a
    positive outcome?
        Senator Cortez Masto. But what legal precedent did you and
    the Department utilize to roll back congressionally approved
    funds for this enacted program and those 24 programs? They were
    already enacted. Congress approved them. They were already
    approved by the last administration. So what legal authority
    did you have to come back and terminate those?
        Secretary Wright. All of the contracts--just like in
    business--all of the contracts have cancellation clauses, and
    we are in dialogue with every one of those parties. Some of
    these projects can be fixed to make them more viable. And a lot
    of these projects will be----
        Senator Cortez Masto. So is this one that you will be
    looking at, that critical mineral for alumina, which we need in
    this country to be energy independent? Are you willing to look
    at that project and renew it?
        Secretary Wright. Willing to look at all of them. We are in
    dialogues today with eight of the projects that were
    preliminarily canceled that----
        Senator Cortez Masto. So can I get a commitment that you
    will look at the Nevada projects as well that you defunded,
    because they are critical mineral mining and extraction, and
    the production that we need to bring back to the state. Will
    you work with me for those Nevada projects?
        Secretary Wright. Absolutely. We will look at those
    projects.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Secretary Wright. And absolutely, we want to bring back
    mining to this country.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome, and thank you for coming to Alaska
    a couple weeks ago. The time that you spent there, along with
    Secretary Burgum, Administrator Zeldin--I really, deeply
    appreciate it. I know you had the opportunity to go up north
    and get a little fresh air, but really have a chance to engage
    with so many that are doing amazing things in the energy space.
    And I really appreciated the comments that you had made at the
    Sunday roundtable, if you will. You had an observation about
    energy in Alaska that I thought was really telling. You noted
    that there are the big things--the big things where we are able
    to take our energy assets for export to help our friends and
    allies. That second tier, which is that energy that is going to
    allow us, as Alaskans, to have more affordable, accessible
    energy for our own use, and then a recognition that in certain
    parts of the state, things just look different. And I think the
    words that you used were something like, you know, energy or
    power generation is going to look different in different
    places, and a recognition that when it comes to some of the
    smaller-scale things, we just have to allow ourselves to have
    some flexibility and some creativity. So I loved the way you
    had captured that and I just thank you for that.
        First question, super-easy. Are we going to build an Alaska
    LNG pipeline?
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay, there we go--innovation. I could
    really delve into the gas line, but I am going to move on to
    some of the other things that relate to the budget. I had an
    opportunity on that Sunday to visit with seven or so of the
    national lab directors. It was great conversation. I really
    appreciated it. And we talked about some of the contributions
    that we are seeing out of our national labs. NREL,
    specifically, has been working with our Cold Climate Housing
    Center, just some great innovative technologies. So just a
    direct question to you on the assets, the resources that we are
    directing to sustain our national labs' ability to really
    coordinate directly with communities, the ability to offer
    technical assistance. Are you good with the budget and where
    you are and in a recognition that there is so much value to be
    had from the work of our national labs?
        Secretary Wright. Oh, I love the national labs. They have
    delivered tremendous value to us throughout their history and
    they will in the future as well. And I am actually very open to
    expanding the lab budget back a little bit from where the
    current proposal is. I have been voicing that. AI is moving
    very fast right now. Quantum computing is about to arrive. And
    fusion energy, a thing I worked on in my youth, is going to
    come to pass. And this is a time, I think, to lean in as much
    as we can on these large scientific efforts. And so, I am keen,
    actually, to grow the budget for our national labs in those key
    areas of AI----
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I will look forward to working
    with you on that. I think the contributions that we get are so
    important. And as you say, things are just moving at breakneck
    speed, so how we keep up with all of this--one of the concerns
    that I heard, in addition to budget, was also the impact that
    they have seen with some of the reductions in force and just,
    you know, the people that are doing really extraordinary things
    that may move on may not be the easiest to replace. So know
    that I am just very, very cognizant of that.
        I want to ask a question about the Tribal Energy Loan
    Guarantee Program. As you know, I am Chairman of the Senate
    Committee on Indian Affairs. The budget is proposing a
    significant reduction in the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee
    Program. I know this is not just for me--my colleague here from
    North Dakota, there is so much potential, I think we recognize,
    on tribal lands still remaining undeveloped. I guess I would
    ask for your thoughts on how we can be doing better. If you
    don't think it's within the construct of the Tribal Energy Loan
    Guarantee, how is it that we can be more helpful working in
    partnership to address some of the exorbitantly high energy
    prices that we see in our tribal lands?
        Secretary Wright. Thank you for your passion on this issue.
    I share it, as you know.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes.
        Secretary Wright. So in the history of the tribal thing, I
    think it has made one loan. That is it----
        Senator Murkowski. It has been very disappointing.
        Secretary Wright. So it's like, hey, we have, you know, a
    whole office and it has got one thing to loan. So I would say
    that's like a re-org, but it is not a pulling back. I would
    love to do more projects in tribal areas and remote areas. So I
    wouldn't read, you know, an office that's not doing anything
    being folded into something else as a change in commitment or
    change in interest in that area. In fact, some of the best
    meetings I had in Alaska were from some of your colleagues up
    there that are working on energy in remote Alaskan villages.
