    [Senate Hearing 119-178]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 119-178

                      UNLEASHING INDIAN ENERGY_EXAMINING
                         FEDERAL PROGRAMS AT THE U.S.
                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 10, 2025

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-828 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2026
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
                      BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Vice Chairman

    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           TINA SMITH, Minnesota
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas

    Amber Ebarb, Majority Staff          Jennifer Romero, Minority Staff
        Director                             Director and Chief Counsel
    Lucy Murfitt, Chief Counsel          Darren Modzelewski, Counsel
    Samuel Hiratsuka, Professional       Alanna Purdy, Policy Advisor
        Staff                            Christie Kimura, Legislative Aide
    Sarah McKinnis, Legislative
        Assistant
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on September 10, 2025...............................     1
    Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................    27
    Statement of Senator Daines......................................    26
    Statement of Senator Murkowski...................................     1
    Statement of Senator Schatz......................................     2
    Statement of Senator Smith.......................................    24

                                   Witnesses

    Conrad, David, Acting Director/Deputy Director, Office of Indian
      Energy Policy and Programs, U.S. Department of Energy..........     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Fenton, Jocelyn, Director of Programs, Denali Commission.........    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Ortiz, Dr. Anna Maria, Director, Natural Resources and
      Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office.............     8
        Prepared statement...........................................     9

                                    Appendix

    Caldera, Hon. Amber, Chairwoman, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe,
      letter, submitted for the record...............................    47
    Mike, Hon. Darrell, Chairman, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission
      Indians, prepared statement....................................    39
    Oceti Sakowin Power Authority (OSPA), position paper.............    40
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Murkowski
      to:............................................................
    David Conrad.....................................................    57
    Jocelyn Fenton...................................................    48
    Dr. Anna Maria Ortiz.............................................    51
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to..
    David Conrad.....................................................    60
    Dr. Anna Maria Ortiz.............................................    52

       UNLEASHING INDIAN ENERGY--EXAMINING FEDERAL PROGRAMS AT THE U.S.
                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                                  ----------

                         WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                   Committee on Indian Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:51 p.m. in room
    628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        The Chairman. Good afternoon, everyone. I will invite the
    witnesses to come forward.
        I now call this oversight hearing to order. At today's
    hearing, we are going to learn more about the Department of
    Energy's tribal energy programs, both its Office of Indian
    Energy and the loan program office's Tribal Energy Financing
    Program, and how these programs are working and what can be
    improved upon to better serve tribes in their efforts to
    unleash their energy resources.
        We will also be able to hear from the Denali Commission
    about its work and partnership with DOE and promoting energy
    infrastructure in rural Alaska Native communities.
        Tribes were historically left out of national
    electrification efforts, and still today face lower rates of
    electricity access and higher energy cost burdens than other
    communities in America. The Office of Indian Energy Policy and
    Programs at the Department of Energy is helping fill these gaps
    by providing technical and financial assistance to tribes
    across the Country.
        In Igiugig, Alaska, for example, the Office of Indian
    Energy helped fund the installation of two hydro-kinetic
    devices on the Kvichak River, and energy storage technology.
    The devices were designed specifically to not disturb the
    sockeye salmon that run in the Kvichak, which Igiugig residents
    rely upon for subsistence.
        The devices augment the community's diesel fuel facility,
    saving the small community nearly $170,000 a year, which is a
    lot of money for a small community.
        And this is not a one-off example. There are tribally-led
    opportunities for development and community sustainability
    across Indian Country and Alaska. While tribal lands only
    account for 2 percent of all lands in the Country, they contain
    an estimated 50 percent of potential uranium reserves, 30
    percent of coal reserves west of the Mississippi, 20 percent of
    known oil and gas reserves, and 6.5 percent of all utility-
    scale potential renewable energy resources.
        As more tribes jump into the energy development space and
    look to build resilience in their existing energy systems,
    lower costs, and generate revenue that can then be used to
    boost the tribal economy and social services, they often need
    greater amounts of capital. Unfortunately, we know that
    complexities due to permitting, land jurisdiction and
    ownership, and the unfamiliarity of banking with lending to
    tribes means that tribes are often at a disadvantage when
    developing their own resources and connecting their communities
    to the grid.
        Eight-six percent of tribal lands with energy potential are
    undeveloped and this, I think, is unacceptable.
        Here in Congress we have worked on a bipartisan basis to
    try and provide avenues for tribal capital access. Yet, as the
    GAO has found in their Tribal Energy Finance Report, one of
    those avenues, the Tribal Energy Financing Program at DOE, is
    not working. Meant to enable tribal access to loans and loan
    guarantees, DOE's loan program office has successfully closed
    only one loan guarantee since the solicitation was first issued
    in 2018. You will hear that repeated throughout today's
    oversight.
        Since 2018, only one loan guarantee has been closed; no
    loans.
        We talked about this before in the Committee, and both
    Congress and DOE have taken multiple steps to improve the
    program. But these haven't gone far enough. So I am going to
    look forward to hearing from GAO on their recommendations,
    particularly the potential for a public financing pathway.
        Such a change could improve program implementation by
    allowing DOE to treat tribes as the governments they are,
    rather than as large-scale utilities or private equity groups
    that receive the other kinds of loans from LPO. Maybe then we
    would see the existing $20 billion in loan authority that
    exists utilized to get the projects done.
        The insights and feedback that we garner here today will
    help us as we work together to ensure that tribes are poised to
    take advantage of their resources, build more resilient, cost-
    effective energy systems, and benefit from and contribute to
    this administration's focus on unleashing American energy.
        I also want to note that our hearing record is open for two
    weeks, and we will welcome feedback from tribes and Tribal
    Energy Development Organizations on these topics as well.
        So I now turn to the Vice Chair for his opening statement.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

        Senator Schatz. Thank you, Chair Murkowski.
        Last Congress, we made historic bipartisan investments in
    Indian Country's energy future and its ability to determine
    that future for itself, whether through non-renewable or
    renewable sources. We authorized nearly half a billion dollars
    directly to Native communities for their energy needs, and made
    them eligible for billions more.
        Our goal was to help set up Native communities on a new
    path to energy security regardless of the type of energy. Until
    recently, we saw dividends on those investments. For example,
    the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program issued its first
    successful loan after the IRA increased its loan guarantee
    amount from $2 billion to $20 billion, and authorized $75
    million for tribes to help stand up their energy projects.
        We also acted so that tribes could receive DOE funds to
    address their energy needs in ways that work for them and
    empower their energy sovereignty. Congress listened to Native
    communities and invested in their energy development potential,
    putting them in the driver's seat. We made progress, but now
    there are real efforts to undo that progress.
        The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a case in point. More
    than 100 tribes wrote about the importance of the Tribal Energy
    Loan Guarantee Program and the IRA's tax credits, urging
    Congress not to reverse course. But over the objection of
    Native communities and their industry partners, the One Big
    Beautiful Bill rescinded millions in funding for the DOE's
    Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program and raised energy costs by
    terminating tax credits that could account for up to 70 percent
    of project costs for tribes and their energy partners.
        On top of this, President Trump is directing agencies to
    cancel and delay renewable energy projects only. And his
    proposed cuts to DOE funding and staff will exacerbate the
    brain drain from thousands of employees who have already left
    to thousands more who may be subject to DOE's RIF plan.
        This historic loss of staff and resources creates risks for
    tribes whose energy goals can't be met without Federal dollars,
    and the expertise of agency staff who make tribal energy
    projects a reality.
        Last Congress, we started to move past the status quo. But
    now if feels like we are not even returning to that old mark,
    but going past it. So I want to better understand what is
    happening at DOE, so that we can continue working in a
    bipartisan way to hold the Federal Government accountable to
    Indian Country's energy needs.
        I look forward to the testimony from today's panel, and I
    thank you for coming to testify.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chair Schatz.
        We will now turn to witnesses. We have today Mr. David
    Conrad. He is the Acting Director and Deputy Director at the
    U.S. Department of Energy Office of Indian Energy Policy and
    Programs. He will be followed by Dr. Anna Maria Ortiz, who is
    the Director at the Government Accountability Office, GAO, in
    the Natural Resources and Environment Division. And we have the
    opportunity today to have back before the Committee Ms. Jocelyn
    Fenton. Jocelyn is the Director of Programs at the Denali
    Commission.
        Thank you for being here, all of you. Jocelyn, thank you
    for making the long trip from Alaska to be here today.
        I want to remind the witnesses that we do have your full
    written testimony. It will be part of the official hearing
    record, so we would ask that you keep your oral comments to no
    more than five minutes, so we have plenty of time for members
    to ask questions.
        Mr. Conrad, if you would please begin with your testimony.

      STATEMENT OF DAVID CONRAD, ACTING DIRECTOR/DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
                  OFFICE OF INDIAN ENERGY POLICY AND
                  PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Mr. Conrad. Good afternoon, Chair Murkowski and Vice Chair
    Schatz, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    invitation to speak about unleashing tribal energy.
        My name is David Conrad, as you mentioned. I am a citizen
    of the Osage Nation. I am proud to serve as the Deputy Director
    and Acting Director of the Department of Energy's Office of
    Indian Energy.
        My career began with the Council of Energy Resource Tibes
    in 1991 and has centered on tribal energy ever since. I have
    worked in intergovernmental relations and energy development,
    both within tribal government and the Federal Government.
        These experiences have given me an understanding of the
    tribal energy sector's complexities and the transformative
    potential for tribal nations.
        Twenty years ago, this Committee championed the Indian
    Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act. It was a
    vital part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, establishing the
    Office of Indian Energy within the Department of Energy. Title
    V of that Act charged our office with lowering energy costs for
    tribes, developing Indian energy, addressing gaps in
    electricity access in Indian Country.
        This law also directed us to carry out our programs in
    accordance with the principles of self-determination. Simply
    put, Congress told us to trust tribes to know what is best for
    their citizens as they pursue energy projects.
        Over the last 20 years, the Office of Indian Energy has
    fulfilled our Congressional mandate. We have supported over 240
    tribal energy projects. We have delivered more affordable and
    reliable energy to over 11,000 homes and buildings across
    Indian Country. And we have fulfilled over 500 requests for
    technical assistance, giving tribes access to expertise at our
    national labs to carry out strategic energy planning, analyze
    the potential of their energy resource and chart a course to
    achieve their energy visions.
        I am privileged to lead the Office of Indian Energy during
    another pivotal moment as we work to unleash tribal energy.
    Under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Wright,
    our vital work continues with a key addition. We are
    strengthening our commitment to ensure tribes share in the
    prosperity of American energy dominance. Securing access to
    affordable, reliable energy also remains central to our mission
    and Congressional charge.
        Tribes possess extensive energy resources. Our new
    additional focus will help ensure that they are poised to
    capture a greater share of the energy value chain. While
    resource ownership offers its own opportunities, tribes
    increasingly want to develop their own energy resources using
    their own expertise and workforces.
        The Office of Indian Energy is working to support tribes to
    implement their vision. In March, we partnered with the
    Department of Commerce to extend the commercial law development
    program to support tribes in advancing high value energy
    projects, such as data centers, critical minerals development,
    and new generation and transmission infrastructure.
        The program is already serving multiple tribal partners to
    enhance the legal environment for energy sector commerce to
    thrive in their communities. Additionally, in collaboration
    with the Department of Energy's Innovator Fellowship program,
    11 new energy innovator fellows have been placed in tribal host
    institutions this year. This is the largest number of fellows a
    tribe will host of any cohort to date. These fellows work with
    tribes to modernize power systems, enhance energy
    infrastructure, and contribute to a more reliable, affordable
    and resilient U.S. power system.
        Finally, we expanded our Tribal Energy Navigator Service
    with dedicated staff. This service responds to inquiries from
    tribes developing energy projects, and facilitates more
    efficient access to all of DOE's programs, as well as other
    Federal energy programs available to them.
        Building on the foundation laid by this Committee 20 years
    ago, we continue to foster the trust and predictability
    essential for Indian Country to unleash their own energy
    resources. As the tribal energy sector gains momentum, tribes
    are proving that American Indian and Alaska Native livelihoods
    flourish most when tribes direct their own energy development.
        The Office of Indian Energy, in partnership with tribal
    nations and other Federal agencies, remains committed to
    maximizing the impact of Federal investment in this sector. We
    look forward to continuing this essential work with this
    Committee.
        I am happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Conrad follows:]

     Prepared Statement of David Conrad, Acting Director/Deputy Director,
     Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs, U.S. Department of Energy
    Introduction
        Good afternoon Chair Murkowski, Vice Chair Schatz, and members of
    the Committee. Thank you for the invitation to testify. My name is
    David Conrad. I am a citizen of the Osage Nation, and I am proud to
    serve as Deputy Director and Acting Director of the Office of Indian
    Energy. I believe I am the first Deputy Director to appear before this
    Committee. Since 2011, the leadership positions in the Office,
    including Deputy Director, were term-limited, forcing a reset with each
    new administration. I am excited that in 2023 the position of Deputy
    Director became a permanent excepted service position, strengthening
    the continuity we provide to Indian Country. Achieving this continuity
    has not been easy and is a testament to the sustained commitment and
    vision of Tribal leadership.
        Twenty years ago, this Committee was instrumental in passing the
    Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act, a key
    component of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, establishing the Office of
    Indian Energy Policy and Programs within the Department of Energy
    (DOE).
        As I believe all of you know, that achievement was the culmination
    of decades of work. From the first oil wells drilled on Indian land in
    Oklahoma during the early 1900's to the formation of the Council of
    Energy Resource Tribes in 1976, Tribal leadership has worked with
    government, industry, and others to create the partnerships necessary
    to bring us all here today.
        The vision for our Office was established in law: it charges us to
    promote Tribal energy development, efficiency, and use; reduce and
    stabilize energy costs; enhance and strengthen Tribal energy and
    economic infrastructure; and bring electrical power and service to
    Indian lands and homes (42 U.S.C.  7144e). I am happy to share that
    this vision continues to be carried out under President Trump's and
    Secretary Wright's leadership, with key initiatives to ensure that
    Tribes are poised to unleash their own energy resources, including
    identifying additional DOE resources for our partners in the Arctic
    Energy Office.
        Congress also directed the Office to carry out its work in
    accordance with the long-standing principle of Tribal Self-
    Determination, first codified in the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act of 1975, during the Ford Administration. The
    Senate recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of that law. The
    principle, simply put, tells us that Tribes know best how to implement
    the programs and projects intended to benefit their citizens. We hold
    this principle in mind as we support an agenda of energy dominance.
        To pursue Tribal energy priorities, Tribes have used multiple
    pathways to deploy energy solutions. These include creating Tribal
    Utility Authorities; incorporating energy deployment in government
    operations and in housing developments; and incorporating energy
    deployment in their economic enterprises from grocery stores to gaming
    operations. Tribes have also used multiple approaches to securing
    resources for energy projects--including federal and state grants,
    loans, Tribal assets, and commercial finance options. Through the
    Office of Indian Energy's Navigator service, we help Tribes find the
    funding opportunities which best fit their needs.
    The Impact of the Office of Indian Energy
        The Department of Energy has been faithfully implementing our
    statute for the last 20 years by supporting Tribes to develop and
    pursue their energy visions. Since 2010, we have supported over 240
    Tribal energy projects, encompassing energy planning and the deployment
    of microgrids, new power generation, and efficiency upgrades to
    buildings to reduce energy costs and improve reliability. For each of
    these 240+ projects, Tribes proposed the technologies they wanted to
    pursue, competed for the award, and contributed cost-share. Tribes
    continue to lead on the implementation, and they continue to maintain
    the projects ensuring they deliver for years to come. To date, the
    energy performance of 11,000 buildings has been improved--and these
    buildings are now lowering energy costs for Tribes every day. Across
    all Indian Energy deployment projects, Tribal governments and citizens
    are projected to save $530 million. These projects have been
    predominantly in rural and remote areas, creating ripple effects which
    often benefit neighboring communities through reduced burden on their
    grids, delivery of essential services during emergencies, and cheaper
    power through energy addition.
        These projects have increased Tribal capacity to operate in the
    energy sector, while injecting much needed innovation into rural and
    remote development and demonstrating the strong capabilities of Tribes
    in the energy sector. I'll briefly touch on three examples: First, the
    Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa just completed a biomass
    heating system to heat their Brookston community center near Cloquet,
    Minnesota by using local wood waste products and leveraging their own
    technical expertise on the unique set of required feeders and boilers.
    The system is projected to save $31,000 per year. Second, Kawerak Inc,
    an intertribal organization, is installing an organic rankine cycle
    turbine, a novel alternative to a steam turbine, to generate firm power
    from their geothermal resources in Pilgrim Hot Springs, Alaska. And
    finally, the Village of Igiugig, Alaska is installing a unique run-of-
    river hydropower system which is projected to add 35 kW of power
    generation for 33 homes and buildings. These projects were selected for
    support based on the Tribe's resources, robust analysis, and Tribal
    self-determination. With this support, these small communities are
    charting new paths to ensure that reliable and affordable energy
    reaches every corner of America.
        Additionally, the Office of Indian Energy has fulfilled well over
    500 requests for technical assistance by giving Tribes access to our
    national labs and associated experts, facilitating the advancement of
    energy projects with strategic planning and resource analysis.
    Recent Intiatives Under the Trump Administration
        We continue to gain momentum under President Trump's and Secretary
    Wright's leadership. In the past, the Office of Indian Energy has
    focused heavily on community scale energy. This critical work continues
    as we support Tribes in developing any energy source which, through
    robust analysis, is shown to support reliable and affordable power.
    Today, we also look beyond community scale projects to ensure that
    Tribal Nations are poised to share in the prosperity of unleashing
    American energy (E.O. 14154) through their self-determined paths. We
    are doing this by leveraging strategic partnerships:

       In March 2025, the Office of Indian Energy partnered with
            the U.S. Department of Commerce to extend the Commercial Law
            Development Program (CLDP) to work with Tribal Nations on
            energy development. This additional technical assistance
            supports Tribes in advancing high-value energy projects, such
            as data centers, critical minerals development, and new
            generation and transmission infrastructure. The assistance is
            designed to help Tribes structure energy deals and establish
            legal frameworks to enhance energy sector commerce. The program
            is already serving multiple Tribal partners.

       Additionally, in collaboration with DOE offices, eleven new
            Energy Innovator Fellows have been placed in Tribal host
            institutions this year. This is the largest number of fellows
            at Tribal hosts of any cohort to date. These fellows will
            collaborate with Tribes to modernize power systems, enhance
            energy infrastructure for industry, and contribute to a more
            reliable, affordable, and resilient U.S. power system. These
            fellows are expanding the capacity of the Tribal energy
            ecosystem.

       Finally, the Office of Indian Energy has expanded our Tribal
            Energy Navigator Service. This service responds to inquiries
            from Tribes developing energy projects and facilitates more
            efficient access to DOE and the other federal energy programs
            available to them.