    And as you know so well, it's just so different, right? If you
    are--I critique wind and solar and their impact on the larger
    scale here. They are competing against natural gas that on an
    oil barrel equivalent price is $20--$20 a barrel energy cost
    for pipeline natural gas. In Alaska, they are competing with
    $10-plus diesel, which is $400--20 times more expensive base
    energy. If you can put solar or wind or micro-hydro on a grid
    there, you can shrink your diesel cost and extend the time
    between refueling and shipping.
        So yes, as you and I have both said so many times, there
    are different energy answers in different settings at all
    times. I am not a--I am a--people and math, people and math.
    And one of the problems I think we have made the least progress
    on is affordable energy in remote communities.
        Senator Murkowski. We have great work to do together, and I
    look forward to exploring more with you on that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, good to have a chance to talk with you this
    morning when you came up to the office. We discussed the clean
    energy tax incentives law that I wrote in the Finance
    Committee. As you know, it is technology-neutral--no mandates,
    voluntary incentives. Now, I understand that there was some
    discussion earlier. I had to be somewhere else. But there was
    some discussion earlier about renewables, and renewables in
    Florida, and matters like that. I wanted to run by you
    something that the CEO for the utility in Florida, actually the
    utility that covers Mar-a-Lago, said the other day, and get
    your reaction because maybe it can help us make some progress
    here. The CEO said, ``I am a CEO who has gas plant holdings. I
    believe deeply in natural gas. I also believe because we have
    such a need for energy now,'' and we have to deal with AI and
    many of the concerns that we are talking about, and he said,
    ``I need electrons from any place on the planet where I can get
    them. I just need electrons.'' And that certainly woke
    everybody up. That kind of drives it home. And people said,
    well, what about renewables? And he said, ``I have got to have
    electrons from the renewables sector. It is urgent. I won't be
    able to meet the growth and the AI needs.''
        So why can't we just say we got this economic emergency and
    we are going to get the electrons from everywhere? I know about
    the comments you and others have made about intermittent uses
    and the like. That's why we have batteries to help with that.
    But the more important issue is, when a gas executive who says
    he believes in gas, not somebody who is walking away--he says
    he believes in gas, but that the problem is so serious today,
    in terms of having energy, he wants to get his electrons from
    anywhere he can get them. Why can't we get renewables to him?
        Secretary Wright. Well, I have had the same dialogue with
    the same CEO. He is the biggest renewable developer in the
    world and runs a big business, but to me, it's about people and
    it's about math. So we can--nobody is proposing to stop solar
    power, right? The idea is it has been subsidized for a quarter
    of a century, and it should compete on its own, and it will.
    Solar will continue to grow. It'll continue to get built.
    That's happening right now.
        Senator Wyden. Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, it's getting
    short shrift in the central climate change law of our time.
    Until I wrote this law, we had never, in 50 years, done
    anything on cap and trade or pricing or anything that anybody,
    whether they were left or right, had agreed on. And now, solar
    is getting short shrift. We are hearing about it from companies
    who really feel that it is being left out at a time when we
    ought to be saying this is something--that's why I put
    technological neutrality as my lodestar. I wanted to make sure
    that everybody could play. That it would be voluntary, we would
    have incentives and the like, and solar is getting short shrift
    now.
        Now, maybe you can do something here as we try to wrap up
    what we are working on in the reconciliation bill. But I would
    really urge you in the strongest possible way to pursue an
    approach that I am the author of, and I like the idea that a
    gas executive is saying, I am for gas. I am for it. When I was
    Chairman of the Committee, my first hearing, because I thought
    it was relevant to the debate, was on natural gas. But right
    now, we have got to have renewables, and the best way to get
    them and satisfy that electron need is that way. Can you help?
        Secretary Wright. Well, what I would like--the bigger the
    government's involvement has been in energy, and you can look
    at Germany or Denmark or the UK, if you want to see people ten
    years ahead of us. When the government goes into energy and
    subsidizes certain kinds of energy, you get a lot more of that.
    And the net result has been expenditures of money on the
    subsidies and a less reliable, more expensive system. And that
    doesn't--nobody wins from that. The only people that win are
    the people collecting the subsidies, the businessmen who get
    paid to develop stuff----
        Senator Wyden. My time is going expire. But the fact is,
    this is written so that everybody can be part of a marketplace.
    It doesn't give a preference to somebody. It says technological
    neutrality. I hope you will think it over.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.
        The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
    much, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate you being here.
        Over the last few years, I believe Congress irresponsibly
    saddled you, your Department, with 71 new programs overseeing
    hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, and I think the
    situation is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse. And it left
    the Department--your Department now--without a clear direction.
    So can you talk a little bit about how you are getting the
    Department of Energy back in a focused direction with regard to
    your overall mission?