        These recent initiatives elevate existing federal resources, while
    collectively building a foundation of trust and predictability for
    Indian Country to unleash their own vast energy resources to
    participate in the broader regional and national energy economy.
        Achieving affordable, reliable, and secure energy is not without
    its challenges. Energy development can be demanding, especially for
    many Tribes with small staff, where each employee wears multiple hats.
    Tribes must create new regulations, run request for proposals, and
    negotiate interconnections, off-take agreements, and rights-of-way, all
    while constantly educating others about their sovereignty and history.
    It takes time to get projects right. But Tribes are up for this
    challenge, and the momentum for energy security has only continued to
    grow.
    The Unique Circumstances of Alaska
        I want to focus on Alaska for a moment as Alaska presents its own
    unique opportunities and challenges. Due to its harsh climate,
    remoteness, and historic laws like the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
    Act (ANCSA), Alaska stands distinct from the reservation system in the
    lower forty-eight. Secretary Wright acknowledged the long running
    history and sovereignty of Alaska Natives, and the rights of Native
    Alaskans to develop their own energy resources, when he visited the
    Village of Utqiagvik this past June. To account for the unique
    circumstances of Alaska, the Office of Indian Energy works closely with
    key partners in Alaska to ensure remote communities have fair access to
    the full suite of Tribal and programmatic resources of DOE. The Offices
    of Indian Energy and Arctic Energy have co-located their workspaces in
    Anchorage to facilitate interoffice cooperation and collaborative
    community engagement. The Arctic Energy Office continues to focus on
    engagement with Alaska Native regional and village corporations across
    the entire state, and these ANCSA corporations remain eligible for
    Office of Indian Energy assistance.
        Evidence shows these efforts have been effective. Since 2010,
    approximately 28 percent of deployment funding and approximately 42
    percent of all technical assistance from the Office of Indian Energy
    has gone to Alaska, where 40 percent of all Federally recognized Tribes
    in the United States reside. This technical assistance is delivered in
    collaboration with the Denali Commission and the Alaska Native Tribal
    Health Consortium to ensure the unique circumstances of Alaska are
    being considered.
    The Work Ahead
        For a generation, Congress has allowed the Office of Indian Energy
    to support Tribal Nations in a sustained effort to address high energy
    costs and bolster critical energy infrastructure in their communities.
    The achievements that Tribes have made along the way underscore this
    committee's foresight and the power of Tribal self-determination.
        That said, we recognize there is still work to be done. Our work in
    support of 240 Tribal energy projects is modest in comparison to 574
    federally recognized Tribes, many of which govern over multiple
    communities, and the issues of reliability and affordability that
    plague the Nation's grid are acutely felt in Indian Country. Tribal
    communities face electricity outages approximately six and a half times
    more frequently than the U.S. average. \1\ It is well known that many
    Tribes are at the end of the distribution lines, on poor performing
    circuits, or lack grid access altogether. Compounding this challenge,
    Tribal households allocate a disproportionately high portion of their
    income to energy costs, an amount that is four times greater than the
    national average. \2\ These critical findings were detailed in a 2023
    Report on Tribal Energy Access and Reliability, submitted to Congress
    by the Office of Indian Energy, and these remain persistent challenges
    today.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NREL LEAD Tool; Tribal Energy Access and Reliability Report to
    Congress--2023
        \2\ Tribal Energy Access and Reliability Report to Congress--2023;
    Self-reported Indian Energy grant applicant data; Indian Country Energy
    and Infrastructure Working Group. (2020, August 7). Tribal Energy
    COVID-19 Survey.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Office of Indian Energy, in partnership with Tribal Nations and
    other federal agencies, is committed to maximizing the impact of
    federal investments to address these challenges, and we look forward to
    continuing this essential work in collaboration with this committee.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Conrad.
        Next, we turn to Dr. Ortiz. Welcome.

    STATEMENT OF DR. ANNA MARIA ORTIZ, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
                   AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT
                         ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Dr. Ortiz. Thank you.
        Chair Murkowski, Vice Chair Schatz, members of the
    Committee, thank you for having me today. My name is Anna Maria
    Ortiz, and I have the honor of overseeing GAO's portfolio on
    tribal and Native American issues. I am happy to discuss our
    recent report on the Tribal and Energy Finance program.
        Unleashing potential energy resources throughout Indian
    Country could greatly increase access to reliable and
    affordable electricity, contribute to tribal economic
    development and help address the Nation's energy production
    needs. The Department of Energy's Tribal Energy Financing
    program, run by its loan programs office, or LPO, exists to
    help tribes and tribal applicants with limited access to
    private capital to invest in their own lands and resources.
        The program is technology neutral and has the authority to
    offer up to $20 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees.
    Additionally, the program focuses on tribal ownership of
    projects, allowing even small tribes a chance to participate.
        These features offer tribes with different lands and
    resources the flexibility to determine their own approaches to
    effective energy development, consistent with the principle of
    tribal sovereignty.
        Despite these benefits, GAO founded that LPO administered
    the Tribal Energy Financing program in ways that make it nearly
    impossible for applicants to successfully navigate the loan
    process. Program design features have deterred many potential
    applicants and have delayed and lengthened the process for
    others.
        For example, LPO places the burden of due diligence, the
    underwriting process for the loan or the loan guarantee, on the
    backs of tribal applicants, obligating them to commit unknown
    amounts of money to pay for contracted legal and technical
    experts, some of whom lack sufficient expertise in tribal
    energy development. This puts the tribe on the hook for these
    consultants' learning curves and potentially millions of
    dollars overall.
        If applicants are not deterred by the program's design
    features, they confront lengthy application review processes,
    inconsistent and conflicting program guidance, and limited and
    changing LPO staff, many of whom lack appropriate training and
    experience. For example, one applicant spent nearly two years
    in the review process responding to varied and redundant
    requests for information from different LPO staff before a key
    development partner pulled out, effectively jettisoning the
    project.
        Since the Tribal Energy Financing Program first solicited
    applications in 2018, LPO has only completed one partial loan
    guarantee. As of July 2025, 12 other applications have been
    rejected, withdrawn or paused. Of the seven remaining active
    applications, four have been under review for more than two
    years.
        The Tribal Energy Financing Program is a poignant example
    of what happens when tribal programs are designed and
    administered without regard to tribal needs. By modeling its
    application review process on a different program designed
    primarily for large projects and untested technologies, the
    Department of Energy inadvertently curtailed its ability to
    effectively serve tribal applicants.
        GAO recommended, and the Department of Energy agreed, that
    LPO review and revise program elements, develop and document
    consistent and coherent guidance for staff and applicants, and
    designate dedicated staff with tribal expertise to support the
    program. GAO's recommendations aim to remove unnecessarily
    complex and lengthy processes imposed by LPO to unleash the
    program to its full potential.
        Thank you. This concludes my oral statement. I welcome any
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Ortiz follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Dr. Anna Maria Ortiz, Director, Natural Resources
             and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office
        Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and Members of the
    Committee:
        Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our recent work on the
    Department of Energy's (DOE) tribal energy programs. My testimony
    summarizes our August 2025 report, Tribal Energy Finance: Changes to
    DOE Loan Program Would Reduce Barriers for Tribes. \1\ This statement
    discusses (1) the status of applications to DOE's Tribal Energy
    Financing Program (TEFP), (2) strengths and limitations of the program,
    and (3) ways to improve its design and implementation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ GAO, Tribal Energy Finance: Changes to DOE Loan Program Would
    Reduce Barriers for Tribes, GAO-25-107441 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 11,
    2025).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While considerable conventional and renewable energy resources
    exist throughout Indian country, tribal communities often face
    challenges to developing these resources. \2\ These include a lack of
    access to capital and systemic barriers to accessing federal programs.
    \3\ According to DOE, 86 percent of tribal lands with energy potential
    are undeveloped. Developing these resources through tribal energy
    projects could help address the nation's energy needs and create
    economic development opportunities for some Tribes and their members.
    \4\ For example, such projects can help Tribes lower their energy costs
    and create access to reliable energy, improve living conditions, fund
    government programs and services, increase employment, and reduce
    poverty within the Tribe and surrounding areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ As of August 2025, there were 574 federally recognized Tribes
    in the contiguous United States and Alaska. Federally recognized Tribes
    have a government-to-government relationship with the United States and
    are eligible to receive certain protections, services, and benefits by
    virtue of their status as Indian Tribes. For the purposes of this
    statement, we use the term ``Tribes'' to refer to any Indian tribe,
    band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any
    Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in
    or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,
    which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services
    provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as
    Indians.
        \3\ See GAO, Tribal Energy: Federal Assistance to Support Microgrid
    Development, GAO-24-106278 (Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2024); and
    Tribal Issues: Barriers to Access to Federal Assistance, GAO-25-107674
    (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 3, 2024).
        \4\ U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Lab,
    Techno-Economic Renewable Energy Potential on Tribal Lands, NREL/TP-
    6A20-70807 (Golden, Colo.: 2018); ``Department of Energy Makes Up to
    $11.5 Million Available for Energy Infrastructure Deployment on Tribal
    Lands,'' news release, February 16, 2018, https://www.energy.gov/
    articles/department-energy-makes-115-million-available-energy-
    infrastructure-deployment-tribal-lands; and National Renewable Energy
    Laboratory, ``NREL Supports Native American Tribes in Clean Energy
    Transformational Leadership,'' news release, March 30, 2016, https://
    www.nrel.gov/news/features/2016/24665.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        TEFP, administered by DOE's Loan Programs Office (LPO), provides
    loans and loan guarantees for tribal energy development. \5\ The
    program supports federally recognized Indian Tribes or tribal energy
    development organizations that develop energy resources, products, or
    services using commercial technology. TEFP is intended to support a
    broad range of energy development projects and activities. It is
    technology neutral, which means it offers financing for projects that
    use various types of energy technology such as electricity generation,
    transmission, or distribution facilities that use conventional or
    renewable energy sources; energy resource extraction, refining, or
    processing facilities; or energy storage facilities. These projects can
    be on or off tribal land, and applicants can include Tribes, tribal
    energy development organizations, and lenders that apply on behalf of
    Tribes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created the Tribal Energy Loan
    Guarantee Program, which initially only provided loan guarantees. Pub.
    L. No. 109-58, tit. V,  503(a), 119 Stat. 594, 764-78 (codified in
    relevant part as amended at 25 U.S.C.   3501, 3502(c)). The program
    was first funded in 2017; see Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017,
    Pub. L. No. 115-31, 131 Stat. 135, 313 (2017). In 2022, it was expanded
    to allow direct loans. DOE refers to the expanded program as the Tribal
    Energy Financing Program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To conduct this work, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations,
    agency policies, and guidance documents related to program
    applications, design, and implementation. We analyzed TEFP application
    documents and LPO data as of February 2025 to describe the status of
    applications since 2018. \6\ We interviewed DOE officials, 12 potential
    participants (e.g., Tribes and lenders) that applied or considered
    applying to the program, and five tribal energy stakeholders (e.g.,
    lenders, consultants, and nongovernment organizations). Our work was
    performed in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
    standards. More detailed information on the scope and methodology of
    our work is provided in our August 2025 report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ In July 2025, DOE officials provided an update on the status of
    new applications to the program. We incorporated this information into
    the report where appropriate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOE Has Closed One Loan Guarantee, and More than Half of Applications
            are Inactive
        From its first program solicitation in 2018 through July 2025, DOE
    received 20 TEFP applications for approximately $15 billion in loans
    and loan guarantees for various project types and amounts. \7\ Loan and
    loan guarantee requests ranged from $23.7 million for a solar project
    to $8.7 billion for an ammonia production facility for low-carbon fuel.
    Proposed projects were located throughout the contiguous United States
    and Alaska. \8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ In 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) increased TEFP's
    loan authority from $2 billion to $20 billion. An Act to provide for
    reconciliation pursuant to Title II of S. Con. Res. 14, Pub. L. No.
    117-169,  50145(b)(2), 136 Stat. 1818, 2046 (2022) (amending 25 U.S.C.
     3502(c)(4)).
        \8\ Our report provides additional information on energy technology
    type, requested loan amount, application status, and time spent in each
    phase of the application process for each TEFP application LPO has
    received since 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Of these 20 applications, DOE closed a $100 million loan guarantee
    in August 2024 for a solar and long-duration storage microgrid project
    on tribal lands of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians in California.
    \9\ As of February 2025, 12 applications were inactive (i.e., put on
    hold, withdrawn, or abandoned). Progress on the remaining seven active
    applications was limited by a pause that began in January 2025 as the
    current administration reviewed the program. \10\ In July 2025,
    Congress rescinded all unobligated program appropriations provided by
    the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), reducing available funding. \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ A loan or guarantee is closed when LPO and the applicant sign
    an agreement that finalizes it, and LPO begins to disburse funds to the
    applicant for the project. LPO considers closed loans active because
    LPO plans to monitor the loan or loan guarantee over its lifetime. The
    loan guarantee amount for the Viejas project was the actual obligated
    amount, based on data we received from LPO as of February 2025.
        \10\ E.O. 14154 of January 20, 2025, Unleashing American Energy,
    directed agencies to immediately pause disbursement of funds
    appropriated under the IRA or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
    Act, pending a review of such disbursements. 90 Fed. Reg. 8353, 8357
    (Jan. 29, 2025).
        \11\ Congress in the IRA appropriated $75 million for credit
    subsidy and to administer the program. Pub. L. No. 117-169,  50145(a),
    136 Stat.at 2045-46. In July 2025, Congress rescinded the unobligated
    balance of TEFP's IRA appropriations in Public Law 119-21-commonly
    known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. An Act To provide for
    reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Pub. L. No.
    119-21, tit. V, subtit. D,  50402(b), 139 Stat. 72, 152. As a result,
    the program has only pre-IRA appropriations, if any remain unobligated,
    of $8.5 million. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. No.
    115-31, 131 Stat. 135, 313 (2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Many applications spent considerable time in the intake phases of
    the application process, and most active and inactive applications (16
    of 20) remained in these phases as of February 2025 (see fig. 1). Time
    spent in intake ranged from 41 days to 821 days, as of February 2025.
    LPO officials told us that various factors, such as project readiness
    and the applicant's familiarity with the application process, can
    influence how quickly an application progresses.

        Figure 1: Status of Applications to the Department of Energy's
    (DOE) Tribal Energy Financing Program, as of February 2025

             Note: Active applications are project applications undergoing
            review by DOE and include closed loans that DOE continues to
            monitor through the end of the loan term. Inactive applications
            are those that were withdrawn, abandoned, or otherwise put on
            hold. According to DOE officials, as of July 18, 2025, DOE had
            not received any new applications for the program.

    TEFP Has Restrictions That Can Discourage Tribal Participation
        Several aspects of the program's design create significant
    financial barriers for Tribes that can discourage them from
    participating in the program, including the following:

       Limited project development assistance. LPO expects
            applicants to its programs to have projects that are well
            defined and significantly beyond the concept stage, according
            to LPO documents and officials. However, many Tribes do not
            have the upfront cash resources for early project development
            activities, which can be expensive, especially for larger-scale
            projects. One applicant told us a Tribe could spend a total of
            $10 million to $30 million to make a project ``shovel ready.''

       Potentially high and unpredictable due diligence fees. DOE
            requires tribal applicants to pay fees and expenses for
            external legal and expert services (e.g., technical, financial,
            and environmental), as needed, that help DOE evaluate projects
            and requested financing. However, the level and
            unpredictability of these due diligence costs discourages
            Tribes from applying to

        TEFP, according to potential participants and stakeholders. For
    example, one Tribe that decided not to apply to the program said these
    costs could translate into millions of dollars. Another tribal
    applicant said the contractors DOE uses for TEFP legal work did not
    know enough about tribal law and energy projects, resulting in more
    hours billed to the Tribe.
        Our report provides more detail about these and other challenges.
        While LPO has taken some steps to help Tribes with these costs, we
    recommended doing more to further reduce the challenges Tribes still
    face. Actions LPO has taken include, for example, increased outreach,
    allowing project development costs to be included in TEFP loans on a
    project-by-project basis, and plans to develop a public finance
    ``application pathway'' that could reduce due diligence for lower-risk
    projects and shorten application timeframes. However, Tribes often need
    immediate assistance and funding for project development activities and
    help identifying and accessing them. LPO offers this help on a case-by-
    case basis and has compiled an internal list of development grants used
    to support larger-scale energy projects. But it is unclear how
    comprehensively these options will address Tribes' needs. DOE also has
    not finalized steps it is taking to reduce due diligence costs, such as
    details and guidance for the application pathway.
        We recommended that DOE (1) identify and disseminate information on
    federal funding that could help Tribes develop large-scale energy
    projects ready for application and provide Congress information on
    gaps, and (2) further develop and implement options to revise the due
    diligence process to further reduce or eliminate fees on a project-by-
    project basis. In its comments on our report, DOE concurred with these
    two recommendations and described steps it plans to take to implement
    them.
    Complex and Unclear Agency Processes Create Barriers That Can Derail
            Tribes' Applications
        DOE has taken steps to improve its outreach to Tribes about TEFP,
    but we identified barriers that can hinder Tribes' ability to complete
    the application process and close on loan guarantees or direct loans.
    These barriers have created uncertainties for potential participants,
    lengthened application timeframes, and may have reduced interest in the
    program.

       Long application timeframes. Lengthy application timeframes
            have resulted in delayed project timelines, higher project
            costs, and loss of project partners, according to potential
            participants. For example, one tribal applicant said it lost
            its power purchaser and access to a multimillion-dollar bridge
            loan, making its project unviable. Our analysis of application
            data found that the median time in intake was 334 days (see
            fig. 2). The Viejas project, the only application to complete
            the full process, spent almost 2 years (645 days) from entering
            intake to closing. LPO officials noted that these timelines may
            include extended periods of guidance and preparation to assist
            applicants with their applications, as well as the applicant's
            turnaround time to submit additional application support
            documents.

        Figure 2: Loan Request Amount, Status, and Time Spent in the
    Application Process for Each Application to Department of Energy's
    (DOE) Tribal Energy Financing Program, as of February 2025

             Note: The Tribal Energy Financing Program had received 20
            applications as of February 2025 and did not receive any new
            applications between then and July 18, 2025, according to DOE
            officials.

       Complex application process. The TEFP application process
            involves multiple stages of review and feedback, according to
            our review of program documents. LPO officials said they
            understood that tribal applicants might see the program as
            complex, but that to be successful, applicants must complete
            significant work upfront with the aid of legal counsel,
            engineering firms, and consultants. However, one potential
            participant said that because of this complexity, many Tribes
            cannot move through the application process without costly
            third-party assistance.

       Unclear program guidance. Tribal applicants we interviewed
            said they received different information from different LPO
            officials about certain program rules, such as equity
            requirements or whether TEFP could cover development costs. For
            example, one tribal applicant said they were told the loan
            could be used for development costs, such as environmental
            reviews, site control leases, and legal costs. However, LPO
            later told the applicant that such costs were not covered. When
            the applicant said it could no longer move forward with the
            loan without help with development costs, LPO agreed to include
            the costs. We reviewed LPO's program documents and found that
            its guidance was not clear on some TEFP requirements. For
            example, requirements varied for loan sizes, equity, technology
            types, and outreach and intake.

       Limited tribal experience at DOE. Most LPO staff reviewing
            TEFP applications have limited experience in tribal energy
            finance, according to our analysis of LPO staffing practices.
            While LPO designated 12 of its 274 federal staff to focus
            primarily on TEFP or to work for the program on a recurring
            basis as of May 2025, most of these positions have not been
            filled consistently. Significant changes to LPO's overall
            staffing levels and an ongoing government-wide hiring freeze
            are also likely to affect the availability of dedicated staff
            with expertise to work on tribal applications. \12\ As of July
            18, 2025, 43 of LPO's 271 authorized positions were vacant, and
            110 employees who had elected to resign on a deferred basis
            were on administrative leave until their resignation or
            retirement date, according to DOE officials. LPO officials and
            staff told us that without adequate experienced staff, LPO
            could continue to face challenges effectively processing
            Tribes' applications--increasing application review times and
            requiring greater use of outside consultants to fill knowledge
            gaps. One tribal applicant also told us LPO staff resources
            were taken away from its application because LPO said it had
            inadequate staff for tribal projects.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ For example, a February 2025 executive order directed agency
    heads to promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale
    reductions in force, among other steps. E.O. 14210 of February 11,
    2025, Implementing the President's ``Department of Government
    Efficiency'' Workforce Optimization Initiative, 90 Fed. Reg. 9669 (Feb.
    14, 2025). In addition, a presidential memorandum extended a previously
    issued hiring freeze for executive branch agencies through October 15,
    2025. Presidential Memorandum, Ensuring Accountability and Prioritizing
    Public Safety in Federal Hiring (July 7, 2025).

        LPO has taken some actions to address these barriers, according to
    LPO officials, but Tribes continue to face challenges. For example, LPO
    is revising its application processes, such as adjusting the rigor of
    its review and testing a new public finance application pathway; has
    identified timeliness goals; is verbally clarifying misconceptions; and
    began providing some staff with specific training on working with
    Tribes that addresses topics such as awareness of tribal law and
    government procedures. However, LPO officials said they were not yet
    certain whether their effort to revise the application process would be
    effective, had not developed the necessary documents to guide the
    effort, and did not have the staff with the needed expertise in public
    finance. LPO also had not documented information to correct
    misconceptions or updated internal and external guidance on the
    application process.
        The barriers that still exist have created uncertainties for
    potential participants and lengthened application timeframes, which may
    make it challenging for DOE to meet its timeliness goals and limit
    Tribes' ability use TEFP to develop their own energy resources. Given
    ongoing changes to the program, including the loss of staff and
    rescission of funding, streamlining program processes and ensuring
    there are designated program staff with appropriate knowledge of tribal
    energy finance to review applications is particularly important. We
    recommended that DOE take steps to (1) reduce the length and complexity
    of the application process, (2) clarify program guidance, and (3)
    maintain designated staff.
        In its comments on our report, DOE also concurred with these three
    recommendations and described steps it plans to take to implement them.
        In conclusion, fully implementing all of our recommendations would
    help DOE address the barriers we identified and ensure more Tribes can
    access and leverage TEFP to generate important economic and energy
    development opportunities for their communities, as well as nationwide
    energy benefits.
        Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and Members of the
    Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
    answer any questions you have at this point.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Ortiz.
        Ms. Fenton, welcome back to the Committee.

       STATEMENT OF JOCELYN FENTON, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS, DENALI
                               COMMISSION

        Ms. Fenton. Hello, Madam Chair, Vice Chairman Schatz, and
    members of the Committee. Thank you for your leadership and
    dedication to advancing energy security for rural and tribal
    communities in Alaska and throughout Indian Country.
        My name is Jocelyn Fenton, Director of Programs at the
    Denali Commission. I am privileged to present the insights and
    experiences of our agency, our partners, and the Alaskans we
    serve.
        The Denali Commission was created by Congress in 1998 to
    address critical infrastructure and economic development needs
    in rural Alaska. For more than 25 years, the commission has
    served as a Federal partner for more than 200 isolated
    villages, each home to a federally recognized tribe. These
    villages average fewer than 500 residents, are accessible only
    by plane or boat and face some of the most extreme
    environmental conditions in the United States.
        Life in these villages depends on a fragile but vital
    infrastructure system: small diesel powerhouses, bulk fuel tank
    farms and water treatment systems. These tank farms store the
    diesel and gasoline required not only for electric generation
    but also for heating homes, fueling boats and snow machines,
    and running schools, clinics and water plants. Without safe,
    reliable fuel storage, the entire community is at risk.
        Unfortunately, most of this infrastructure is aging and
    deteriorating. The Alaska Energy Authority, the State's energy
    arm, estimates over a billion dollars is needed just to bring
    rural tank farms into safe, code compliant condition with
    another $400 million needed for upgrading powerhouses.
        Less than half have been upgraded, and even those are now
    aging out of their service life. Some communities still use
    tanks that are older than 70 years. The consequences of failure
    are severe. In rural Alaska, when the power goes out, it is not
    just the lights. Freezers holding food collected over the
    summer and fall thaw, water systems freeze and burst, and
    health emergencies follow. Energy security is community
    survival.
        The costs are staggering, as well. Rural households spend
    about 27 percent of their income on energy, nearly four times
    what urban households spend. Electricity in some villages costs
    more than a dollar per kilowatt hour, compared to the national
    average of about 16 cents. Every other part of life, like
    groceries, transportation, housing, is more expensive as a
    result.
        Investments in bulk fuel storage are among some of the most
    effective strategies to reduce these costs. A 2017 study found
    that upgrading tank farms saved communities more than $2 per
    gallon in fuel costs. Yet despite these proven benefits,
    appropriations have not kept pace with the growing backlog of
    needs.
        This is where partnerships, especially with the Department
    of Energy, make a real difference. DOE programs can provide
    both technical expertise and financial assistance to help
    tribes design and implement solutions suited for their
    communities.
        The DOE Office of Indian Energy plays a vital role in
    Alaska. Through technical assistance, financial planning and
    competitive grants, the office has supported dozens of Alaska
    tribes in developing diesel hybrid systems with the integration
    and investigation of additional resources, such as hydropower
    and geothermal. These projects are often small in scale, but
    for communities of a few hundred residents, they mean the
    difference between barely keeping the lights on and moving
    toward resilience.
        The Arctic Energy Office provides another layer of support
    through the Arctic Energy Ambassadors program. These
    ambassadors are local practitioners who bring technical
    knowledge directly into villages and from villages, sharing
    lessons learned and best practices, while helping residents
    plan and implement energy projects. This model builds capacity
    on the ground and ensures projects are regionally appropriate,
    climate tested and durable for existing conditions.
        The Denali Commission complements these DOE efforts by
    serving as the local convenor, by braiding funding streams. For
    example, we paired EPA resources and commission funds to
    deliver complete bulk fuel upgrades in high need villages.
    Recent interagency coordination enabled more than $100 million
    in these resources to flow directly to at-risk tank farms,
    while DOE-supported planning ensured those projects were ready
    to move.
        Importantly, Alaska's partnerships look beyond our borders.
    National and regional collaboration connects Alaska's tribes
    with tribal communities in Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana,
    Washington, continuing to provide opportunities for knowledge
    sharing on microgrids, distributed generation and cold climate
    technologies.
        The challenges of small, isolated communities are not
    unique to Alaska. And any solution developed in our villages
    should be replicated across Indian Country.
        Even with these strong partnerships, unmet needs are
    growing. Federal appropriations alone are not enough.
    Communities need financing tools that are designed for their
    scale and circumstances.
        Most rural utilities and tribes in Alaska operate on razor-
    thin margins. They cannot meet credit or scale requirements of
    existing Federal loan programs, and as a result, many Federal
    financing tools remain out of reach. Without flexible,
    accessible loan options, communities are unable to leverage
    grants and pursue larger projects.
        This is an area where Congress could make a tremendous
    impact, expanding and simplifying financing mechanisms, whether
    through revolving loan funds, loan guarantees or intermediators
    with local expertise could unlock projects across rural Alaska
    and throughout Indian Country.
        Technical assistance is equally important. Planning,
    engineering, financial structuring can be as difficult as
    construction itself. DOE's Office of Indian Energy has proven
    how effective technical support can be in moving projects
    forward. But resources are limited. Expanding funding for
    circuit rider programs and regional energy planners would
    provide consistent, trusted assistance to more communities.
        I also want to emphasize that this is not just an Alaskan
    issue. Energy security in Alaska's villages has direct
    implications for U.S. national security. The Arctic is a region
    of growing geopolitical importance, and resilient energy
    systems in Alaska support both civilian communities and
    national defense operations.
        Alaska can also serve as a proving ground for advanced
    technologies. If hybrid microgrids, renewable integration, or
    small modular reactors can work in Alaska's extreme conditions,
    they can work anywhere. These innovations, supported by DOE
    partnerships, have the potential to benefit tribal and rural
    communities across the Country.
        In closing, I would underscore these points. Bulk fuel tank
    farms and microgrids are lifeline infrastructure in rural
    Alaska. Their condition directly determines whether communities
    can thrive, not just survive. Partnerships with DOE through the
    Office of Indian Energy, Arctic Energy Office and other DOE
    groups with regional collaboration are critical for moving
    projects forward from concept to completion, and building
    tribal capacity.
        And to meet the scale of need, we must expand beyond
    grants. Flexible financing and sustained technical assistance
    tailored to small tribal utilities are essential for long-term
    resilience.
        Energy is the foundation for survival, but it is also the
    foundation for prosperity. For Alaska's villages and for the
    Nation, investing in these systems strengthens our communities,
    our economy and our presence in the Arctic.
        Thank you for your leadership, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Fenton follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Jocelyn Fenton, Director of Programs, Denali
                                   Commission
        Thank you for your leadership and dedication to advancing energy
    security for rural and Tribal communities in Alaska and throughout
    Indian Country. My name is Jocelyn Fenton, and as Director of Programs
    at the Denali Commission, I am privileged to present the insights and
    experiences of our agency, our partners, and the Alaskans we serve.
        The Denali Commission was established by Congress in 1998 to
    address the infrastructure, energy, and economic development needs of
    rural Alaska--one of the most remote and logistically complex regions
    in the United States. With over 200 isolated communities not connected
    to a road system--many dependent on diesel microgrids and lacking
    access to basic water, sewer, or port infrastructure--the Commission
    has served as a federal partner for over 25 years.
        Through flexible authorities, a collaborative governance structure
    co-chaired by the Governor of Alaska, partnerships with Alaska Native
    communities, local and municipal governments, tribal consortiums, and
    place-based approach, the Denali Commission has supported federal
    investments that impact rural American communities otherwise out of
    reach. Over the years, the Commission has provided more than $2 billion
    to support core infrastructure such as clinics, energy systems, and
    waterfront facilities--while also evolving to address emerging
    challenges including protecting existing infrastructure from Alaska's
    extreme conditions to supporting sanitation backhaul, victim services,
    and broadband readiness by enabling local entities to pursue larger-
    scale investments.
        In addition to Federal appropriations, the Denali Commission
    receives annual transfers from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
    (OSLTF) on the interest from the investment of the Trans-Alaska
    Pipeline Liability Fund as well as transfers directly from other
    agencies and through congressionally directed spending.
        In alignment with Presidential Executive Orders Unleashing Alaska's
    Extraordinary Resource Potential, Unleashing American Energy, Declaring
    a National Energy Emergency, and Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor
    Technologies for National Security, our efforts are guided by national
    priorities and strengthened by the partnerships that make real change
    possible in Alaska's rural and Tribal communities.
    The Urgency and Uniqueness of Rural Alaska
        Rural Alaska is composed of approximately 200 small, isolated
    villages spread across 395,000 square miles of remote, rugged
    wilderness that includes wandering rivers and eroding coastlines. These
    communities, predominantly Alaska Native, are characterized by their
    traditional subsistence lifestyles, small size, economic hardship, and
    their reliance on a fragile, islanded infrastructure system. Most
    villages--the average size of which is less than 500 people--are not
    connected by road or electric transmission lines and are accessible
    only by air or water. Winter in these areas brings months of prolonged
    darkness and extreme cold, further intensifying the challenges of daily
    life. Population density in rural Alaska is just 0.2 people per square
    mile, compared to the national average of 98.
        Each village depends on its own local infrastructure to generate
    electricity, store and distribute fuel, provide clean water, and manage
    waste. Central to this infrastructure are bulk fuel tank farms--storage
    facilities that hold the diesel and gasoline required for electricity
    generation, heating, and transportation. These tank farms are the
    linchpin of village survival, yet they are aging, vulnerable, and
    increasingly at risk.
        There are few jobs in the villages, cash is chronically limited at
    both the household and institutional levels, and costs for all goods
    and services are significantly higher than the national average due to
    the combination of costly transportation logistics to these remote
    locations, small population sizes, and few opportunities for economies
    of scale. The limited cash flow of bulk fuel storage owning and
    operating entities within Alaska villages means there's very little
    local funding for tank farm projects. Most, if not all, of the funding
    needed to fortify facilities and protect communities is expected to be
    federal or state, and that funding has been decreasing. Meanwhile, the
    condition of existing facilities is deteriorating faster than the rate
    that others are repaired or rebuilt.
        The village power system is generally made up of a diesel
    powerhouse, sometimes the integration of power from locally available
    renewable sources, above ground distribution lines, and a bulk fuel
    tank farm which stores seasonally delivered fuel not just for
    generating power but also for heating buildings and for transportation.
    It is imperative that federal agencies begin to consider tank farms a
    component of the community power system in rural Alaska. Electricity in
    rural Alaska is generated locally through isolated microgrids, usually
    powered by diesel generators. These same fuels heat homes and
    businesses and power the vehicles essential for subsistence activities,
    including boats, snowmachines, and all-terrain vehicles. Given the high
    transportation costs and limited delivery windows due to seasonal
    conditions, fuel must be delivered in bulk and stored safely onsite.
    Without secure and code-compliant fuel storage, communities face
    existential threats to health, safety, and economic viability.
        A 2016 study by the Institute of Social and Economic Research found
    that public investments in tank farms saved more than $2.00 per gallon
    on fuel in some communities. Despite these benefits, the cost burden
    remains staggering. According to the Alaska Village Electric
    Cooperative, rural households spend about 27 percent of their annual
    income on energy--nearly four times more than urban households.
        There are roughly 400 bulk fuel tank farms across rural Alaska,
    operated by electric utilities, fuel distributors, and institutions
    like schools. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) estimates that more
    than $1 billion is needed to address deficiencies across the system,
    ranging from minor maintenance and improvements (M&I) to full-scale
    rebuilds (Bulk Fuel Upgrades or BFUs). This growing backlog stems from
    aging infrastructure, insufficient operational and administrative
    practices, and environmental challenges like erosion, flooding, and
    permafrost degradation. Decades of limited public investment and
    chronically constrained cash flow among facility owners have compounded
    the problem--creating a snowball effect where the funding needed to
    build, repair, and maintain safe, code-compliant fuel storage far
    exceeds the funding available.
        Compounding the issue, many tank farms were never built to modern
    standards. In the 1960s, tanks were delivered as part of Bureau of
    Indian Affairs school construction projects. In the 1990s, the U.S.
    Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency identified
    widespread environmental and safety hazards due to aged, non-code-
    compliant infrastructure. The result was an urgent call for action, and
    for several years around 2000 there was a significant increase in
    federal funding for bulk fuel upgrade projects, managed primarily by
    Alaska Energy Authority and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. The
    high levels of funding did not persist, however. Despite well over $300
    million invested by federal and state partners over the last three
    decades, less than half of rural Alaska's tank farms have been
    improved--and many of those are now aging out of their service life.
    The average age of a rural tank farm is 40 years, well beyond the
    expected 20-30-year lifespan. Some villages still use 75-year-old
    tanks. The growing discrepancy between rising project costs and
    available funding points to the need for new solutions, including more
    accessible financing tools that effectively meet the challenging
    circumstances of bulk fuel facility operations and management.
        Similar to tank farm facilities, rural Alaska power systems are
    also facing a growing discrepancy between need and available funding.
    The Alaska Energy Authority estimates a statewide backlog of more than
    $400M to improve the power systems keeping the lights on and water
    pumping in the state's villages. When electricity goes out in a
    village, it doesn't just turn off the lights--it causes freezers full
    of subsistence foods to thaw and it causes the above ground pipes
    pumping fresh water in and waste out of homes to freeze, creating a
    cascade of public health and food security threats on top of expensive
    and time-consuming infrastructure fixes the community cannot afford.
        Diesel generation remains the backbone of energy reliability in
    rural Alaska, particularly during extreme conditions when other systems
    may be unavailable or unpredictable.
        However, the region's abundant land and significant water
    resources--including powerful river systems and geothermal sites--offer
    clear opportunities to evolve toward hybrid energy systems, such as
    pairing diesel with hydroelectric and geothermal generation. This
    multifaceted approach not only increases durability and efficiency but
    also opens new possibilities for economic development. For example, the
    innovative Greensparc data center in Cordova is powered by local
    hydro--highlighting the potential to leverage local energy assets for
    high-value activities like digital infrastructure. Harnessing the
    intersection of Alaska's natural resources and advanced energy
    technologies can position communities for greater resilience and create
    attractive conditions for investment in industries ranging from data
    services to food production--all while reducing long-term energy costs
    and fostering self-sufficiency.
        The average cost of electricity across rural Alaska villages is 47
    cents per kilowatt hour and encompasses a range of $1.50 down to 37
    cents. The average residential electricity cost in Alaska's much more
    populous Railbelt corridor is nearly 18 cents, and the national average
    is 16.2. \1\ As a result, rural households in Alaska spend roughly 27
    percent of their annual income on energy for power and heat, almost
    four times the state's urban average.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ akenergyauthority.org/Portals/0/Power Cost Equalization/FY22
    PCE Community Report.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Upgrading and maintaining code-compliant, adequately sized bulk
    fuel tank farms is one of the most effective strategies to keep costs
    as low as possible and improve energy reliability. These facilities
    enable communities to purchase and store heating oil and diesel in bulk
    by barge during short seasonal windows, rather than relying on costly,
    year-round air shipments. Critically, bulk fuel storage remains the
    backbone of energy reliability--even for communities with renewable
    energy--ensuring backup and stability during harsh weather or supply
    interruptions. Innovative adaptations can make these systems more
    efficient, like modifying marine engines for local powerhouses because
    they produce both electricity and usable heat. That recovered ``waste''
    heat warms schools, water treatment plants, and community washaterias.
        Energy ties directly to all other aspects of village life: building
    heat, water and sewer (which can account for as much as 30-40 percent
    of community energy demand), transportation (including for subsistence
    hunting, fishing, and gathering activities), and communication. Without
    reliable power, none of these other systems can function. And without
    continued public investment in bulk fuel infrastructure, these costs
    would be even higher--a 2016 study found that such investments can save
    communities more than $2.00 per gallon in fuel costs. \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ 2016_10_26-TrueCostElectricityFuelRuralAK.pdf (iseralaska.org)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Recent Executive Orders underscore the urgent need for robust
    investment in critical energy infrastructure, including highlighting
    the role of advanced reactors in meeting the country's national,
    energy, and economic security. This has direct relevance for Department
    of Defense or Department of Energy application in Alaska, where the
    state is uniquely positioned as proving grounds for small modular and
    micro nuclear technologies given its many areas of energy isolation and
    extreme conditions.
        Grant funding alone is not enough; improved public financing tools
    and flexible eligibility criteria are vital to meeting the unique
    economic and logistical challenges of rural Alaska. Recognizing bulk
    fuel tank farms and power generation facilities as core components of
    community energy systems across federal programs will help address
    deferred maintenance and support resilient growth.
        Strategic energy infrastructure investment not only protects
    communities during emergencies but also enables further resource
    development, economic opportunity, and innovation. Alaska Native
    communities, long accustomed to remote conditions and scarce resources,
    have always embodied ingenuity and adaptability--often finding ways to
    ``make it work'' when faced with necessity. By modernizing and
    coordinating grant, loan, and technical assistance programs, Alaska's
    remote communities can remain models of resilience and self-reliance,
    advancing both local and national energy security.
    Innovation in Investments
        Efforts to enhance power generation, fuel supply chain resilience,
    and infrastructure access are instrumental in improving energy security
    and reliability for Alaska's communities. Numerous studies--including
    work by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Indian Energy, the
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and independent assessments such
    as GAO-25-107441--demonstrate how targeted energy investments in remote
    and tribal regions can improve reliability, lower costs, and stimulate
    local economic development. Similarly, expanded environmental review,
    planning, and efforts to increase access in various regions in Alaska
    can open up tribal community's subsistence and other natural resources
    while reducing transportation costs.
        Over the past two decades, more than $250 million has been invested
    in rural bulk fuel tank farm upgrades across Alaska. Despite this
    progress, aging infrastructure and deferred maintenance continue to
    pose significant challenges, with many villages facing persistent needs
    for repairs or full-scale rebuilds. Environmental factors--including
    erosion, flooding, and permafrost degradation--further increase the
    complexity and urgency of these upgrades.
        Recently, a master contract approach was launched to address rural
    bulk fuel needs, enabling more efficient coordination of resources and
    project delivery. Integrating improvements across multiple sectors-
    such as transportation and energy--offers further efficiencies and
    helps address interconnected challenges like barge landing conditions
    and fill line reliability.
        Current partnerships with government, industry, and local
    communities are facilitating advances in distributed energy resources
    and resilient infrastructure. Technology transfer initiatives,
    including public-private accelerators and deployment of battery storage
    and miniaturization innovations, are helping to bring solutions
    tailored for off-grid and cold climate environments. Regional
    collaboration--connecting Alaska tribes with other northern states
    (Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Washington)--continues to
    provide opportunities for knowledge sharing and development of best
    practices in dual-use and expeditionary energy systems.
    Learning from Partnerships
        Recent progress in Alaska's energy landscape demonstrates the value
    of robust federal partnerships, especially through Department of Energy
    (DOE) initiatives tailored to rural and remote communities. Locally
    based technical assistance funded by the DOE Office of Indian Energy
    ensures that solutions are designed to meet Alaska's unique climate and
    logistical challenges. These efforts help projects move swiftly from
    concept to construction--supporting financial planning and unlocking
    additional streams of funding for energy infrastructure.
        DOE's Arctic Energy Office has expanded regional leadership in
    energy resilience by funding the Arctic Energy Ambassadors program.
    This initiative empowers experienced local practitioners to advance
    energy security and foster clean energy transitions, improving outcomes
    for communities statewide.
        Complementing DOE programs, recent interagency coordination has
    allowed for the rapid deployment of $100 million in EPA funds to
    Alaska's highest-need rural bulk fuel facilities, paired with Trans
    Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) interest revenue for critical
    upgrades. The highlight here was that diesel infrastructure was
    woefully omitted from most programs over the last five years but serves
    as a backbone to energy infrastructure in Alaska. Similarly, the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs (BIA) Division of Energy and Mineral Development has
    paved the way for facility improvements in highly vulnerable locations,
    such as the Scammon Bay tank farm, following major weather events like
    the Merbok storm.
        Together, these coordinated federal investments and innovative
    technical support models offer scalable solutions for improving energy
    reliability, infrastructure resilience, and emergency preparedness in
    Alaska's most challenging environments.
    Gaps and Needs
        Despite ongoing progress, several critical gaps remain in Alaska's
    energy and infrastructure landscape that warrant committee
    consideration. These include limited access to financing tools for
    small tribal utilities, insufficient technical assistance resources,
    and inadequate capital available for urgent infrastructure upgrades--
    including bulk fuel tank farms and diesel power systems. The absence of
    simple, flexible loan mechanisms, robust technical assistance, and
    integrated regional energy planning support--including new
    opportunities related to data centers and LNG--continues to impact
    project delivery and sustainability.
        A key barrier is the inconsistent treatment of bulk fuel tank farm
    facilities in federal funding programs. For financing and eligibility
    purposes, bulk fuel tank farms should be recognized as a central
    component of rural Alaska community energy systems across all
    agencies--ensuring they are eligible for support alongside other
    critical energy infrastructure.
        Other eligibility barriers persist, such as NEPA requirements for
    bulk fuel and power system upgrades and limited recognition of bulk
    fuel facilities as core rural energy infrastructure within federal
    funding programs. Additionally, current loan programs may not be
    structured or scaled for small, remote tribal and rural communities.
    Some federal loan programs remain underutilized despite potential
    opportunities for efficient deployment through entities with
    established local expertise and streamlined processes.
        Technical assistance programs--including support for energy project
    development, circuit rider models, and regional ambassador programs--
    remain essential but often lack sufficient funding to support financial
    planning and governance. Long-term projects such as Alaska LNG have
    potential for affordable energy but face ongoing challenges in credit
    allocation and sustained support.
    Closing
        Energy security in rural Alaska is vital; it is a basic need for
    survival, but Alaska's villages need more than survival. Energy
    security is the foundation of economic prosperity, something critically
    lacking in most of these communities, and desperately in need of
    additional investments--both grants and loans--not just for the sake of
    these communities on the edge of America, but for the nation to ensure
    a strong Arctic presence. Thank you for your leadership and for
    recognizing the vital importance of meeting these needs now.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Fenton.
        Thank you all for your testimony. As I was listening to
    your remarks, Ms. Fenton, you are talking about bulk fuel, and
    it seems kind of like yesterday's solution, right, storing fuel
    in a tank, waiting for it to meet the need so that you can
    power your diesel generator for your community. That is old
    stuff. Our reality is that we still are relying on old stuff in
    many of our communities.
        I mentioned all that Igiugig is doing in pioneering with
    the RivGen system, and that little hydropower is amazing, what
    Kawarak is looking to do with geothermal. So there is a great
    deal that goes on with innovation and pioneering. But for so
    many, it is still, the fuel that you consume is still your
    principal way to power your generator and to keep warm.
        When I visited many of the coastal communities following
    Typhoon Merbok, it was really impactful to be with families
    when they were crying, not over the loss of their home, but
    over the loss of the contents of their freezers that they had
    spent all year fishing and harvesting, whether it was moose or
    whether it was caribou or it was the berries in the freezer.
    That was where the real tragedy was.
        So when we think about the reliability and what it means,
    every little increment that you can reduce your costs, because
    you can purchase in greater bulk is appreciated. The value that
    you pointed out there to DOE with the technical and financial
    assistance that has allowed for these levels of security to be
    built are important on so many different levels.
        I want to ask hopefully a very quick question of you, Mr.
    Conrad, to start here. Dr. Ortiz has outlined the
    recommendations from the report that was just recently
    released. If this hearing was greater down the line, I might
    say what of these recommendations have you put in place, but I
    recognize that it is all relatively fresh.
        But the statement was made that DOE agrees to the
    recommendations and I am assuming that that is a correct
    statement and that within the Department of Energy you are
    looking to implement those recommendations.
        Mr. Conrad. Yes, Chair Murkowski, that is correct. The
    Department and the Loan Program Office have said that they
    agree with all the recommendations and they are beginning
    implementation immediately.
        The Chairman. Good. I want to ask you about the Indian
    Country Energy and Infrastructure Working Group, ICEIWG. This
    was previously facilitated by the National Conference of State
    Legislatures. We understand that contract was cancelled in
    March of this year.
        Can you share specifically what DOE-IE is doing to keep
    ICEIWG operating? I am told that it has been of good benefit to
    tribal citizens. So I want to know kind of your commitment to
    keeping these lines of communication open, regarding ICEIWG,
    the annual grantee convenings, which again allow for a lot of
    sharing that goes on.
        Mr. Conrad. Thank you for the question, Senator. We do
    support Indian Country Energy Infrastructure Working Group, and
    we have taken on operations of it internally, with Federal
    staff for the moment.
        The Chairman. Do you have the resources, the staff and the
    funding?
        Mr. Conrad. We currently do have the staff and the funding.
    We would like to return to more the contractor support, because
    of the logistics of handling the meetings when they are in
    person. It is quite burdensome, the scheduling and the travel
    logistics.
        The Chairman. So you see that coming up as a----
        Mr. Conrad. A request for approval, yes.
        The Chairman. All right.
        Dr. Ortiz, I want to talk a little bit more about this
    public finance pathway. You mentioned LPO is working on it. It
    makes good sense; it allows tribes to utilize other revenues
    that they may have to repay their debts. It seems like a
    natural way to increase demand for the program without
    increasing risk to the Federal Government for default there.
        Can you share more about what other Federal loan programs
    may already utilize this pathway, what benefits you see it can
    provide to prospective borrowers? And at the same time you are
    talking about that, highlight any increased risks for the
    Federal Government that you might see in utilizing this
    proposal.
        Dr. Ortiz. Yes. The public financing pathway that LPO has
    proposed definitely has a lot of potential. It is similar to
    some programs run by Rural Development and Rural Utility
    Service at USDA. And it allows bringing part of the work of due
    diligence or the underwriting process in the house.
        So it has the potential to reduce the review time for
    energy projects by kind of scaling the level of review to the
    risk and size of the project. And also to reduce cost by
    reducing reliance on costly consultants.
        That said, in order to implement it, energy is going to
    have to invest in dedicated and trained staff who really know
    how to leverage public finance alternatives.
        The Chairman. Are you saying they don't exist currently
    within the office?
        Dr. Ortiz. They do not currently exist.
        In terms of the risk to the Federal Government, it is not
    something we looked at specifically in our report. But it is
    worth thinking a little bit about the risk potentially to some
    tribal governments in terms of the Department of Energy expects
    the public finance pathway to work by having projects be backed
    by tribal governments. This is essential; it recognizes tribal
    sovereignty; it is very important.
        Though at the same time, many tribal governments do not
    have the kinds of revenue sources that allow them a lot of
    discretion in where to take funds from. So because they don't
    have the ability to levy municipal bonds or to increase tax
    revenue as easily as other States and localities might, it
    could pose some sort of potential risk to some tribes and their
    government operating revenue.
        The Chairman. Thank you for that.
        Senator Schatz?
        Senator Schatz. Thank you, Chair. Thank you to all of you
    for testifying.
        Mr. Conrad, the President's budget in 2026 recommends that
    the Office of Indian Energy not fund wind, solar, and battery
    projects. As we all know, that hasn't been enacted yet. So I
    guess my first question is, are you applying some sort of
    prohibition retroactively to the money that you still have in
    2025 funds?
        Mr. Conrad. No, sir.
        Senator Schatz. Okay. So have you approved any wind, solar,
    or battery projects?
        Mr. Conrad. With 2025 funds?
        Senator Schatz. Yes. With any appropriated funds.
        Mr. Conrad. Yes, we have.
        Senator Schatz. Could you tell me what they are?
        Mr. Conrad. This calendar year?
        Senator Schatz. Sure.
        Mr. Conrad. We haven't had the selections and awards this
    year. They have been on pause. But in prior years, yes.
        Senator Schatz. I know that.
        Mr. Conrad. So we have been under the continuing resolution
    and had our spend plan approved over the summer. So we have had
    increments of funds unable to offer a full notice of funding
    opportunity with the 2025 funds. So we are looking forward to
    using the 2025 funds in the future, once we have approval to
    develop that notice of funding opportunity.
        Senator Schatz. Do you think the existing statute, which is
    to say the continuing resolution, gives you the authority to
    have a preference for projects--let me say it another way.
        Do you think the continuing resolution enables you to
    discriminate against wind, solar, or batteries?
        Mr. Conrad. It remains as it always has been. And we
    continue to work with tribes on any project that they propose
    or request technical assistance on.
        Senator Schatz. How many grant applications to your office
    have been for wind, solar, and batteries in this calendar year
    or this fiscal year, however you want to answer that question?
        Mr. Conrad. I would have to get back to you with the exact
    number on that. But overall, historically it is a very high
    number.
        Senator Schatz. Yes. So what I am hearing is, and I would
    like to confirm this, but what I am hearing is that DOE is
    holding up $30 million of OIE's Fiscal Year 2025 funding, about
    half of its budget. And just for context here, I remember one
    of the first interactions I had with Senator Mullin, we had an
    energy roundtable, and he was a little surprised at the extent
    to which I was open-minded to energy sovereignty, even though I
    clearly have a preference for wind, solar, and battery. But I
    do believe in self-determination, and I don't think every
    fossil fuel project is inappropriate. And that was sort of the
    beginning of a beautiful if somewhat uneven friendship.
        So I would like to be reassured that although the Trump
    administration and Republicans generally have a preference for
    non-renewable energy, that you are not excluding those. Because
    the truth is, right, the truth is coal doesn't pencil. Gas
    sometimes pencils, but oftentimes you are in a line to get a
    combined cycle turbine, right?
        And so you are talking about a five, and geothermal is
    eight, ten, twelve years, nuclear even longer. So the cheapest
    and most immediate energy that you can generate, most of the
    time, not in Alaska, I understand, but most of the time in the
    continental United States is wind and solar. And I would just
    like to be reassured that if we are into energy abundance and
    energy dominance, what we mean by that is not just certain
    categories of energy.
        Because I have stretched politically to say, there are
    instances in which, look, even on the island of Oahu, we are
    still lighting low-sulfur fuel oil on fire for electrons. I
    don't love that, but we don't have an alternative in the short
    run as we ramp up our clean energy.
        So, could you please reassure me that you are going to look
    at this from the standpoint of what is going to get the maximum
    number of electrons on the grid, what is going to get the
    maximum dollar amount into tribal governments' hands as opposed
    to what is going to effectuate one political party or the
    other's preferences?
        Mr. Conrad. Absolutely. We are focused on using the
    taxpayer resources to promote reliable, affordable and secure
    energy resources. And we analyze projects based on a robust
    analysis. We are not approving projects that raise energy costs
    for tribes.
        Senator Schatz. Final question, with your indulgence,
    Chair.
        Ms. Ortiz, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act rescinded $75
    million in credit subsidy funds. Does LPO have any remaining
    credits?
        Dr. Ortiz. Yes. Our understanding is that LPO has $10.5
    million in credit subsidy funds, which is nowhere enough to
    cover the $19.9 billion in estimated loan authority it has.
        Senator Schatz. Okay. Mr. Conrad, can we follow up on, I
    know it is not a lot of money, but it is still money. Can we
    follow up on that $10.5 million to make sure it gets put to
    good use pursuant to the statute?
        Mr. Conrad. Yes.
        Senator Schatz. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Schatz.
        Just for the record here, when we have these energy loan
    programs, we all talk about technology-neutral, right, that it
    is going to be whatever your source is, whether it is wind or
    solar or fossil-based, whether it is coal, whether it is
    natural gas.
        And so that is the expectation here. That is, from this
    Senator, is that it is technology-neutral. And in my State,
    yes, you are right, we do have a lot of the all-of-the-above.
    But the projects that we can get online quickest and quite
    honestly, cheapest right now, are wind and solar. And we do
    have several of these that are in that pause category, along
    with some battery storage.
        So even those of us that come from fossil-rich plafces are
    waiting for some of these important technologies. Everything
    that we can do to reduce those costs that these communities are
    paying, and to offset then, bulk fuel. Because that is what we
    have right now.
        I don't have a list on who is next. Senator Smith, thank
    you.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. TINA SMITH,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