        Secretary Wright. Yeah, I would say the simplest thing is
    treating it like a business, yeah. We're not--I have been
    writing on energy for 20 years. I never infused it with
    politics. You know, to me, energy is about humans and math,
    right? Energy is to better people's lives and expand their
    opportunities of how they can do things, and the way to do that
    just comes down to what is the lowest system cost to deliver
    whatever that form of energy is in a reliable, secure way and
    reduce the environmental impacts of it, of course, as well. And
    the track record of markets in that has been quite good, but
    the government getting in and through our Department, shoveling
    out more than $100 billion, most of it rushed between election
    day and inauguration.
        I mentioned before the numbers on LPO. That's loans. Our
    Department also gives out financial assistance. It's like
    grants. They give financial assistance to businesses. This is
    IRA and IIJA money. Those laws passed in 2022. In the full year
    2023, a little over $8 billion of assistance grants were given
    out in the full year of 2023, and $26 billion after election
    day and before inauguration. And so, what we have done is,
    created, and maybe frustratingly slow to some people, but we
    haven't been lazy--we have put together a committee of cross-
    functional people that are going to evaluate every project, you
    know, on is it technically viable, is the engineering done, is
    it financially viable. At the end of the day, is it going to be
    a bridge to nowhere, or is it going to be a business where
    customers are going to pay for the product and it's going to go
    on.
        And the projects that we have evaluated have passed and
    they are continuing to fund. For some projects, we have engaged
    with the other party and we have modified them, so it's a
    positive for the American taxpayers. And a lot of projects have
    not passed because they are just--we are just paying someone to
    build something more expensive than people are willing to buy
    today, and nobody wins from that. And I want to restore
    confidence in our Department again, you know? We are
    professionals that are here to work for the American people,
    not for our own interest, not for any politically favored, you
    know, technology here or there. We just want to make the
    American energy system better, but that means people and
    process and accountability.
        Senator Barrasso. You know, Congress has made key
    investments in nuclear innovation, and you are an expert in the
    area. These investments include the Nuclear Fuel Security Act
    to strengthen our fuel supply chain and the Advanced Reactor
    Demonstration Program to move advanced reactors forward. Can
    you speak about those plans in the program?
        Secretary Wright. Yeah, there are lots of them. In fact, I
    have a new one today. We will announce today a new solicitation
    that we would like to get three new small modular reactors
    critical, meaning producing power by July 4 of next year, at
    the Idaho National Lab in our containment facility that can
    sort of speed up ideas that are ready to go. Let's get them on
    the ground and test them and prove them because look, the
    Americans invented the nuclear power industry. We came out and
    built 100-plus plants rapidly. Then we created an NRC and
    stopped. And we haven't done much for 30 or 40 years. You and I
    and many others really want to get that nuclear ball rolling
    again.
        We are working with companies to get domestic fuel
    enrichment going in the United States again, another just
    critical problem. Congress rightfully passed a bill saying we
    shouldn't be importing Russian uranium. Well, I don't want to
    import Russian uranium either, but we have got to get it from
    somewhere. We have got to enrich uranium in the United States
    by American companies and ramp that up.
        Those are the kinds of things we are working on, but there
    is a bunch of great innovative companies with a lot of private
    capital behind them. It's private capital that's going to drive
    this, but we are going to help in every way we can.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        And finally, we were together when the President signed his
    coal executive orders. You know, the last administration was
    flat-out anti-coal in every way they could be. They wouldn't
    support the projects that we needed, even the ones that
    resulted in diminished emissions. They just were against
    everything. I thought it was shortsighted, and left our
    valuable resource underutilized. What's the Department doing in
    terms of restarting coal research, whether novel combustion,
    carbon capture, coal products made from newly mined coal as a
    result of the President signing the executive orders?
        Secretary Wright. So a number of different efforts there.
    One, I will just state the facts--coal has been the largest
    source of global electricity for a hundred years. It will be
    when I die as well. There is a reason coal is the biggest
    provider of global electricity, but I will be in your great
    state on July 11th for the opening of a new coal mine that's
    combined with rare earth element mining right there. And that,
    to me, is incredibly exciting. And maybe the biggest thing I
    have been involved in with coal right now is that we need all
    this extra power everyone is talking about for AI and we need
    to win the AI race. The first thing is to stop digging the
    hole. So we have got to stop closing all these coal plants with
    tons of useful life left in them.
        Senator Barrasso. I look forward to being with you on July
    11th in Wyoming.
        Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, good to see you again, thank you.
        I want to talk about the grid because we all know that
    there is going to be a tremendous expansion of demand for
    electricity over the next 10, 20, 30 years, and that's going to
    require significant attention to the grid. And the Grid
    Resilience and Innovation Partnership Program was created under
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill. My concern is that there
    are a significant number of programs under that that have
    received approval, but are now being reviewed by your office.
    My first question is, can you assure me that that review is
    professional and engineering-based and not political?
        Secretary Wright. Absolutely, it is. We are evaluating the
    engineering, the science, the finance, and just the viability
    of the projects. It is just a business review. Unfortunately,
    it wasn't done before when grants were given, but I would say
    in the GRIP Program, there are a lot of very good projects
    there, but we are just trying to be careful and thoughtful.