        Senator Smith. Thank you so much, Chair Murkowski and Vice
    Chair Schatz, and thanks to all of you for being here today.
        Mr. Conrad, I would like to follow up I think a bit on what
    Senator Murkowski and Senator Schatz were just talking about.
    This question has to do with how the Trump administration is
    approaching its government-to-government relationships with
    tribal nations.
        A few weeks ago my staff met with your team to understand
    the office's work with Minnesota tribes. During this meeting,
    we were probing into how the department has conducted any
    tribal consultation on the administration's decision not to
    provide any financial or technical assistance for work on solar
    or wind or battery projects. And what we heard then was that
    that tribal consultation hadn't occurred.
        So I wanted to just follow up with you on this. Can you
    address this? Can you talk about what your plan is to hold
    tribal consultation on this policy to basically pause projects
    that are wind or solar and so forth?
        Mr. Conrad. Sure. Right now, that restriction is in the
    budget request. So it is a negotiation between the
    administration and Congress right now.
        If that becomes law, we are obligated to implement the law
    and follow the direction of the administration, of course. And
    looking at what our strategic plan or how we are going to
    implement that, those options, what would be right for
    consultation, rather than consult on something that we don't
    have an ability or we are not making the decision on as our
    office.
        Senator Smith. So just to be clear, this pause is in
    effect, is that right? You are not making grants; you are not
    proceeding with projects based on the direction of the Trump
    administration?
        Mr. Conrad. But not based on the, I mean, for the Office of
    Indian Energy, we have base appropriations that are not subject
    to the larger reviews that are going on under the IHAA or OIRA
    programs. So our funds and our programs, we are paused under
    review, and as we move forward and bring things up for
    approval, we are getting things approved and getting things
    back to normal as best we can.
        Senator Smith. So, what my concern is is that projects are
    paused right now and that is having a big impact on Indian
    Country projects that were in process and are now paused. And
    what I would expect, based on what the law is, that if you are
    going to take a policy action like that that has direct impact
    on tribal nations, that the legal requirement to do
    consultation would click into place, that that legal
    requirement is sort of underlying to the work that IE does.
        I mean, I think that there is, as I understand it, the
    statutory authorization for IE ``requires'' that it works in
    accordance with Federal policies promoting Indian self-
    determination, which we all understand means specifically
    tribal and formal consultation.
        So I would just ask you to maybe give this additional
    thought and then let me know the kind of consultation that is
    required when decisions the Federal Government makes that have
    specific impacts on tribal nations, that that consultation is
    occurring.
        Mr. Conrad. Definitely, and thank you for the question. We
    also have the Office of Indian Energy continue to engage with
    tribes and we have held at least one of our tribal leader
    working group meetings. I know that the other two tribal leader
    working groups, one with fossil energy and one with nuclear
    energy, they have continued to have meetings as well.
        So there is engagement that is going on, just not that
    formal national consultation.
        Senator Smith. I know that you and I both understand the
    difference between engagement and communication and
    collaboration and the formal consultation that is the
    understanding of what that direct government-to-government
    relationship means.
        Mr. Conrad. Yes. I hear you.
        Senator Smith. I am sure you do, and I appreciate that.
        I have one more question, but what I am going to do is
    submit that question for the record in the interest of time.
    This question has to do with the excellent report that Ms.
    Ortiz and the GAO has produced at the request of Senator
    Murkowski and Senator Schatz, looking at the many, many
    barriers that are there for the Tribal Energy Financing
    Program. I specifically have some follow-up questions for you,
    Mr. Conrad, around the issues of capacity-building and what
    more needs to be done there.
        Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Daines?

                    STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

        Senator Daines. Chair Murkowski, thank you.
        To look at the purpose of today's hearing is to discuss
    unleashing Indian energy, it is a great topic. We have been
    talking about this for a lot of years in Montana. It is very
    much in line with President Trump's goal of securing American
    energy dominance.
        We need more reliable, affordable energy. I remember the
    days kind of before AI when you would meet with the great tech
    leaders in this Country. The first thing they would talk about
    was that one of their constraints was not enough skilled
    software developers or programmers to meet the needs of these
    growing businesses.
        Today, the number one issue they bring up is energy, and
    not enough energy. No matter whose numbers you look at, it is
    somewhere between 50 and 80 percent more power we are going to
    need in the next 20 years than we currently use today.
        But reliable, affordable energy is critical, not only just
    to meet the needs of the economy going forward, but for
    economic development, particularly in some of the rural
    communities in Montana, on our seven Indian reservations. As we
    say in Montana, it is a beautiful State, grateful I got to grow
    up there and still call it home.
        But oftentimes, you speak with Montanans who will say, we
    have poverty with a view. We have to do better here in economic
    development. And by enhancing an all-of-the-above energy
    portfolio, centered on baseload power sources, that can mean
    the difference between life and death during some of our bitter
    winter months.
        Montana has seen a number of success stories coming from
    important collaborations between tribes and the Department of
    Energy. The Office of Indian Energy was helpful in providing
    the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes with funding and
    technical assistance to acquire operatorship of the SKQ Dam.
    This helped the Tribe create a number of very good high-paying
    jobs, generating affordable hydroelectric renewable power to
    sell on the open market.
        The Crow Tribe in southeastern Montana are also trying to
    expand their energy capacity. Montana sits on the largest
    recoverable coal reserves in the Nation. We are famous for a
    lot of things, great skiing, wonderful streams to fly fish on,
    but some folks don't recognize that Montana has more
    recoverable coal than any State in the United States.
        There is also large tracts on the Crow Reservation. My good
    friend, Chairman Frank White Clay of the Crow Tribe, will tell
    you that coal mining is a crucial economic driver for his
    tribe. The Crow Revenue Act would authorize a land swap to
    allow the Tribe to control subsurface holdings within their
    reservation. This would put the Tribe in the driver's seat to
    make decisions about their own land, very important word called
    sovereignty, and provide a key revenue stream to promote
    economic development.
        The Crow are also eager to develop hydropower capabilities
    on the Yellow Tail Afterbay Dam. The Crow Tribe Water
    Settlement Amendments Act extends the hydropower authorization
    with the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure the Tribe has enough
    time to complete the project. This is key, because time is
    running out.
        First question is for Deputy Director Conrad. Would you
    agree that increasing energy revenues, no matter the source, is
    important for tribes to both bolster their economies and
    enhance tribal sovereignty?
        Mr. Conrad. Thank you, Senator, for the question, and yes,
    of course. We have always talked about energy resources as
    solely energy generation from tribal lands. But there is also
    revenue streams from participating in the broader energy
    economy as well.
        So, technologies that can be proven on a reservation with
    technology that they can export and work and create a revenue
    stream is another great, viable option as well. So I am excited
    to work with them and find out more how we can help.
        Senator Daines. I will follow up on that. Thank you.
        Would you agree and support our efforts that Congress
    should pass legislation that would allow tribes to develop
    their own resources, whether it is coal or hydropower?
        Mr. Conrad. Absolutely. That tenet of tribal sovereignty
    and energy development, tribal energy sovereignty, that they
    have the right to develop what they have for the benefit of
    their people, revenue that they need to provide support for
    those programs.
        Senator Daines. Thank you. Chair Murkowski, and Vice
    Chairman Schatz, it is time we moved forward on that Crow
    Revenue and Crow Water Act. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        Senator Cortez Masto?

               STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you
    all for being here.
        You are going to find pretty much consistent agreement
    here, that for our tribal reservations and Indian Country, we
    need to do all we can. And the technology does need to be
    neutral, and it also is based on geography, what is available.
        I will say this, the Department of Energy, and this has
    been my frustration since I have been on this Committee, and I
    have been on this Committee since I have been in the Senate in
    2017. And we get these incredible, Dr. Ortiz, thank you for
    your report, facts about Indian Country. Indian Country is
    always left behind, under-resourced, understaffed, lack of
    tribal consultation.
        And then we work together to do everything we can to change
    that. We introduce legislation, we appropriate, we want to make
    sure there is that consultation, there is the technical
    assistance. And then it seems like politics always gets in the
    way and there is somebody in a political, who makes a political
    decision to take it away. It is frustrating. I think it is
    frustrating to all of us, no matter who the administration is.
    I think that is why you see many of us fighting to right this
    ship and do right by Indian Country.
        So this is my frustration. The Department of Energy, this
    is their Congressional report, has reported that vast majority
    of unelectrified homes in the United States are located on
    tribal land. That is true in my State. I invite you, Mr.
    Conrad, come to Nevada. I have been to Indian Country in my
    State. Some of them do not have water, let alone electricity.
        I will say, many, because of our geography, and our
    opportunities that are provided now because of the work that we
    have done, have the opportunity to have electricity, a
    different source of electricity. Most of it is going to be
    renewable. We have geothermal, we have solar, we have
    batteries. And there has been a strong investment for so many
    tribal communities, so that they can have that opportunity.
        And now here we are again, the politics getting in the way
    and taking away those opportunities for folks to have just
    simple electricity in their homes that we all take for granted,
    quite honestly in some of our areas.
        So that is my frustration. I understand your challenges and
    your constraints. But I hope you are true to your word, and I
    look forward to working with you, that this technology should
    be neutral. That no matter where you live in Indian Country,
    your source of electricity should be available to you and the
    Federal support for it should be available to you to utilize,
    based on what we received from this report.
        So, solar and wind, I don't like this idea of playing
    favorites. That is not what this is about. So I am looking
    forward to working with you and I have listened to you and I
    hope we have an opportunity to work together.
        Dr. Ortiz, I don't have much time but I do want to ask you
    a question because there has been a number of programs that
    have been zeroed out after we have appropriated some of the
    funds for them. One of them was the Solar for All program,
    which was designed to help low-income and disadvantaged
    communities gain access to new and efficient energy
    technologies and lower electricity bills.
        The program was set to distribute $7 billion, $500 million
    of which had been obligated for six different tribal
    applicants. And just a few weeks ago, the Trump
    administration's EPA announced that they would be terminating
    that program, leaving grant recipients without the assistance
    they were promised.
        So as you have outlined in your report, how does this leave
    Indian Country? What is the ultimate impact here for Indian
    Country when these types of programs are taken away?
        Dr. Ortiz. Thank you for that question.
        I think in addition to the failure to meet the Nation's
    trust and treaty obligations, and really follow through for the
    people of Indian Country, it perpetuates the myth that you
    can't get anything done in Indian Country. We have tribes and
    consortia and TEDOs, who are doing so much work to come
    together, really leverage the kinds of power sources they have
    on their lands, elsewhere, other resources, bring that
    together. They spend years planning the process.
        They spend years investing in finance, responding to
    questions from agencies, and then when something like this
    happens, the deal falls apart, and it leaves people without
    power and it just perpetuates this myth. That should not be the
    case. There really is amazing potential for energy development
    in Indian Country.
        And one of the greatest benefits of this Tribal Energy
    Financing Program in particular was this technology-neutral
    aspect of it. It really allowed tribes to be in the driver's
    seat to determine what was best for their situation and their
    resources.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        I know my time is up. I do have a question for Ms. Fenton,
    if it is all right. Because I do think it is important; I
    appreciate the work that you have done and the collaboration
    and thinking outside the box. I think many of our, I know in
    Nevada, many of our tribal communities are in really rural
    frontier areas, and it requires them to figure out how to
    address some of these challenges.
        You talked about, in Alaska, being a model for some of
    these partnerships. Can you talk a little bit about some of
    those partnerships and what I can bring back to, at least
    Indian Country in Nevada, where they could look to see hey,
    this is a model, and it is something we should be looking at
    that we could possibly replicate or learn from?
        Ms. Fenton. Yes, and specifically, we are looking into what
    can be replicated. But just hearing about some of the
    hydropower and coal resources they have in Montana, we have
    really found that the technical assistance, getting out into
    communities, seeing their needs, understanding their unique
    circumstances for developing a project and also taking a
    challenge or an issue and supporting them to get that to a
    project.
        You can have an issue. It takes a lot of development to get
    into a fundable project, whether it is State, Federal funds,
    philanthropic funds, loan potential, adding to that capital
    stack. Having that hand-holding and technical assistance is
    crucial.
        So that is something that can be replicated, copy-pasted,
    to other States and tribal communities.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Can I ask, is your commission, is it
    State? Is it State-funded?
        Ms. Fenton. We are the regional commission for Alaska. We
    focus on just the State of Alaska.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        Ms. Fenton. But we are looking at technology transfers and
    seeing where we can partner with other communities and what-
    not. So I say that the technical assistance aspect, the
    partnering aspect, and there could be some potential on, Mr.
    Conrad and I discussed earlier today how the regionalization of
    this type of support can be very helpful. We have seen success
    in Alaska. Maybe we can have another coordinating body or some
    additional communication and coordination to focus on tribal
    infrastructure.
        We have areas in Alaska that have had more success because
    someone dedicated, or a group dedicated to a particular facet
    of infrastructure. So water and sewer, for example, and we have
    partners that are going into more of the energy and power
    realm. And then we have transportation groups.
        So coordinating, communicating some of the successes from
    that regional approach, giving that support to individual or
    smaller communities that need that backup. They may have staff
    turnover. They need subject matter expertise. When we have it
    in the regions or even in addition to having additional
    supplies or things, located in region, to take away, to add
    some slack in the line of the supply chain. Of course,
    especially in Alaska, whenever you are operating with short
    construction seasons and what-not.
        I think those are some things that can be helpful in other
    areas.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, all three, for
    being here.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. I think that is a good
    question just in terms of what kind of sharing and partnering
    is going on. Because as different as the regions may be, there
    is a lot of commonality of the challenges. So how we can get
    smarter by sharing information, and we have technology
    transfer, knowing the technical assistance that you receive
    from DOE, you not only learn a lot, but they also learn from
    what you are able to do on the ground as well.
        So instead of just keeping all that information, making
    sure that there is sharing of this in terms of what we can do
    more to enhance program deliverability, what you can be doing
    more. We all know that there is limited expertise out there. We
    hear that over and over and over again, that we don't have the
    sophisticated grant writers, we don't have those who are really
    well versed in permit applications.
        So how we can be collaborating more there I think is
    important.
        One of the questions that I wanted to direct to both Mr.
    Conrad and to Ms. Fenton is on the prospect for potential
    partnering in an area that doesn't necessarily relate to
    unleashing energy here. But when we are talking about housing,
    your house doesn't mean much other than just the roof over your
    head if we can't meet the energy needs, providing for water and
    sewer hookups, providing for power there.
        And we have seen play out in Alaska a pretty great
    partnership between the Denali Commission and the Alaska Native
    Tribal Health Consortium, working with the IE, the Indian
    Energy Office in providing technical assistance. It has been
    great. We appreciate that.
        There are a number of funding sources at the Department of
    Energy outside of the Office of Indian Energy that aim to
    address home electrification, the weatherization issues, some
    other housing-related needs. And again, you have technical and
    financial resources that we have heard great things about. The
    tribally designated housing authorities can't directly access
    them.
        I am hoping that we can have a follow-on conversation
    working with our staffs, your department, to talk about how we
    may be able to improve the efficiency of the distribution of
    these types of funds for housing support in places like Alaska
    and really across Indian Country, where we know that need is.
        So I am hopeful that you will have an open door on this
    aspect of what more can be done on the technical assistance
    side. And then, Ms. Fenton, if you can address possibly the
    role that Denali Commission could play in streamlining access
    to the funds to improve whether it is home electrification,
    energy efficiency within housing. Because it is kind of part
    and parcel to what we are talking about here today.
        Mr. Conrad. Absolutely. That is a very exciting
    opportunity, and we do have the technical assistance and an
    additional navigator service that can help guide people who are
    requesting the technical assistance to other DOE resources, as
    well as other Federal resources within the scope of what they
    are interested in.
        So we have dedicated staff to do that. We are looking
    forward to how we can be more innovative in effective delivery.
        The Chairman. Great. I like to hear that.
        Ms. Fenton?
        Ms. Fenton. You are absolutely right to connect energy
    systems with housing. We see the Denali Commission as being a
    tool to help bridge some of the Department of Energy's programs
    with Alaska's tribal housing authorities, with our broad
    authority that spans across siloed programs. We are not just
    energy, we are not just housing, we are not just water and
    sewer, we are not just transportation. We are all of the above
    when it comes to critical infrastructure in communities.
        Paired with our Section 311 transfer authority, that allows
    us to braid funding streams and put together that capital stack
    from both Federal, State and even private organizations. We
    could assist coordinating across some of these fragmented
    funding through the various offices, which we understand, it
    makes it hard for small housing entities to access.
        And I think if we were to serve as a coordinating partner
    similar to a HUD, Housing and Urban Development Office of
    Native American programs, we could potentially streamline some
    of that process, coordinate resources, and ensure that dollars
    are distributed strategically and effectively.
        Then, we are even in the midst of standing up a quarterly
    housing working group. These types of things, this type of
    coordinating that we do in Alaska helps see what projects are
    in the pipeline, what funding is available, and we try to pair
    it with funding opportunities to try to build that capital
    stack and make projects move forward.
        The Chairman. That is good.
        Dr. Ortiz, you kind of outlined in your report some of the
    barriers that are out there in using the Tribal Energy
    Financing Program. You have high and unpredictable costs of due
    diligence. You have mentioned that in your testimony here
    today.
        We have heard from some applicants, again, that DOE hires
    contractors without tribal expertise. So it just adds to the
    time that they have to spend on the due diligence and the cost
    for the applicant. This is all ahead of knowing whether or not
    they would be able to secure the loan or the loan guarantee.
        So you can see a scenario where people are going to be
    like, no, I heard from so and so, it was a bad experience, they
    were two years into the process, it cost them a lot of money,
    and look where they are.
        And then to the point that you made earlier in response to
    Senator Cortez Masto here is, you may be in a situation where
    you have done it all and now the administration has everything
    put on pause. All the money that you have spent, all the years.
        So we are not doing a lot to kind of sell the benefits of
    the program, right? What do we do about that? Obviously, if we
    have these reforms that are made that the report suggests that
    is going to be important.
        But there are some real deterrents that have been
    legitimate deterrents out there. And now you have stacked on
    top of that just kind of the word on the street, if you will,
    that it is a tough process, it is expensive, and you don't get
    where we need to go.
        Do you have any good ideas on what can be done to kind of
    rebuild the credibility here of the program, so that you are
    going to have additional entrants?
        Dr. Ortiz. I think there are definitely two major aspects.
    There is the thought of, if we are going to really revamp and
    revise the existing program, DOE needs to implement GAO's
    recommendations. They need to think about due diligence costs,
    consider how to implement a public finance pathway in a way
    that really doesn't place additional risk on applicants, but
    streamlines the process.
        They need to rethink how they review applications to scale
    that review for the risk level and size of the loans. And then
    Congress would need to appropriate enough for the credit
    subsidy and the cost of administering the program. That is if
    the program stays as it is. That would promote its major
    benefits of having this technology-neutral tribally driven
    sense where tribes are really able to leverage what they have
    toward economic development through saved electricity costs,
    revenue generation and job creation.
        There is another set of questions around whether or not
    this program needs to be in its current form. And really, a
    couple of questions that came out in our report are who is
    administering the program. By placing the program within the
    Loan Programs Office, it was put along with other programs that
    serve billions of dollars for their projects, that are
    addressing or using cutting edge technologies. And that is not
    what most of these Tribal Energy Financing Program applications
    are for.
        There is also the question of what kind of need the program
    is trying to meet. One benefit of the program is that it is
    remarkably flexible. The applications that have been submitted
    have gone from $23 million to over $8 billion. That is
    wonderful. But does it make sense to have one program that is
    really including some of those really massive projects in with
    those smaller projects that might be clearly tested technology,
    easy to roll out, quick to implement?
        So those philosophical question of like, where is it going
    to be? We really need tribal expertise. We really need people
    who understand tribal energy development, understand how tribal
    governments work, have cultural competence and really
    understand tribal revenue generation and how tribes use
    enterprises to support their operating costs.
        That office needs to be competent in those skills, wherever
    this program lays. And currently, as our report pointed out,
    that is not a strength of the Loan Programs Office. That is a
    strength of the Office of Indian Energy.
        But again, thinking about the goals of the program, is it
    really about serving everyone, or is it better to focus the
    program on, for example, what we heard from one expert, is the
    missing middle of programs, those projects from around $25
    million to around $100 million? That would meet a lot of need
    that is in Indian Country.
        The Chairman. Well, I really appreciate what you have
    shared there toward the end. I think oftentimes what happens
    around here and Senator, you mentioned, you have been on the
    Committee now, your full tenure here in the Senate, and
    oftentimes it is like hit replay. We have different people in
    front of us giving the testimony, but it is basically the same
    story. And it is because we just try to do a tweak here to the
    program, or maybe expand your authorization, so instead of $20
    million it is $40 million.
        But we really haven't addressed the real operational
    efficiencies within the programs themselves. We don't do that
    level of oversight. That is what this is, is an oversight
    hearing. So I really appreciate that you have ventured out and
    gone beyond just saying, this is what you might want to
    recommend for existing programs.
        But maybe we need to revisit, to relook at this. In my
    head, I am thinking about what the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission is dealing with on the nuclear side. And there is a
    big difference between permitting and siting Three Mile Island
    versus what we are talking about with small modular reactors.
    Yet it is kind of the same thing. We are going to put you in
    the same bucket and it is going to be just awful.
        We are doing that with hydro relicensing, where it doesn't
    make any difference if you are the Hoover Dam or if you are a
    small dam in Southeast Alaska. So I think you are challenging
    us to look perhaps a little bit differently at how we might
    structure this, so that we really do get that value.
        Let me ask you, Jocelyn, you mentioned a couple of times in
    your testimony that the funding that is available, the grant
    funding that we are providing, particularly when it comes to
    the bulk fuel needs, isn't enough to address the capital needs,
    much less the operation and the maintenance. So you have cited
    the need for improved public financing tools, greater
    flexibility.
        What opportunities do you see within DOE's Tribal Energy
    Financing Program? What do you think it is going to take to
    make it work better in Alaska? And how can we kind of address
    the underutilization that we see of the Tribal Energy Financing
    Program?
        Ms. Fenton. Right. To start with, we see that bundled
    projects and aggregating projects to get some of those
    efficiencies is key. So bundling a bulk fuel project, for
    example, instead of financing one $8 million tank farm in a
    single village, we could have a --
        The Chairman. Remind me; how many bulk fuel projects, how
    many communities are being looped into this one proposal that
    you are working right now? Phase one, yes.
        Ms. Fenton. What we call phase one is $100 million is going
    into 10 communities.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Ms. Fenton. And each community doesn't break down to $10
    million each community, it depends. It is very site-specific,
    and we have to get out and make sure that we have our designs
    and what-not.
        So aggregating, having more funding at one time. There are
    efficiencies to be gained having projects that have proximal
    geographic locations for field visits and logistics for the
    equipment and supplies to do the projects. Having mixed energy
    infrastructure packets together or packaged together like a
    tank farm, a powerhouse upgrade, and renewables and a battery
    system package all at one time. We recognize that diesel and
    other bulk fuels are unavoidable in rural Alaska. They serve as
    the backbone to these series of microgrids.
        While integrating renewables, we need to upgrade those
    systems so often. So having a technology-neutral or energy-
    agnostic project in a community to really push forward into --
        The Chairman. I am going to interrupt you there, because
    that is something that needs to be underscored. I think
    sometimes the thought is, well, if we put in that wind turbine
    or if we put in a few solar panels over here, then we don't
    need the bulk fuel storage, we don't need that. But you have to
    have the backup and you have intermittent sources that are not
    there. Solar is not good 365 days a year anywhere, much less in
    Alaska.
        So I think that is important, that we underscore that these
    do, you have a coupling that goes on.
        Ms. Fenton. Absolutely. The wind doesn't always blow, and
    the sun doesn't always shine. But the diesel generated power
    plant is that energy and power backbone of those communities.
        And while integrating renewables helps with fuel shortages
    or price of fuel fluctuations, and rural and remote communities
    really find renewables to be a very beneficial aspect of the
    power supply, every gallon of diesel offset is helpful,
    lowering long-term costs and what-not. So that is definitely a
    piece of the puzzle.
        So let's see, expanding your projects, aggregating
    projects, having mixed energy infrastructure projects, and then
    mitigating risk by either having technical oversight or
    derisking projects with grant funding, understanding the
    capital stack, lowering the risk to lenders and what-not, that
    can really help these projects moving forward and
    understanding, again, understanding that deferred energy and
    bulk fuel needs, grants are not, they are just not going to cut
    it moving forward.
        We are doing a bulk fuel aggregation study that we are very
    excited about hearing the recommendations. But they are not
    ready yet for this hearing, unfortunately. But stay tuned.
        The Chairman. Okay, yes. We will stay tuned on that.
        Dr. Ortiz. Chair Murkowski?
        The Chairman. Yes, go ahead, Dr. Ortiz.
        Dr. Ortiz. If I might jump in just on integrating different
    energy sources, one of the villages we visited in Alaska a
    couple of years ago for our work on microgrids that we put out
    last year looked at a system that had wind as well as diesel.
        When that village was able to add battery storage to its
    system, it was able to save over 60,000 gallons of diesel a
    year. That is $250,000 or more to that one village. And that is
    an amazing cost, when you can really integrate, recognizing
    where tribes are and what different circumstances and different
    geographical factors play into their energy needs.
        The Chairman. I appreciate your raising that. And I will
    ask you to just expand there, because you have given a specific
    example. But in terms of how the TEFP is structured, you have
    suggested before that there were reforms that the report
    addressed with regard to the office. Do you have any
    suggestions when it comes to the financing program, program
    specific, that we might want to look to either maintain or
    enhance or reform, add to other programs? What do you have to
    offer there?
        Dr. Ortiz. I think some of the main benefits are things we
    have already discussed. There is the flexibility to address any
    kind of energy technology, that is technology-neutral aspect.
        One other benefit is that projects for the Tribal Energy
    Financing Program could be done on or off of tribal lands. So
    when you get those partnerships working together, they can
    really leverage different strengths from different partners.
        The program also allows multiple applicant types. So a
    tribe could apply. But a TEDO could apply. And also a lender on
    behalf of the tribe, or a tribal consortium, which really
    allows smaller tribes the opportunity to have ownership of
    these projects.
        I think a lot of tribes are used to having developers
    approach them and want to develop something and then kind of
    maybe give the tribe some benefit but keep the bulk of the
    benefits for themselves. One of the great benefits of the
    Tribal Energy Financing Program is that ownership aspect. That
    gives the prospect for the tribes of increasing the reliability
    of their electricity, decreasing their energy costs, and really
    having revenue generation and job creation along with those
    projects.
        The Chairman. So, I am coming to the end of the series of
    questions that I wanted to raise. We haven't really talked that
    much; it has been mentioned that staffing in the report was a
    concern. Limited staffing to review applications, but also the
    expertise of the staffing and their understanding or lack
    thereof of tribes and just not dealing with tribes or Tribal
    Energy Development Organizations.
        It makes sense, when you think it through, that, okay, if
    you are dealing with somebody that doesn't really understand
    tribal applications or the implications that they are going to
    be learning as they go, or they might give you bad information.
        What other complications do you see when you are dealing
    with those who have, loan program offices that have the
    unfamiliarity with tribes, and the Tribal Energy Development
    Organizations?
        And I don't know whether there are specific examples,
    whether it just adds to time and cost, or whether it is even
    worse than that, that you can actually get like just bad
    information here.
        Dr. Ortiz. There are several examples of what happens when
    you have that turnover in staff and the lack of training. It
    can cause confusion, increased administrative burden for the
    tribe and really lengthen that time of review and the cost.
        We heard from one potential applicant that it took six
    months to get answers to questions. We heard from one applicant
    that months into the process, they were still getting questions
    about whether the project was even eligible for the programs.
    So they were feeling really strung along.
        At one point, LPO asked one applicant to increase the scope
    of its project by adding a whole different element that the
    tribe had not planned on including. And it seemed to have no
    appreciation for the massive burden that was, both
    administratively and in terms of finances and working with its
    development partners.
        When you have no in-house expertise or not enough in-house
    legal expertise, we heard from one tribe about how that lack of
    expertise led energy to really push every question out to
    consultants. But that was on the tribe's dime.
        The Chairman. Then they had to pay for it, yes.
        Dr. Ortiz. Right.
        The Chairman. So in terms of processing of loan
    applications or loan guarantee applications between a tribal
    program versus a non-tribal program, is it about the same
    length of time? Have you done an analysis on that?
        Dr. Ortiz. We did do a specific analysis for this report.
    But GAO has definitely reported on challenges with tribal
    energy development for many years, including delays in terms of
    what it takes to go through permitting when you are dealing
    with trust lands and resources or complicated ownership or
    access issues, in terms of understanding how revenue models
    work for tribal governments.
        So we know that that misunderstanding or that lack of
    knowledge can really extend the time.
        Tribes also, like other energy development projects, face
    lengthy environmental reviews at time. Sometimes that is a
    result of some of what might be going on on the lands in terms
    of cultural resources. That is not a problem necessarily. It is
    something that needs to be factored into the length of time it
    takes to review a project.
        Also generally, many tribes don't have the kind of
    administrative capacity, and we have reported on systematic
    barriers to accessing Federal funds for tribes because of this
    lack of administrative capacity, a lack of an agency
    understanding of these tribal government structures or tribal
    revenue models.
        And all of that gets wound into this. And when you place
    extra burdens like high equity costs, high development costs,
    and a really onerous due diligence process on top of all of
    this, our report showed how that really just puts a damper on
    the whole process.
        The Chairman. So, Mr. Conrad, within the Office, I am
    assuming that you have seen the reductions in force that other
    departments and other agencies have. I don't know what your
    numbers are. I don't know if you can share them with me.
        But within the loan office, the Tribal Energy Loan Program,
    have you lost that level of expertise? It is one thing to say,
    well, I have my numbers, I know how many people that I have in
    a given office. But there is a difference between the seat and
    the chair and the person that actually has this level of
    expertise that Dr. Ortiz is talking about.
        Mr. Conrad. Thank you for the question. Digging into this
    issue and the findings of the report, our office, while we
    offer technical assistance, capacity building and grants, we
    don't do the Loan Program Office. And I don't have specific, I
    mean, I know the people who are operating it. I don't know
    their specific, I haven't reviewed their resumes and that sort
    of thing.
        I know our office has lost nine employees, which is a
    decent amount, because we are a small office. The other offices
    have lost more, significantly more.
        But I can't address how the Loan Program Office is able to
    staff the program. I understand that they have a few leads on
    the outreach team, and then they use portions of people's time
    on more of the origination and back of the house expertise.
        The Chairman. I am just thinking about the time that you
    conducted this report, the time that you did the research for
    the report was before, was while the Biden administration was
    still in office. We have now seen change in administration, but
    we have also seen reductions in force across the Federal
    workforce. So I would be curious to kind of know where we are
    with those numbers. But again, I recognize that numbers are not
    just numbers when it comes to levels of expertise.
        Dr. Ortiz?
        Dr. Ortiz. We have a recent update from the Department of
    Energy. And they have about 272 FTEs assigned to the Loan
    Program Office. Forty-three of those positions were vacant and
    110 of those were on administrative leave in anticipation of
    retirement or resignation. So they are working with fewer than
    half of their regular staff.
        On top of that, during the course of our review, we
    discussed with them dedicated staff for the project. They had
    dedicated at least 12 individual seats for people to have this
    expertise and really be interacting with tribes and doing that,
    bring their expertise into the origination process and the
    review process.
        But they told us that they really struggled to fill those
    seats and that they couldn't keep people. So instead, they
    rotate folks in and that sometimes leads to a real disconnect
    in terms of what tribes hear from people.
        So there is a very strong outreach team with a lot of
    experience working with tribal nations. But they don't always
    have the same understanding of the program that the people
    originating the loan did. And that creates a conflict and
    problems down the road, as these projects move further along.
        The Chairman. It just causes you to recognize even more the
    inequities that we see throughout Indian Country, what we see
    in places like Alaska, when it comes to energy. We heard today
    communities that don't have running water, don't have
    electricity. We certainly have that in many of the villages.
        It is always those that have the least capacity, that are
    in the most challenging of situations. And it is just kind of
    this deep hole that they are in, and they just can't get out.
    This is where we need that level of expertise. We need the
    technical assistance and we need these barriers of, okay, you
    are going to be able to get help with this, but you have to pay
    these outside contractors and basically they are getting paid
    by the hour. So you look at it and you don't even know how to
    start.
        And then those who have greater capacity, greater
    capability, greater resources already are able to take the home
    that they already have that is already plumbed and already
    wired and make it more efficient. And that is great. But we
    still have so many that are just working to get the basic needs
    met.
        So how we help facilitate this, and I am going back to the
    suggestion that you raised, Ms. Ortiz, that maybe we need to be
    separating out what is contained within this Indian Loan
    program, this Tribal Loan program, and have it be based on the
    size or the capacity or the capability, or I don't know. But
    not just basically any tribal entity, everybody is all in one
    bucket, regardless of where you sit with regard to your
    capacity or your resources.
        So something for us to be thinking about. Because I hear
    too many who view this as, it is great that you have that back
    in Washington, D.C., but it doesn't do me a darned bit of good
    in Kipnuk. And that has really bothered me, because the number
    of people from my State who have come to me seeking help and
    seeking resources, and I say, well, don't forget, we have the
    Office of Indian Energy, we have these tribal loans. And they
    come back and say, well, out of my reach.
        And we have to do better by that. That is why I think
    utilizing the resources that we have like the Denali
    Commission, where we can take these funding streams, these
    resources, do the braiding that we talk about, really
    leveraging things within different programs, so that everybody
    can gain access to a level of support and resource.
        But it sounds like we might need to look to some
    restructuring here.
        With that, I really appreciate the testimony of all of you.
    As I mentioned, this hearing record will be left open so that
    others may submit comments. I know members will have additional
    questions for the record. But I really appreciate what you have
    done, and the opportunity for a good discussion about an
    important project.
        So with that, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:27 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Darrell Mike, Chairman, Twenty-Nine Palms
                            Band of Mission Indians
        Chairwoman and Vice Chairman,
        The Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (the ``Tribe'')
    submits this comment on the September 10, 2025 Oversight Hearing
    entitled ``Unleashing Indian Energy--Examining Federal Programs at the
    U.S. Department of Energy.'' We have first-hand experience with those
    programs, and our experience has not been a positive one. The Tribe has
    suffered from the bureaucratic red tape of the Department of Energy
    (DOE) Loan Program Office (LPO) and is still waiting on approval for a
    loan for our shovel-ready gas-fired generating station. The Tribe has
    pursued this loan since 2022, and our proposed project is well-aligned
    with the Federal government's energy policy priorities. We submit this
    comment to explain the problems the Tribe has faced with the Tribal
    Energy Finance Program (TEFP) with the hope of helping the Senate
    Committee on Indian Affairs (``the Committee'') understand how
    bureaucratic hurdles have stymied the progress of tribal energy
    sovereignty and reliable energy generation projects.
    Process Length
        The Tribe agrees with the U.S. Government Accountability Office's
    (GAO) recommendation that ``[t]he director of the LPO should direct
    staff to implement proposed program changes to reduce the length and
    complexity of the application process for Tribes.'' The Tribe's plans
    to build our natural gas power plant have suffered from the length and
    complexity that the GAO highlights. We are in our third year of the
    loan process and have spent over $30 million towards our grid-enhancing
    generation project and yet we still cannot break ground because our
    loan has not been approved. Meanwhile, power needs have drastically
    changed since we began this process in 2022. As the United States, and
    California in particular, grasps with increasing electricity demands to
    power American leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Tribe's
    project is more needed than ever. There is no good reason why approval
    for a loan on a shovel-ready project that meets the needs of the time
    should take three years or more to progress to the due diligence stage.
    Loan Application Review
        One of the reasons for the long delay is the overly-bureaucratic,
    unduly protracted and expensive initial review process that occurs
    before the due diligence review process begins. In order to accommodate
    the LPO's review and the consultant contracts required, the Tribe spent
    money well beyond what we had budgeted for loan approval. Meanwhile,
    the LPO employees assigned to the Tribe's loan application refused to
    make decisions and contradicted each other. By way of example, the
    Tribe was asked to amend our initial application to include renewable
    and green energy components. This caused the Tribe to spend additional
    millions on the project developing a solar and battery storage
    component only for the LPO to then do an about-face and take the
    position that renewable components were not required for approval. Yet,
    even after all the Tribe's attempts at cooperation during the review
    process, it took almost three years to be granted entry into the due
    diligence process--which has since been rescinded--and approval still
    eludes us. Our experience is emblematic of the need for revisions to
    the due diligence process as the GAO recommends.
    Lack of Knowledge and Understanding of Native American Tribes, Tribal
            Governance, Tribal Enterprises and Tribal Finance
        The Tribe has also suffered from a lack of competence among the
    staff of the LPO regarding Native American tribes. For example, about a
    year into the process, we were dumbfounded to learn that some of the
    staff responsible for processing our loan did not understand that the
    Tribe is a sovereign government and that tribal enterprises are
    organized and financed significantly differently from private
    businesses. This led to continuous delay and misunderstanding about how
    LPO's loan approval and due diligence criteria should be applied to
    tribal enterprises. In order for the DOE and LPO to advance tribal
    leadership in energy development, they must understand Native American
    tribal government. For those reasons, we support the GAO
    recommendations that the LPO maintain consistent staff with knowledge
    of tribal energy finance. Approving our project will also help build
    that competence as future staff can look to our project as a successful
    model.
    Communication
        As alluded to above, the Tribe encountered, and continues to
    encounter, many failures in communication during the TEFP loan approval
    process. For instance, the LPO has not been transparent about the
    accessibility of federal funding. Frequently, we receive external
    guidance that seems to be at odds with the internal procedures of the
    loan approval process. The Tribe is very committed to building our
    generating station and associated delivery infrastructure and has
    worked diligently to give the LPO everything it asked for and needed to
    approve our loan. Unfortunately, those efforts have been met with
    opaque requirements and contradictory guidance.
        Twenty-Nine Palms is a proud member of the Coachella Valley
    community, a region that suffers from blackouts, brownouts and
    moratoria on consumption of additional electricity needed to meet
    expanding business demands. We want to help solve the problem in our
    region of inadequate and unreliable electricity by building a natural
    gas generating station and affiliated infrastructure that can provide
    affordable power to our businesses and our neighbors and support grid
    resiliency. If the LPO approves our loan, we can finally break ground
    and help advance the Federal government's goals of combatting a
    national energy emergency, unleashing American energy, and promoting
    energy security. We hope our story has informed the Committee about the
    struggles tribes face in securing TEFP loans. We are happy to meet with
    any member of the Committee who would like to learn more about our
    experience on our path toward tribal energy sovereignty.
                                     ______