        Senator King. Well, you know, one that I am particularly
    interested in is the largest grid-scale battery project that is
    being manufactured in West Virginia, but is scheduled to be
    located in a small town in Maine that would make a huge
    difference and I hope--what is your timeline on this review?
        Secretary Wright. It's--we stood up this process a few
    weeks ago. Now, we are going to get, probably--trying to think
    of a number here--but at least 20 of these a week out and done,
    but Senator, you raised that again. I am very interested in
    that technology as well. And my Chief of Staff is here with me,
    and we will make sure that in the next, you know, few weeks at
    most----
        Senator King. Good.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. We will get onto that
    project.
        Senator King. Well, because batteries are part of the
    solution--not the whole solution--but development of that
    technology, which was described to this Committee something
    like two or three years ago, is very promising. So I hope we
    can move forward on that.
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator King. Following up on the same area--the Grid
    Deployment Office--again, looking at the demands on the grid,
    the problem is, the budget proposes a 75 percent cut in the
    Grid Deployment Office. I don't understand how this is a place
    to cut where this is obviously an increasing demand and
    pressure on the system.
        Secretary Wright. It is, but I would look at it more as
    part of a reorganization of the Department. You know, the
    central thing there is the Office of Electricity and CESER--the
    cybersecurity thing--they are sort of the two core offices
    around that. There were a lot of other smaller offices set
    around, but I would look at the whole complex. So the Office of
    Electricity is all about the grid. So the Grid Deployment
    Office was, you know, it's got grid in the name, but it's
    really just a sub-office.
        Senator King. Well, as long at the resources going to
    strengthening the grid are not diminished. If you are talking
    about diminishing some other programs, that's one thing, but
    again, one of the things I have noticed just in my career in
    energy is, it used to be that the principal part of your
    electric bill was the cost of energy. Now, in many places,
    transmission distribution is 50 percent or more. And that's
    only going to increase unless we start to think about new
    technologies, what are called GETs, which I am sure you are
    familiar with--grid enhancing technologies--so that we're not
    simply rebuilding massive facilities that could be obviated by
    new technologies.
        Secretary Wright. Well, I agree so much, Senator. You know,
    ten years ago, I am like, we just got to build more
    transmission lines. We have got to build our infrastructure. It
    turns out, it's so hard to get approval to build anything. But
    as you just said----
        Senator King. You can reconductor.
        Secretary Wright. Exactly. We can reconductor. We can do
    dynamic land rating, even with our existing things. There is so
    much upside in the grid and there, I think, we just have to
    find some practical solutions and get local regulators to
    implement these things, but I agree with you, a lot of upside
    in being smarter about the grid.
        Senator King. My other concern with the budget is ARPA-E.
    Research is one of the things the Federal Government can do,
    particularly basic research that doesn't necessarily lead
    immediately to commercialization. If it led immediately to
    commercialization, the private sector would be doing it. This
    is where the government can fill in a gap in the market. I am a
    big supporter of the market, but the market doesn't factor in
    all these elements.
        Why are we cutting ARPA-E by more than half?
        Secretary Wright. That's a great question. And look, I
    share an interest in basic science, the national labs, nuclear
    physics. There is a lot of stuff. If the government doesn't do
    it, then no one will do it.
        Senator King. And you, of all people, know that fracking
    came out of support by the Department of Energy.
        Secretary Wright. And so, yes, there are discussions about
    ARPA-E--what is the right thing to do? I know in the previous
    Trump administration it was zeroed out entirely. Rest assured,
    we want to keep ARPA-E. We will keep ARPA-E, and it will be at
    a reasonable level, but you know, it had grown fast and wild,
    and it backed a number of great projects, and maybe a lot of
    more politically motivated, not technically motivated projects.
    So it's going to be sizable and meaningful.
        Senator King. Given the demand that we are going to have
    for energy, it seems to me that research in new technologies is
    going to be critical to meeting that demand. And I hope that
    you will maintain the level of support that's required by the
    demand, if you will.
        Secretary Wright. I agree with your point entirely.
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.
        The Chairman. Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Secretary, good to see you again, appreciate all your good
    work. Hope you are enjoying it. Great to have you in the slot.
        I am going to start on a shared experience, and it actually
    relates to something that Senator King just mentioned, and
    that's the Bakken and the shale, and we actually shared that
    experience during the period we went through, you know, in say,
    the 2000-2010 era where we cracked the code in the Bakken and
    the shale play. I was in the Governor's office and worked on
    policy to help create a good environment so that entrepreneurs
    like you and the companies you created could get that done. You
    did. Great. And obviously, producing an incredible amount of
    oil down in the Permian and the Ranking Member's State of New
    Mexico, and obviously Texas and Louisiana, but in our state, we
    produced over five billion barrels out of the Bakken as a
    result of that. A lot of energy we don't have to get from
    foreign sources and adversaries, right?
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Hoeven. But we need to put--essentially now, we
    need to do it again. We need to crack the code again. Now we
    need to develop the carbon CO2 floods that are going
    to bring out probably an equal amount or more, given that we
    are only getting, what, less than ten percent of the oil out of
    the Bakken shale and the other shale plays. We now need to
    develop these floods. We have used hot water and other things,
    but really the CO2 will be much more effective. And
    we can put a whole other life on this energy production--
    domestic, high-quality, highest quality oil right here at home.