                 OCETI SAKOWIN POWER AUTHORITY POSITION PAPER:
              RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESTRUCTURING THE TRIBAL ENERGY
                               FINANCING PROGRAM
        The Oceti Sakowin (pr. O-CHET-ee Sha-KO-wee) Power Authority (OSPA)
    submits its Position Paper on Restructuring the Tribal Energy Financing
    Program (TEFP). OSPA is a Tribal energy development organization, 100
    percent owned and managed by seven Sioux Tribes that share territory
    with the State of South Dakota.
        This submission follows the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
    September 10, 2025 hearing on the Government Accountability Office's
    (GAO) Report on TEFP. \1\ OSPA thanks the Committee for directing GAO
    to study this matter, and for this opportunity for interested parties
    to submit comments. The GAO Report is excellent--which is typical for
    that Office's efforts--and OSPA supports the analysis and conclusions
    of the GAO Report. In this paper, OSPA discusses the issues of most
    importance to the OSPA member Tribes, and offers its recommendations
    for restructuring TEFP that would most benefit the OSPA Tribes' energy
    policies and goals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Government Accountability Office, Report to the Committee on
    Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate, TRIBAL ENERGY FINANCE: Changes to DOE Loan
    Program Would Reduce Barriers for Tribes, August 2025 (GAO Report).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I. TEFP Must Be Restructured to Support a Wide Variety of Tribal Energy
            Projects--Most Importantly, Large-Scale Energy Transmission and

            Distribution
        The GAO Report states the Congressionally-mandated goals of the
    Tribal Energy Financing Program: ``TEFP supports large-scale tribal
    energy projects that can advance economic development opportunities for
    Tribes and that use various types of conventional and renewable
    technology.'' \2\ GAO's witness at hearing, Dr. Anna Maria Ortiz, notes
    that ``TEFP is intended to support a broad range of energy development
    projects and activities. . . . such as electricity generation,
    transmission, or distribution facilities . . . or energy storage
    facilities.'' \3\ The GAO Report and Dr. Ortiz illustrate the breath of
    Tribal demand for support of energy projects by identifying
    unsuccessful applicants for TEFP loans/guarantees: generation projects
    ranging from 15 MW to 500 MW, \4\ and financing requests ranging from
    $23.8 million to $8.7 billion. \5\ The GAO Report concludes that
    ``[t]he ability to use TEFP to finance a range of energy projects gives
    Tribes more flexibility to pursue projects that leverage these Tribes'
    interests and resources, according to a potential participant.'' \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ GAO Report at 20.
        \3\ Dr. Anna Maria Ortiz, GAO Director, Natural Resources and
    Environment, Tribal Energy Finance: DOE Actions Needed to Reduce
    Barriers for Tribes, written testimony to Senate Committee on Indian
    Affairs, September 10, 2025 (Dr. Ortiz Written Testimony), at 2.
        \4\ GAO Report at 17.
        \5\ Dr. Ortiz Written Testimony at 3.
        \6\ GAO Report at 21.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        OSPA fully endorses GAO's analyses and conclusions--the number and
    variety of applications for TEFP support, including OSPA's own
    unsuccessful application, demonstrate the longstanding desire of Tribes
    across the country to develop large-scale energy projects, the vast
    unmet Tribal need for such support, and the variety of energy projects
    that can bring transformative economic development to some of the most
    remote and poorest Tribes in the country. OSPA must, however, emphasize
    that the need for transmission upgrades to Tribal lands is the most
    compelling need and difficult challenge for Tribes, and any
    restructuring of TEFP must prioritize support for transmission on and
    adjacent to Tribal lands. OSPA discusses the critical need for
    transmission support below.
    II. TEFP Must Support Multi-Tribal and Regional Projects that Bring
            Extra High Voltage Transmission to Tribal Lands
    A. EHV Transmission Deserts Are an Absolute Barrier to Tribal Energy
            and
            Economic Development
        The OSPA member Tribes with the largest reservations are located in
    the area called ``West River South Dakota,'' west of the Missouri
    River. The entire area--the whole western half of South Dakota--is an
    extra high voltage (EHV) transmission desert. EHV is defined as 345 kV
    and above, and is the scale of transmission capacity that is required
    for the energy-intensive industries that will define the future of this
    country: AI, data centers, and advanced manufacturing. There is no EHV
    transmission in West River. \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ In late 2024, the Southwest Power Pool added the first 345 kV
    line in western South Dakota to its portfolio of approved transmission
    projects. That line remains in the planning stages, but one aspect of
    the project is clear--it bypasses all the Tribes in South Dakota, and
    so will perpetuate the EHV transmission desert across the Tribal lands
    in West River.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The OSPA member Tribes with the largest reservations are all
    located within the EHV transmission desert. Most of what is used as
    ``transmission backbone'' across the area--and all the transmission
    across the reservations of the Cheyenne River, Oglala, and Rosebud
    Sioux Tribes--is 115 kV, which is barely sufficient to meet the
    existing residential and limited commercial power demand, much less
    support energy-intensive industries or utility-scale power generation.
    All the 345 kV transmission in South Dakota is east of the Missouri
    River--on the other side of the state from the largest of the OSPA
    Tribes' reservations. The impact of this lack of transmission capacity
    on Tribal economic development is obvious--the map below shows the
    sites of data centers and wind farms currently in service or under
    construction in and around South Dakota. These projects generally
    follow the existing 345 kV transmission lines--east, north and south of
    the Tribes. The absence of EHV transmission has proven to be an
    absolute barrier to energy and economic development on Tribal lands.

        As OSPA has detailed in comments filed with the Department of
    Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), four
    utility-scale renewable energy generation projects, totaling 915 MW in
    nameplate capacity, all privately funded, and being developed by OSPA
    and other Indian-owned and Tribally owned developers, have been put on
    hold because of the enormous cost of building the new transmission
    capacity needed to put those projects on line. Moreover, three
    different OSPA member Tribes want to develop their utility-scale energy
    resources but cannot obtain an interconnection queue position because
    no transmission capacity is available. The lack of EHV capacity is an
    absolute barrier to Tribal economic and energy development in South
    Dakota, and deploying EHV is the necessary precondition to Tribal
    economic development. From OSPA's discussions with other Tribes, OSPA
    understands that lack of EHV transmission capacity is a major
    impediment to economic and energy development for Tribes across the
    country.
    B. There Are Multiple Federal Grant, Loan and Loan Guarantee Programs,
            Administered by Multiple Federal Agencies, Specifically
            Designed to Support Tribal Community-Scale and Microgrid
            Projects, but None Dedicated to
            Supporting EHV Grid Upgrades on Tribal Lands
        The DOE Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs administers
    several programs that are dedicated to supporting Indian energy
    projects. Acting Director and DOE IE witness at hearing David Conrad
    described the Office's support of over 240 Indian energy projects since
    2010, which among other things, improved over 11,000 buildings. \8\ As
    Acting Director Conrad explained, these are extremely valuable programs
    that significantly reduce the cost of retail energy for Tribal
    communities, improve service resilience, and expand Tribal capacity to
    act in the energy sector. These are community-scale projects.
    Additional support for Tribal community-scale and microgrid projects is
    supplied by programs administered by the Departments of the Interior,
    Agriculture, and Commerce.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Testimony of David Conrad, Acting Director and Deputy Director,
    Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs, U.S. Department of Energy,
    Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, Regarding
    Tribal Energy Dominance Hearing, September 10, 2025, at 2-3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are no federal programs dedicated to upgrading the national
    power grid on and around Tribal lands.
        The GAO Report notes that: ``In August 2023, DOE generally reported
    that few federal funding sources were available to Tribes for
    developing energy infrastructure, potentially limiting the development
    of large-scale tribal energy projects.'' \9\ In OSPA's experience, the
    GAO concern over lack of resources is understated.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ GAO Report at 27, footnote 59, citing Department of Energy,
    Tribal Electricity Access and Reliability: Report to Congress
    (Washington, D.C: August 2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The GAO report identifies several federal resources that ``may be
    available, depending on whether a Tribes' project matches the program's
    criteria and timing.'' \10\ The Report goes on to cite several programs
    within DOE that ``may be able to support Tribes with project
    development for large-scale energy projects. These include an IE Tribal
    Energy Planning and Development grant program; the Grid Deployment
    Office's Grid Resilience State and Tribal Formula Grant Program and the
    Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships; and DOE's Communities
    Local Energy Action Program and Energy Transitions Initiative
    Partnership Project.'' \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ GAO Report at 26.
        \11\ GAO Report at 26-27.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At the hearing, DOE IE witness David Conrad noted that his Office
    sustained significant budget and personnel cuts, and that a number of
    programs are currently under review. He was not able to confirm whether
    or not specific programs were suspended. OSPA agrees that the Grid
    Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Grant program could
    provide significant funding for the grid upgrades required by the OSPA
    member Tribes. In 2024, OSPA, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, and
    several Tribes, supported by the Western Area Power Administration
    (WAPA), submitted an application. That application was rejected, but
    the same parties are prepared to re-apply when the third and final
    tranche is announced. DOE had stated that the last tranche was expected
    to be announced in spring 2025, but to date, a Funding Opportunity
    Announcement has not been issued.
        Other potentially useful programs appear to be no longer available.
    The Transmission Acceleration Grant (TAG) program, administered by the
    DOE Grid Deployment Office, funds states and Tribes planning for
    transmission projects. OSPA applied for this year's award, but just
    received word it was rejected. We have been unable to find any
    announcements of any TAG grant awards made under the program this year.
    Unobligated funds for the Transmission Facility Financing (TFF) program
    were rescinded by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. OSPA is unable to
    determine if the Transmission Facilitation Program (TFP) is still
    available.
    C. The $20B Size of the TEFP Makes It Uniquely Able to Support Big
            Transmission Projects on Tribal Lands
        The size of the TEFP, at $20 billion, and its exclusive focus on
    Tribal energy, makes it the one indisputably remaining federal program
    that can meaningfully address the transmission shortage that has become
    a crisis for Tribal energy and economic development.
        The EHV transmission upgrade that has been designed by WAPA, Basin
    Electric, and OSPA would bring 345 kV across four of the largest
    reservations in the country. It's a big project--the cost is expected
    to approach $2 billion. The Grid Deployment Office (GDO) reviewed the
    planned transmission project in the 2024 GRIP application submitted by
    OSPA, Basin Electric, and three Tribes, and supported by WAPA. GDO
    found that the project was an ``[i]nnovative and novel collaboration''
    that ``would improve the regional resilience of the grid in a
    monumental way. The transmission line technology is cutting edge . . .
    [t]he grid extension would open up a large amount of previously
    untapped wind energy spurring downstream investment . . . .'' \12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ GDO, ``Strengths and Weaknesses Report,'' DE-FOA-0003195,
    Application Control Number 3195-1540.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A transmission project this big and expensive will be complex--it
    likely will combine financing/funding from private investors and
    Transmission Owners (TOs), cost recovery through the Integrated
    Transmission Planning process conducted by the Southwest Power Pool
    (SPP), and federal funding/financing. TEFP is a large enough fund to
    make a meaningful contribution to this capital stack, and will make it
    easier for the Tribes and the TOs to attract the necessary private
    capital.
    III. TEFP Financing of Big Transmission Projects Will Ensure Tribes
            Play a Major Role in Transmission Planning Conducted by RTOs,
            PMAs and Utilities, and Secure Significant Ownership in the
            Completed Projects
        Large transmission projects are like any other expensive project;
    they operate according to the Golden Rule: ``He/she who brings the gold
    makes the rules.'' The OSPA member Tribes rank among the poorest in the
    country--while we have been able to leverage regulatory interest, the
    federal trust responsibility and good will to achieve the active
    engagement of WAPA, Basin Electric, and SPP in designing and promoting
    our Tribal grid upgrade, our Tribes don't have any significant amounts
    of money to bring to the table.
        This is where TEFP financing can have an impact much greater than
    the actual investment. Because TEFP financing is only available for
    Tribal energy projects, the OSPA Tribes can be as large an investor in
    the project as the Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) and other
    TOs, utilities and other investors. This will ensure that OSPA is
    centrally involved in engaging with the Regional Transmission
    Organization (RTO) and TOs in planning, permitting, and constructing
    the project. Equally important, partial financing by Tribes through
    TEFP will ensure a significant Tribal ownership interest in the
    completed transmission project.
        GAO recognized the unique role TEFP can play in promoting Tribal
    ownership of big infrastructure projects:

       Focus on tribal ownership. Tribal applicants cited the
            importance of tribal ownership for economic development
            prospects. One applicant estimated that owning a large-scale
            energy project would significantly increase the Tribe's annual
            revenue, which it plans to reinvest into the community. A
            potential program participant said the program can accept
            applications from a consortium of Tribes, which enables small
            Tribes with limited resources to own a large-scale energy
            project. \13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ GAO Report at 21.

    IV. Designating a Portion of TEFP Loans to Support Early-Stage
            Development and Making Them ``Forgiveable'' or Structured as a
            Program-Related Investment Fund Will Enable Tribes to Initiate
            Large Projects and Reduce Risk for the Tribes and the
            Government
        GAO speaks at length about the need for TEFP to finance early-stage
    development work. OSPA agrees that this is one of the most important
    functions TEFP can serve. Early development work for a big transmission
    project includes identifying routes on Tribal lands that meet the
    approval of Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) and the Tribal
    communities. This means early and consistent engagement with the THPO,
    Tribal Councils and affected communities, and hiring an engineering
    design firm and Tribal Cultural Specialists for studies related to
    siting. It also requires engaging wildlife and environmental
    contractors to begin the work that will be required in the NEPA
    permitting process, and regular coordination with the relevant PMA,
    TOs, and RTO.
        GAO recognizes that lack of funding/financing for this work can be
    a barrier to Tribal energy projects: ``However, many Tribes do not have
    the upfront cash resources for early project development activities
    which can be expensive, especially for larger-scale projects.'' \14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Dr. Ortiz Written Testimony at 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        OSPA has a recommendation for supporting early-stage development
    work within the structure of TEFP: Establish a ``forgivable'' or
    Program-Related Investment (PRI) \15\ development fund within the
    larger TEFP. This would allow the Tribes to obtain relatively modest
    funding/financing for early-stage development work (for the OSPA EHV
    project, less than $10 million over two-to-three years will complete
    the early development work for a estimated $2 billion project). If the
    early project design and engagement work supports the continued
    development of the project, the loan would be rolled into the larger
    project financing. If the project cannot proceed, the loan would be
    forgiven or treated as a grant. This enables Tribes or Tribal
    developers to undertake critical early development work without
    incurring substantial debt. Risk to the TEFP can be minimized by the
    relatively modest size of the loan, and by the quality of the PMA, TOs,
    and/or RTO involved and their initial evaluation of the project, and by
    the use of other expert contractors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ The IRS defines PRIs as investments designed to achieve a
    purpose beyond making a return. These can be high-risk investments to
    groups that otherwise lack access to capital. The investment is
    expected to be repaid, with at least a modest return, which allows the
    institution to recycle the investment into other projects. https://
    www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/private-foundations/program-related-
    investments
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    V. Miscellaneous Issues Raised in the GAO Report and Senate Hearing
    A. What Agency/Office Should Administer the Restructured TEFP?
        OSPA does not have a strong opinion on the agency or office that
    administers the restructured TEFP, provided that the agency/office has
    experience in administering financing for large infrastructure
    projects. OSPA also believes that the TEFP administrator should have
    regular access to the national laboratories. The National Renewable
    Energy Laboratory, Lawrence Berkely, the Pacific Northwest National
    Laboratory and the National Energy Technology Laboratory routinely
    advise DOE and other agencies, and are sources of considerable
    expertise on technology and finance relating to infrastructure
    projects.
    B. How to Provide for Tribal Sovereignty and Ownership While Limiting
            the
            Financial Risk to Which Tribes May Be Exposed? Allow TOs to
            Participate in the TEFP Application Process
        Dr. Ortiz provided an excellent discussion of this issue at
    hearing. She correctly noted that Tribal sovereignty in decisionmaking
    and ownership is required by Treaties and the federal trust
    responsibility, but the way control and ownership are typically
    exercised is through investing. The restructured TEFP should provide
    ways to promote sovereignty and Tribal ownership without putting the
    Tribes into debt.
        OSPA believes that, with TEFP financing, the co-development
    arrangement that OSPA has established with WAPA, Basin Electric, and
    SPP accomplishes these goals. As discussed in  IV above, if early-
    stage development funding/financing is made available through a
    forgivable or PRI TEFP loan, OSPA and its member Tribes would be able
    to conduct the pre-permitting siting work and engage consultants
    familiar with Tribal cultural issues and priorities. As discussed in
    III above, bringing TEFP financing to the OSPA transmission project
    will make OSPA a co-investor, and this will empower OSPA to exercise
    significant control over the planning and permitting processes.
        The government's risk in making these loans can be minimized by
    allowing the direct involvement of PMAs and other TOs in the
    application process. In the case of OSPA's transmission project, OSPA
    engaged with WAPA and Baskin Electric early in the planning process.
    WAPA and Basin developed the original project design with OSPA's input.
    In doing so, WAPA and Basin identified the general routes that would
    result in the maximum resilience gains and congestion relief. They also
    factored in the generation projects that the Tribes could pursue once
    adequate transmission capacity becomes available. This level of
    analysis, conducted with the expertise of WAPA and Basin Electric,
    substantially derisked the project.
        The restructured TEFP should expressly allow PMAs and TOs to join
    in the Tribe's application. This would encourage other Tribes, PMAs,
    and TOs to work together cooperatively to pursue TEFP financing, and
    would substantially reduce the risk for the TEFP administrator. As OSPA
    discusses in  VI below, WAPA's attorneys need assurances that WAPA has
    the authority to participate fully in the TEFP application process, and
    these assurances should be provided in the TEFP restructuring.
    C. How to Limit Program Expenditures on Outside Engineering, Financial,
            and Legal Consultants? Allow TOs to Participate in the TEFP
            Application Process
        GAO has concluded that ``potentially high and unpredictable due
    diligence costs can pose a barrier for Tribes,'' \16\ and proposes ways
    to limit the use of outside engineering, law, and finance firms in
    evaluating proposed TEFP projects.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ GAO Report at 28-29.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As discussed above, for big transmission projects, RTOs, PMAs,
    utilities and/or private transmission developers will be involved with
    the Tribes in designing, permitting, constructing, and operating the
    project. The involvement of these expert entities will substantially
    derisk the project. TEFP administrators, to the extent necessary, can
    hire outside experts to check the work of the project designers, but
    this will involve much less work than de novo review of a proposed
    project.
    D. The Restructured TEFP Must Be Mandated to Be Technology Neutral
        At the September 10 hearing, every Senator who addressed the
    issue--regardless of party affiliation--stated emphatically that TEFP
    loans/guarantees may not be limited to any particular type of energy
    resource, but must support an ``all of the above'' approach to Tribal
    energy projects. As Chairman Murkowski explained at hearing, the energy
    resources available to Tribes--whether coal, oil, gas, wind, solar,
    geothermal or hydro--are determined by geography, and Tribes are
    restricted to developing what resources they have within their
    reservations and native areas. And as OSPA has demonstrated in this
    paper, in order to make these generation projects possible, EHV
    transmission and local distribution must also expressly be supported by
    the program.
    VI. Congress Must Clarify that PMAs Are Fully Empowered to Consult with
            Tribes in Transmission Planning, and to Partner with Tribes in
            TEFP Loan/Loan Guarantee Applications
        In July of this year, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
    (NREL) circulated a draft paper entitled ``Tribal Engagement in
    Transmission Planning,'' and sought comment from Tribes and Tribal
    organizations. The NREL paper conducted an excellent survey of
    transmission needs on Tribal lands and made specific recommendations on
    how the energy transmission planning process conducted by Regional
    Transmission Organizations could more effectively solicit input from
    Tribes and reflect Tribal goals and priorities in the planning process.
    One recommendation was for Tribes to partner with Power Marketing
    Administrations, who could represent Tribal interests in the RTO
    planning process:

            Partnerships with existing SPP members. Transmission owners
            such as WAPA. . . . have a strong standing in transmission
            planning because an RTO is fundamentally an agreement among
            transmission owners to operate their common grid according to
            common rules. \17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Tribal Engagement in
    Transmission Planning, review draft for comment by Tribes, July 2025,
    at 22-23.

        A year prior, the ``i2X'' program, sponsored by DOE, made a similar
    recommendation. \18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Interconnection Innovation e-Xchange (i2X), Transmission
    Interconnection Roadmap, Transforming Bulk Transmission by 2035, at 37-
    38, Solution 2.10 (April 2024). https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/
    files/2024-04/i2X%20Transmission%20Interconnection%20Roadmap_1.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        OSPA strongly supports these NREL and i2X recommendations, and in
    OSPA's experience, WAPA is the best positioned transmission owner to
    take input on Tribal transmission needs, advise Tribes on how best to
    meet them, and to promote Tribal positions within the RTO planning
    process. WAPA currently serves about 700 wholesale, or ``preference,''
    customers--10 percent of which are Indian Tribes. \19\ Moreover, as a
    federal agency, WAPA shares the federal obligation to engage in
    meaningful consultation with Tribes. WAPA's Tribal customers include
    the OSPA member Tribes, and OSPA has been working with WAPA since 2023
    in designing EHV upgrades to the national power grid across four of the
    largest reservations in the country, and promoting the project's
    inclusion in the Southwest Power Pool Integrated Transmission Planning
    (ITP) portfolio.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Western Area Power Administration, Native American Tribal
    Informational Outreach (July 12, 2022). https://www.wapa.gov/wp-
    content/uploads/2023/04/WAPA-Native-American-Tribe-Informational-
    Outreach-6-6-22.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, OSPA has experienced a significant challenge regarding
    WAPA's full participation in supporting Tribes in the planning and
    portfolio selection process: WAPA's attorneys are concerned that WAPA
    lacks authority to engage fully with Tribes. OSPA strongly disagrees--
    WAPA's statutory authority to design, build and operate one of the
    largest electric transmission systems in the country, to manage the
    Transmission Infrastructure Program, and to serve the needs of its
    Tribal preference customers clearly is broad enough to encompass a
    transmission planning and advocacy role for Tribes. However, in OSPA's
    experience, WAPA's attorneys have been overly cautious in exercising
    it. Specifically, in 2024 OSPA formed a coalition including WAPA, Basin
    Electric, three OSPA member Tribes, and others to draft and submit an
    application for a Grid Resilience Innovation Partnerships grant to
    provide partial funding for EHV grid upgrades across multiple OSPA
    Tribes' reservations. Just prior to the filing deadline, WAPA's
    attorneys advised WAPA that it could not identify itself as a
    ``partner'' or a sub-recipient in the application. DOE later cited this
    lack of specificity about the uses of the grant funds as a primary
    reason the application was denied. OSPA is concerned that this
    overabundance of caution may prevent WAPA from serving as an effective
    advocate for Tribal energy transmission needs and priorities.
        In her testimony, Dr. Ortiz discussed at length that TEFP
    administration has been plagued by inconsistent and rapidly changing
    standards for evaluating loan applications, and states the need for the
    Secretary of Energy and the Loan Programs Office to issue a thorough
    clarification of program guidance. \20\ This analysis comports with
    OSPA's experience, and the need for such a comprehensive clarification
    of lending rules and standards is evident. As part of this
    clarification, OSPA requests that the Senate Indian Affairs Committee
    and TEFP administrator clarify that WAPA and other PMAs are fully
    authorized to participate actively in Tribes' applications for TEFP
    loans/guarantees and other federal funding/financing programs, and to
    be identified in the applications as a sub-recipient of the loan/
    guarantee proceeds.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Dr. Ortiz Written Testimony at 4-8.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    VII. Conclusion
        OSPA thanks the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for this
    opportunity to submit our position on this matter of critical
    importance to our member Tribes. We are at your disposal if we can
    provide additional materials or information.