        Talk to me about how we are going to get that done. How are
    we going to crack that code again?
        Secretary Wright. Yeah, great question. So there is
    research, you know, in private industry on this and there is
    research at the Department of Energy. And in fact, the guy I
    picked to lead the Fossil Energy Office, which will be renamed
    the Hydrocarbon Office--I really don't like some of the names
    we've got in the Department--but in any case, he's a technology
    guy. And his big focus is just what you said--what's next? He's
    a young guy from North Dakota, actually.
        Senator Hoeven. Oh, he has got to be sharp then.
        [Laughter.]
        Secretary Wright. He is a high-tech guy who wants to look
    at what technology is five, ten, 20 years out on the road. And
    you are right that the single biggest target of that next
    generation is enhanced oil recovery out of shales. We can get
    ten percent out with the technologies we have got today. How do
    we get more?
        And I think you are right that it's likely that the most
    viable ways to do it will be some kind of miscible gas that is
    injected underground. CO2 is certainly a great
    candidate for that.
        Senator Hoeven. There are others----
        Secretary Wright. Right, could be methane or--but 100
    percent. And your research center that you have got in North
    Dakota with some great technical people there has been a leader
    in that effort, and I suspect will be growing leaders in that
    effort.
        One of the things, if I could ask one thing for the whole
    Senate is, please help confirm my people. You know, I have got
    ten people that have gone through your Committee that are
    sitting there and I don't have them in the office. I don't have
    them on the team because of some procedural thing. They have
    already been vetted. They have already got bipartisan votes
    among this Committee. I would desperately need some more people
    in the office to help me, including on this one.
        Senator Hoeven. Glad you made that pitch, very important.
    We are all aware of that and we all do what we can to help make
    that happen. I appreciate that.
        We talked a little bit about critical minerals. We have a
    very interesting project going on in North Dakota right now
    with Talon Metals. They are affiliated with Rio Tinto and some
    other big mining companies and that kind of thing. But
    essentially, they are mining nickel ore out of Minnesota, which
    has very rich ore deposits--from northern Minnesota bringing it
    over to North Dakota. And they are actually setting up a
    processing facility at what was the Westmoreland Coal Mine,
    which is a coal mine that shut down--reopening the mine, but
    for critical mineral development. They will process the nickel
    and then that will actually go to like Tesla and other places
    that need the nickel for batteries so that they aren't buying
    that from foreign countries. And then, the tailings will be
    mixed with coal ash to produce building materials.
        Talk to me about how we do more of that. You mentioned the
    project in Wyoming, but this is a project in North Dakota. Same
    thing, where we are now going to get critical minerals here at
    home, and the key is to do it in a commercially viable way.
    That's what we have got to--this stuff works when we make it
    commercially viable. We can do all of it. The question is, can
    we make it commercially viable, right?
        Secretary Wright. So Senator, one of the things I am
    excited about, this time we are right now in our country's
    history, like we built big things and we innovated and we built
    giant things and then we became a country where it was easy to
    stop things and hard to do things. And we just killed the
    mining industry. It just shrunk to a few existing mines. No one
    has built a new mine in this country in forever. But I think we
    have a different attitude today in America, that we use these
    materials, they come out of mines--shouldn't they come out of
    our mines? Because not only do we have the materials here, but
    we can drive innovation to do smarter mining and better mining.
    But since it has all been out of sight, out of mind overseas,
    the amount of people that study and think about mining in our
    country has shrunk so small and it's up to you and I and
    everyone in this room to make mining and materials processing
    sexy again.
        But I believe we will because it's now national security.
    We have seen the national security downside of this, but yes,
    we need to get going on this stuff, and I think what could
    happen in the next decade is thrilling.
        Senator Hoeven. I love that. We are going to make mining
    sexy again. That's a great way to put it. And we are looking
    forward to getting out to the Energy Environmental Research
    Center, which you mentioned earlier.
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Hoeven. And again, thanks for all your great work,
    appreciate it.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Cotton.
        Senator Cotton. Secretary, welcome.
        The demand for lithium has substantially increased in
    recent years, but the United States is currently only
    responsible for about one percent of lithium mining and less
    than five percent of advanced lithium chemical processing
    capacity globally--that despite lithium being necessary in a
    wide range of uses, to include critical military capabilities.
    In September of last year, the Department of Energy selected
    Standard Lithium and Equinor for a $225 million grant to
    develop the lithium reserves in South Arkansas in the Smackover
    Formation, where Geological Survey has found between 15 million
    and 19 million tons of lithium. I know that this grant was
    announced before your tenure, and it is under review now. When
    can Arkansans expect an answer on when the grant will be
    approved?
        Secretary Wright. I think all the sizable projects will be
    done this summer. You know, we are in middle of June now, so by
    the end of August, for sure, maybe much sooner than that. And
    Senator, it is frustrating, I am sure, for people on the other
    side, you know, this--we continue to fund existing projects,
    but given the track record of what happened when we walked in
    the door, which is pretty alarming, and the more I have dug
    into it, the more alarming it is. You probably heard me say
    before, you know, $90 billion, you know, lent after election
    day and before inauguration--over double the previous 15 years,
    $25 billion of that in the last two days.
        So in any case, there is a lot of crazy stuff, like a piece
    of paper--there was a project that got funded for $2.5 million,
    and then, right at the end of the administration, with a sheet
    that said justification for increase, there was nothing on it,
    its funding went from a little over $2 million to over $200
    million. So we want to be careful with the American taxpayer
    monies, with monies you have allocated, that these projects are
    responsible and credible and thoughtful and they are going to
    lead to some good results. You talk about a very exciting one,
    this--it's hard to build mines in America. Heck, we can get
    lithium out of brine, so you know, out of boreholes in salt. So
    very exciting, very keen. We will be on that and let's be
    talking about it.
        Senator Cotton. Yes.
        Secretary Wright. But we will sort that out this summer.
        Senator Cotton. And we understand that there were a lot of
    inappropriate actions in the lame-duck period up to, as you
    say, the very last day--projects being funded that, frankly,
    never should have been funded. But obviously, I think this is
    one of the critical projects that should be funded, lithium
    being so vital for almost every walk of modern life and now
    being one of those things that's in dispute with trade
    negotiations with China.
        I want to turn to another topic we have discussed in the
    past, Mr. Secretary, and that's security at our national labs.
    I have introduced legislation with Chairman Lee and some of my
    other colleagues that would ban foreign scientists from
    adversarial countries like Russia and China and Iran. You, I
    know, are conducting a review of security policies at our 17
    national labs. When do you expect the review to be completed?
        Secretary Wright. It is an ongoing process, and every time
    I see the lab directors--I saw half of them in Alaska, I saw
    all of them a week ago. I have been to half of the labs now and
    I will get to the other half. So it's a real topic and it's a
    balance. It is a balance. Do we want, you know, Chinese
    nationals in our weapons research or in our critical economic
    new breakthrough stuff? No, we don't. But we have, of course,
    projects--I have approved three Chinese foreign nationals to
    work on stuff because they have very unique expertise. It's not
    sensitive stuff. And if we don't use, you know, a specific
    person, there were hundreds of potentials. So we have shrunk
    that down dramatically small because you raise a very real
    concern. I have stressed it to the lab directors. I think they
    get it, too. So we have like a matrix approach and we are
    trying to balance--not stopping scientific research--but erring
    on the side of caution that these are national jewels and
    national gems, and clearly these countries of concern have
    clearly shown zero scruples to steal everything we have.
        Senator Cotton. And speaking of caution, have you
    identified any urgent vulnerabilities that have needed to be
    patched before your review is complete?
        Secretary Wright. We have----
        Senator Cotton. You know, let me stop you. If you would
    like to respond to me through other channels, that's fine.
        Secretary Wright. Yeah, let's--I will just say it's a real
    issue. It's a real issue.
        Senator Cotton. Are there any Iranian scientists in any of
    our labs as of right now?
        Secretary Wright. Not that I am aware of.
        Senator Cotton. Okay, I hope your lab directors hear that.
        All right, I will yield back the rest of my time. Thank
    you.
        The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Cotton.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.
        The Chairman. Okay, we have now completed round one. There
    is interest in doing a round two. We do need to be out of here
    by about noon. So what I am going to propose is that we try to
    keep, in the second round, let's try to keep them shorter.
        Senator Heinrich, why don't we go to you next and try, each
    of us doing a round two, try to keep it to a question or two so
    we can make sure we are finished by noon, if that's all right?
    Thank you.
        Senator Heinrich. Secretary, in New Mexico, we have a
    couple of geothermal projects, and I appreciate your enthusiasm
    for advanced geothermal, also a grid reliability project. They
    have both been in the Loan Programs Office pipeline for a very
    long time, and over the course of the last six months, the
    back-and-forth communication has gone away. And so, I would
    just ask you if you would commit to sort of making sure that
    your Loan Programs Office reengages with those two projects.
        Secretary Wright. Yes, yes indeed, Senator.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
        I want to ask you a little bit more about this review board
    process because you described it as a business review, as
    professional, not political, but your own attorneys briefed my
    staff yesterday and said that there were political appointees
    on those review boards. Is that the case or is that not the
    case?
        Secretary Wright. Well, it is absolutely the case.
        Senator Heinrich. So my understanding is that in previous
    administrations these kinds of reviews have been done by career
    staff. If it's a business review, why do we have political
    appointees on these review boards?
        Secretary Wright. Oh, it's a hybrid of the two. I am pretty
    confident it was that way before. I don't think the careers
    would have shoveled out $25 billion in the last two days before
    inauguration. That's----
        Senator Heinrich. For example, in the Loan Programs Office,
    there were no politicals on the review board. The final sign-
    off comes from a political appointee, but prior to that, the
    actual review committee did not have politicals. So I am
    wondering, if we want to do this in a professional way, why are
    we putting politicals on these review boards? Why not save that
    for the final process and let the professionals do their job?
        Secretary Wright. Senator, I am highly confident the
    decision-making process now is vastly more professional and
    vastly less political than it was in the previous
    administration.
        Senator Heinrich. How am I supposed to evaluate that if
    there weren't politicals on these review boards before, and
    now, we have politicals in the review boards? So why should I
    believe that to be the case if there is--why not let the
    professionals in your Department--and you have some of the best
    in the entire world--do their job, and then you can make a
    political decision?
        Secretary Wright. Because the political appointees that are
    in it are people I chose, they are business leaders, they are
    entrepreneurs, they are on the political team we brought in,
    but their job is to evaluate the math, the financial
    statements, go back and forth with questions. They are playing
    a business role, and if you look at--and we should have a
    lunch. We should have a lunch, and you should see how we do
    things today, and I can show you how things were done before.
    The change in professionalism, and not political--professional
    business evaluation--is dramatic.
        Senator Heinrich. I am going to wrap up my questions here,
    and I look forward to having lunch with you. I do want to point
    out, I made a mistake earlier. I cited my cost of retail
    electricity incorrectly. It was not 12 cents per kilowatt-hour,
    it was 10.8, and that is with 35 percent solar, 15 percent
    wind, 15 percent battery storage, and only five percent coal,
    23 percent gas. So----
        Secretary Wright. Are those capacity or produced energy
    numbers?
        Senator Heinrich. Those are capacity numbers.
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Heinrich. Yes, that my utility provided to me when
    I asked. That's the retail price for an individual at their
    home. So if they are able to do that at 10.8 cents a kilowatt-
    hour, or even 11 or 12, well below the national average,
    something's not adding up here.
        Secretary Wright. New Mexico has done a good job.
    Absolutely.
        The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.
        Senator Hickenlooper. That's so clever to say New Mexico
    has done a good job. What Senator won't bask in that reflected
    glory?
        Let me turn to something that I think Senator King has
    already talked about a little bit, but I think that I look at
    energy efficiency--as a former Governor and a former mayor, we
    knew that the cheapest energy we could find was the energy that
    we didn't have to use. So when you look at, whether it's home
    insulation or all these different ways of trying to find more
    efficient ways of using the energy we already have and saving
    it, most of the studies show that it's two to three times
    cheaper than when you are talking about natural gas or wind or
    solar or anything. It's cheaper to get it through efficiencies.
    Some of the energy efficiency experts estimate that at
    somewhere between two and five cents per kilowatt-hour.
        [Displayed chart follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1238.008

        Senator Hickenlooper. I think that we look at the parts of
    your enterprise that really work on this and we see their
    budgets being dramatically cut. We have a----
        Secretary Wright. It's right over your head, I can----
        Senator Hickenlooper. Well, I couldn't see it. But anyway,
    you look at what the--this is Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy, which, of course, since NREL, the National Renewable
    Energy Laboratory is involved in a bunch of this work and is in
    my home turf--I can almost, on a really clear day, if I get up
    on the third floor, I can almost see them. That's a dramatic
    cut. I mean, and you can go even back to pre-Biden levels,
    that's a dramatic cut, and am I wrong that this is leading to
    some of the most cost-effective ways of addressing our climate,
    or our energy costs?
        Secretary Wright. So I think you are right, Senator, that
    energy efficiency is a huge opportunity, and of course, it's
    pursued in all different ways, just government expenditure from
    one department, I don't think is a great----
        Senator Hickenlooper. It would have to be a well-run
    department, so I am assuming that it's not just from one
    department, it would be a department that is now using better
    systems and doing things more correct, more properly.
        Secretary Wright. We are, you know, we have gone from, you
    know, ten computer systems down to one, so yes we are doing
    everything we can to run the department more like a business
    and refocus it a little bit as well. But I think less
    expenditure in a department that has got efficiency in its name
    does not mean a walking away from efficiency, but I think the
    biggest drivers of efficiencies, like most things, have been
    market forces, right? People find ways to do efficiencies, as
    you and I do in our lives and all that. And I have been quite
    critical and quite concerned about, like, the regulatory
    example for the DOE, you know. If we just keep regulating, you
    know, you could only buy the super-efficient Cadillac, well,
    other people can't afford the Cadillac. So different people
    evaluate trade-offs differently. So I am always skeptical of
    fitting a one-size-fits-all answer onto our whole population.
        Senator Hickenlooper. But that's the whole point of doing--
    the research they are doing is looking at a variety of ways to
    achieve this goal that pretty much everybody agrees is
    dramatically less expensive than having to go out and create
    new energy.
        Secretary Wright. Efforts in energy efficiency at the
    Department and at NREL or whatever aren't going away.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Got you. Okay. Well, hopefully they
    will get added expense.
        Just one more quick question. The intermittent--and I
    understand some of the legitimate concerns about intermittent
    energy--but at a certain point, when you have places where you
    can get baseload secure and effective, that way if the wind or
    the solar doesn't have batteries, I mean, ultimately, I think
    the question is whether you can get solar and wind with
    batteries to be cost-effective with coal or natural gas, which
    I think you can, certainly if you look at the direction of
    funding. But even forgetting that, if your baseload is--if you
    have got backup, already redundant energy for your baseload so
    that, let's say you only have 30 percent wind and 25 percent
    solar, if you have a cloudy day or you have a windless day, you
    still have someplace you can, you know, turn on natural gas-
    powered plants or whatever. That really takes away a lot of the
    stridency, you know, that these intermittent sources of energy
    are somehow failed.
        Secretary Wright. Well, but it adds to the system cost.
    Like the biggest demand in PJM, the grid we are all in right
    here, 65 million people. Peak demand was the night after
    inauguration. At that time, 44 percent of the electricity came
    from gas, 22 percent from coal, 22 percent from nuclear, six
    percent from hydro, four percent from oil, two percent from
    wind, zero percent from solar. So you needed, if we had zero
    wind and solar, we needed exactly the same grid, and then we
    add wind and solar on top. So there is just no way that is ever
    going to be cheaper.
        Senator Hickenlooper. All right, well those are the two
    things we will discuss on our lunch.
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Hickenlooper. In terms of both the issues around
    climate change because I think there is a lot to discuss there.
        Senator King. Can I come to that lunch, Senator?
        Senator Hickenlooper. If you are polite.
        Senator King. I will pay.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Oh, he will pay. All right, if it's
    okay with you.
        Senator Heinrich. It's getting bigger and bigger.
        Secretary Wright. I look forward to that lunch.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, accelerating the deployment of
    new nuclear energy is something that I think you agree is
    critical to the U.S. achieving global energy dominance and
    meeting our needs, our energy demands, our national security
    needs, particularly with the rise of artificial intelligence
    and the emerging AI race that is surrounding that. The
    Department of Energy has existing authority under the Atomic
    Energy Act, as you know, to authorize nuclear facilities,
    including reactors, and it appears poised to be able to
    maximize the use of that authority pursuant to President
    Trump's recent executive orders. Can you discuss with us the
    Department's authority to authorize nuclear projects, including
    reactors and fuel cycle facilities, and just describe for us
    how the Department may use that authority to speed up the
    development and the deployment of new nuclear energy and
    whether Congress ought to consider any legislative changes
    beyond that to help expand that authority?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, Senator, I think we can see from the
    historical record just what happened to our nuclear industry
    over the last 20 or 30 years--almost impossible to permit
    anything, deathly slow, which means expensive. Uncertainty
    scares capital away. So we are going to try to use all the
    resources of the Department. I mentioned these test reactors.
    We want, 12 months from now, to have reactors that are
    critical, meaning they are turned on and running in the Idaho
    National Lab. These are reactors that have been talked about
    for 15 years. Some of them can be built quickly and ready to
    go, and we want to use that authority because our fear is, the
    old way it worked, five years from now we would still be
    talking about that soon we are going to have SMRs.
        So we are going to use that authority. One of the limits on
    our authority--we have also put out requests for people to
    build data centers or energy production on government lands,
    and we are going to see that happen. Right now, if they are
    authorized through the DOE, they can run a reactor, but you
    can't sell electricity from it. So we can run for a test or for
    other purposes, but there is a limit there. Of course,
    together, hopefully we can get the NRC to be focused on safety
    and environmental protection in a reasonable fashion and not in
    the obstructionist, way over-the-top approach it has been in.
        Grand Central Station in New York City, a train station,
    you know, hundreds of thousands of people walk through every
    day--you could not permit that as a nuclear power plant today
    because the radiation is too high. Using linear, no-threshold
    math--if a lot is bad, well then, a very little is still a
    little bit bad--makes it so that it just has become impractical
    to build cost-competitive nuclear plants. China builds a
    nuclear plant for a third of the cost we do in a fourth of the
    time. We want to protect our people. We want safety. We want to
    do all the right things, but we have got to be smarter about
    how we do that or nuclear will forever be on the edge of
    ``going to happen.'' We need to make it happen. It's just a
    great energy source that can help the world.
        The Chairman. Yes, it is, indeed, and there is something of
    a difference I think between, on the one hand, a slow
    regulatory process that is advancing the ball and making things
    safer, then, at some point, one might reach the point of
    diminishing marginal returns with regard to how long it takes.
    And it sounds like you agree that the system within the NRC
    isn't necessarily calibrated in order to maximize that.
        Secretary Wright. Yes, and I have got to say, I think a lot
    of the presidential actions, executive orders that are
    messaging and changing some regulations and stuff in the One
    Big Beautiful Bill are aimed at how do we unleash American
    energy, how do we get less regulation, more ability to permit
    stuff and to move ahead with stuff and spend less money on
    industrial subsidies that have been unhelpful to our
    electricity and unhelpful to our grid, and it's just dollars we
    don't have.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Okay. That concludes today's hearing. I want to thank my
    colleagues for being here, for participating. I want to thank
    you, Secretary Wright, for being here and answering our
    questions.
        The deadline for submitting questions for the record will
    be 6:00 p.m. tomorrow, Thursday, June 19th. Senators also have
    until 6:00 p.m. next Wednesday, June 25th, to add statements
    for the record for today's hearing.
        Thanks again, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony. The
    Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]