            Respectfully submitted,

             Lyle Jack, Chairman of the OSPA Board of Directors

                                Jon Canis, OSPA General Counsel
                                     ______

                                    Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
                                                     September 16. 2025

    Dear Hon. Lisa Murkowski and Hon. Brian Schatz:

        As the Senate evaluates the implementation of Executive Order
    14154, ``Unleashing American Energy,'' the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
    (PGST) urges the Committee to continue support for tribal energy
    sovereignty both through existing Department of Energy programs and
    through the creation of new programs that promote energy independence.
        We are aligned with the Executive Order's goals for affordable and
    reliable energy. However, we are concerned that energy exploitation and
    production on Federal lands and waters will come at the expense of
    ecosystem integrity, tribal sovereignty, and future generations.
    Tribes, including PGST, have stewarded the lands of the United States
    since time immemorial. We encourage the Senate to consider the non-use
    value that these lands provide, including ecosystem services for clean
    water, carbon sequestration, recreations--and of particular importance
    to tribes, cultural and provisioning services. The simplified and
    expedited permitting processes dictated by Section 5 must still
    necessitate tribal consultation and provide sufficient time for tribal
    staff to evaluate permitting documentation.
        PGST is grateful for the Department of Energy's Energy Technology
    Innovation and Partnership Project for technical assistance in the
    creation of a Strategic Energy Plan. However, the DOE's review process
    has recently been modified to require an Executive Secretary Review.
    This additional step has lengthened the timeline substantially--we have
    been waiting since late May and our expected turnaround time of one
    month has turned into nearly four months. Delaying adopting the
    Strategic Energy Plan has prevented our Energy Sovereignty Program from
    sharing our plans with external partners, hindering collaboration:
    draft documents provided by the DOE and Pacific Northwest National Labs
    are ``for internal review only--not to cite, quote, copy or
    distribute.'' We would like to receive a final version of our plan and
    the Executive Secretary Review has been an unanticipated barrier to our
    progress.
        PGST ha been frustrated with the lack of responsiveness from DOE
    regarding funding programs. We attempted to apply for the $10,480
    allocated to us by the Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant.
    First, we reached out on April 4 to eeecbg@hq.doe.gov. We received an
    unhelpful response on Apri 8: ``Thank you for reaching out. We
    appreciate your inquiry and will respond to you as soon as possible.''
    This message was the only one we received, despite following up on May
    8. On May 21, we registered for the EECBG voucher portal and received
    an automated confirmation from eecbgvouchers@emailicf.com. We followed
    up on May 27 after receiving no further communication, asking when we
    might gain access to the application given the May 31 deadline, but
    never received any further response.
        Therefore, PGST was unable to access this funding source. PGST had
    a similar experience with the Grid Deployment Office (GDO) when
    inquiring about the Grid Resilience State And Tribal Formula Grant--we
    were advised that our question about the availability of funding could
    not be answered while the GDO conducts a department-wide review of
    programming in accordance with Executive Order 14210.
        PGST was disappointed to hear Environmental Protection Agency to
    terminate the $7 billion Solar for All. This program would have enabled
    low-income and disadvantaged communities including PGST to benefit from
    distributed solar energy. We hope that the DOE can provide a similar
    program that will enable our tribal member to access low-cost,
    renewable energy.
        Thank you for your consideration.

            Sincerely,
                                 Hon. Amber Caldera, Chairwoman
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Murkowski to
                                 Jocelyn Fenton
    Executive Summary
        Rural Alaska's energy systems are at a breaking point of scale,
    cost, and risk. Nearly 200 remote, fly-in or boat-access communities
    rely on aging microgrids and bulk fuel facilities that are costly to
    maintain yet essential for survival in extreme conditions. Many now
    operate beyond their design life, leaving communities--and the nation--
    vulnerable to cascading failures during supply disruptions or
    emergencies.
        Without renewed federal investment, failures in community
    infrastructure will continue to divert military and emergency
    resources, undermining national preparedness and driving up government
    costs. Recent Executive Orders--such as Unleashing Alaska's Resources
    and Unleashing American Energy--authorize the rollback of restrictions,
    the promotion of fossil fuel and mineral extraction, and revision of
    permitting to fast-track traditional energy projects. Alaska's tribes
    are positioned to utilize these provisions in their energy planning and
    portfolios, though realizing those benefits hinges on strong local
    governance and technical capacity.
        Across Alaska, the Department of Defense is prioritizing energy
    resilience through redundant generation, microgrids, and fuel system
    upgrades to ensure mission continuity under extreme conditions. Rural
    communities require similar reliability. Modernizing bulk fuel systems
    is essential to sustain local operations, reduce costly emergency
    responses, and maintain the logistical resilience that supports defense
    readiness, Arctic security, and supply chain security.
        Infrastructure longevity rests on three pillars: capital
    improvements, operational support, and capacity building. In addition
    to the $100 million still needed for Phase II of the Bulk Fuel
    Deployment Plan, ongoing investment in operations, maintenance, and
    technical collaboration is critical to ensure long-term reliability.
        Well-maintained community infrastructure underpins both economic
    and national security. Stable energy systems attract private investment
    in critical minerals, strengthen supply chains, and reduce reliance on
    military assets for disaster response. Investing now in Alaska's rural
    energy backbone will secure America's northern frontier, bolster
    national readiness, and sustain the infrastructure vital to U.S.
    strategic interests in the Arctic.

        Question 1. How could DOE and DOE programs support bulk fuel
    systems?

        Answer:

       Consider Bulk fuel facilities an essential part of a
            community energy system, opening up eligibility for financial
            and technical support.

       DOE could open up a specific technical assistance or funding
            opportunity, beyond E-TIPP or C-MAP, to facilitate rural Alaska
            regional energy planning that includes bulk fuel facilities and
            economic assessments to help tribal, municipal, and regional
            entities determine a path toward improved operational
            sustainability of all energy systems.

       DOE could partner with the Denali Commission to fund Phase
            II--the Implementation Plan--of the Bulk Fuel Aggregation
            Study.

       DOE could allow O&M set-asides in capital improvement
            funding.

        Robust and well-maintained bulk fuel systems are not only vital for
    sustaining rural communities, but also increasingly recognized as
    critical infrastructure for national security and economic development,
    as underscored by recent federal Executive Orders. DOE could strengthen
    support for rural Alaska's bulk fuel infrastructure by formally
    recognizing bulk fuel systems as an essential component of rural
    community energy systems. This aligns with recent Executive Orders,
    which encourage the removal of regulatory barriers and prioritize
    domestic energy production, giving DOE a clear mandate to act on behalf
    of rural Alaska's energy security and national resilience. This
    recognition could extend across DOE programs, including the Office of
    Indian Energy, so that all aspects of bulk fuel management, from
    operator training and technical assistance to condition assessments and
    capital projects, are eligible for funding.
        DOE could also consider providing targeted assistance for regional
    planning efforts that evaluate the comprehensive needs of bulk fuel
    facilities and the financial structures necessary for long-term
    sustainability beyond reliance on grant funding. Through this planning
    and technical support, tribal and local entities would be enabled to
    explore alternative energy resources and develop diversification
    strategies tailored to their communities--leveraging DOE and partner
    expertise to advance new energy solutions alongside bulk fuel system
    upgrades. Prioritizing direct investment in local governments, tribes,
    and consortiums strengthens community capacity, utilizes local
    expertise, and delivers resilient solutions tailored to Alaska's unique
    challenges. These collaborative planning efforts would identify
    scalable, region-based strategies that improve efficiency, reduce
    costs, and support sustainable local capacity.
        In addition, DOE could consider partnering with the Denali
    Commission to fund Phase 2 of the Alaska Bulk Fuel Aggregation Study
    (the Implementation Plan), which will define specific policy,
    regulatory, and capital improvement pathways to strengthen both the
    financial and physical sustainability of rural tank farms. The
    Implementation Plan, when completed, is anticipated to be a roadmap for
    guiding decisions at the local, regional, and state level to improve
    long-term facility operations and financial sustainability. (Please see
    the answer to question 2 for more information about the Study.) DOE
    could further enhance impact by creating or adapting funding programs
    to support bulk fuel system operations and maintenance (O&M), including
    dedicated set-asides for O&M costs within construction awards, and by
    investing in monitoring and preventative maintenance technologies
    designed for remote, harsh environments.
        Finally, DOE programs could address whole-system lifecycle planning
    at the point of capital investment, ensuring that construction or
    replacement projects are paired with long-term strategies for
    maintenance, modernization, and eventual replacement. This systems-
    based approach would improve reliability, extend facility life cycles,
    and safeguard public investment in critical rural energy
    infrastructure.

        Question 2. What federal funding streams are available to support
    utilities' O&M costs presently?

        Answer:

       Few, if any, federal funding streams are available to
            support utilities' O&M costs.

       DOE and partner agencies, including the Denali Commission,
            could explore a performance-based O&M pilot for rural Alaska
            energy systems.

       Federal funding is needed for a pilot project to implement
            the Bulk Fuel Aggregation Study Phase II recommendations.

       Raise TAPL Funding (one-time or ongoing): Could provide a
            substantial, dedicated funding stream through congressional
            appropriations. Offers high-impact infusion for infrastructure,
            but may require political negotiation and could be subject to
            annual appropriations cycles.

        Federal funding to support operations and maintenance (O&M) for
    rural utilities in Alaska is very limited and generally indirect. Most
    federal programs administered by the Department of Energy (DOE),
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of
    Agriculture (USDA) focus on capital investment (i.e., constructing or
    upgrading infrastructure) rather than the ongoing costs of operating
    and maintaining those systems once built.
        A few programs offer partial or related support:

       Denali Commission's portfolio includes funding for operator
            training, technical assistance, and targeted facility repairs
            or efficiency upgrades that extend the useful life of existing
            systems. With limited exceptions, the Commission does not
            generally extend funding opportunities for routine O&M
            expenses.

       USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) programs may incorporate
            some operational support or technical assistance within loan or
            grant mechanisms, though these opportunities are narrow and
            competitive.

       DOE's Office of Indian Energy, along with programs such as
            E-TIPP (Energy Transitions Initiative Partnership Project) and
            C-MAP (Community Managed Microgrid Assistance Program), provide
            critical technical assistance to help local operators build
            management capacity, yet they do not directly fund O&M.

        Across rural Alaska, where more than 180 remote communities operate
    isolated microgrids and bulk fuel facilities to meet essential needs in
    harsh and expensive operating environments, the absence of dedicated,
    sustained O&M funding mechanisms represents a major vulnerability.
    These systems are typically operated by small villages or local
    utilities with very limited cash flow and user bases too small to
    spread high fixed costs, leaving little margin for preventive
    maintenance or emergency repairs. This structural gap contributes to
    deferred maintenance, shortened infrastructure lifespans, and recurring
    reliability and safety challenges.
        To begin addressing this gap, DOE and partner agencies could
    explore a performance-based O&M pilot for rural Alaska energy systems
    (including bulk fuel), implemented through a collaborative federal-
    state-tribal-nonprofit partnership drawing on existing expertise in
    technical assistance, safety, regulatory compliance, and community
    capacity-building. Modeled on performance-driven infrastructure
    initiatives such as the Department of Defense's Energy Resilience and
    Conservation Investment Program (ERCIP) and Energy Savings Performance
    Contracts (ESPCs), the pilot could tie funding or technical assistance
    to measurable outcomes--such as implementation of preventative
    maintenance programs, fewer preventable leaks and spills, fewer
    unplanned outages, improved operator training, and compliance with
    safety and environmental standards.
        Importantly, a performance-based model would need to operate at
    regional scale or across a portfolio of facilities, where aggregated
    participation provides stronger financial footing, allows standardized
    benchmarks, and generates data sufficient to evaluate effectiveness.
    While there are no existing regional utilities, the benefit of working
    together and creating utility collaborations is clear, such as TCC,
    ANTHC, and those emerging in the YK Delta and Bristol Bay regions. This
    is a known need and wouldn't be starting from scratch. The Bulk Fuel
    Aggregation Study now underway is expected to identify the structural,
    financial, and regulatory pathways that could inform such a model.
    Phase 2 of that work (the Implementation Plan) will provide the data-
    driven basis for designing and scoping any performance-based O&M
    initiative. Early estimates suggest that a modest, multi-community
    pilot, potentially on the order of several million dollars, could
    meaningfully test these concepts once guided by the Study's findings.
        Adapting performance-based approaches to rural Alaska's energy
    systems at scale could help extend facility life, reduce emergency
    repair costs, and promote more consistent system stewardship, even
    without establishing a permanent O&M subsidy.

        Question 3. How does a lack of O&M support impact communities
    reliant on bulk fuel? Please provide real-world examples.

        Answer:

       The lack of dedicated O&M support directly increases the
            likelihood of environmental contamination, fuel supply
            disruption, threats to life, health, and safety, economic
            hardship, and deteriorating energy and national security.

        The absence of consistent operations and maintenance (O&M) support
    for bulk fuel systems in rural Alaska has serious consequences for
    community safety, environmental protection, and energy reliability.
    Bulk fuel facilities are critical infrastructure in these communities;
    they store and distribute the diesel and heating fuel that power local
    microgrids, heat homes, and support water, sewer, and transportation
    systems. When preventive maintenance and operator support are
    underfunded, systems become increasingly fragile and communities are
    forced into a reactive posture, responding to crises instead of
    managing assets strategically.
        Without adequate O&M resources, communities face:

       Greater risk of spills and leaks. In February 2024, roughly
            6,400 gallons of diesel spilled in Kwigillingok when a transfer
            pump overfilled a bulk tank and fuel breached secondary
            containment, threatening nearby waterways. ADEC and the U.S.
            Coast Guard coordinated an extensive cleanup (Anchorage Daily
            News, Feb 21 2024). Similarly, an 18,000-gallon diesel spill in
            Point Lay in 2022 was traced to a failed valve seal at the
            community's tank farm (Reuters, Aug 12 2022). Both incidents
            underscore how aging equipment and limited maintenance capacity
            heighten spill risks and cleanup costs.

       Service interruptions and loss of power or heat. The City of
            Akiak has endured repeated power outages due to generator
            failures and lack of spare parts or trained staff. In 2024,
            residents went weeks with inconsistent electricity, losing
            frozen food stores and relying on personal generators to keep
            freezers running (Alaska Public Media, July 1 2024). Because
            the community has only a few hundred residents, there is no
            financial cushion to absorb major repairs.

       Vulnerability to extreme weather and erosion. During Typhoon
            Merbok (2022) and again with ex-Typhoon Halong (2025), storm
            surge and flooding damaged fuel storage facilities in multiple
            western Alaska villages, dislodging tanks, floating drums, and
            spreading sheens of fuel across inundated areas (AP News, Oct
            2025). Facilities lacking adequate foundation maintenance,
            erosion protection, or anchoring are likely to have suffered
            the greatest losses.

       Escalating and unpredictable costs. Emergency repairs, spill
            responses, and replacement parts are several times more
            expensive than scheduled maintenance, particularly in fly-in
            communities where every repair requires specialized personnel
            and chartered transport. Small utilities with minimal cash
            reserves must often defer maintenance or seek emergency aid,
            perpetuating a costly cycle of crisis response.

        These examples demonstrate how the lack of dedicated O&M support
    directly increases the likelihood of environmental contamination, fuel
    supply disruption, and economic hardship. Moreover, strategic
    investment in rural fuel systems is essential--not only for local
    safety and stability, but also to ensure military and federal emergency
    assets remain available for their designated missions, rather than
    repeated disaster response, as the Typhoon Halong situation
    illustrates. For communities already facing high energy costs and
    limited local capacity, even a single spill or extended outage can have
    cascading impacts on public health, subsistence resources, and
    community stability.
        Sustained O&M investment, whether through dedicated funding
    mechanisms, regional aggregation strategies, or future performance-
    based pilot programs, is essential to shift rural Alaska's bulk fuel
    infrastructure from reactive repairs to proactive, long-term
    stewardship.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Murkowski to
                              Dr. Anna Maria Ortiz
        Question 1. In GAO's report from May 8, 2025, titled, DOE Loan
    Programs: Actions Needed to Address Authority and Improve Application
    Reviews, GAO found that LPO internal application review guidance is
    ``at times contradictory or unclear.'' In one instance, GAO found that
    ``TEFP guidance calls for the drafting of a technical viability memo by
    the evaluating engineer to document the results of LPO's technical
    viability evaluation.'' However, LPO staff interviewed by GAO revealed
    they did not create those memos. In other cases, GAO found that when
    asking LPO officials to clarify their application review procedures,
    ``their statements contradicted written procedure, practice, or other
    statements from LPO officials.'' Can you share how contradictory and
    unclear internal program guidance may contribute to potential
    applicants' disinterest in applying for a loan or loan guarantee from
    LPO?
        Answer. As we have previously reported, Tribes can have limited
    staffing and administrative capacity, which makes it challenging for
    them to identify and apply for federal funding. Administrative burdens,
    such as application requirements, can strain Tribes' staffing capacity.
    \1\ Unclear guidance can contribute to these burdens.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ GAO, Tribal Issues: Barriers to Access to Federal Assistance,
    GAO-25-107674 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 3, 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We have found that unclear guidance about the Department of
    Energy's (DOE) Tribal Energy Financing Program (TEFP) can cause
    confusion for Tribes, creating barriers for Tribes and limiting their
    ability to access federal funding for energy projects. \2\ For example,
    one tribal applicant reported being told by DOE Loan Programs Office
    (LPO) officials that the TEFP would cover 100 percent of its project's
    costs. \3\ Later, the applicant was told the loan would only cover 80
    percent, and it had to quickly get another loan to cover the equity
    difference. The applicant said the lack of clear requirements made
    applying to the program challenging. Another applicant reported that
    each time it met with LPO, the office introduced additional financing
    conditions--sometimes as many as 50 conditions simultaneously--
    requiring the applicant to spend additional time and money on its
    application. A third applicant reported that conflicting guidance about
    its project's eligibility caused delays that derailed its application
    before it entered the program.

        \2\ GAO, Tribal Energy Finance: Changes to DOE Loan Program Would
    Reduce Barriers for Tribes, GAO-25-107441 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 11,
    2025.) Related testimony: GAO, Tribal Energy Finance: DOE Actions
    Needed to Reduce Barriers for Tribes. GAO-25-108720 (Sept. 10, 2025).
        \3\ As part of a November 2025 reorganization, DOE renamed LPO to
    the Office of Energy Dominance Financing. For consistency with our
    hearing statement, we use LPO to refer to the office.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question 2. In your testimony, you noted that many of the
    challenges LPO faces with lack of Tribal expertise are strong points at
    the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs. If the TEFP were to be
    housed at DOE-IE, what new challenges do you anticipate and what
    recommendations would you make to address capacity?
        Answer. We have not analyzed the capacity of DOE's Office of Indian
    Energy Policy and Programs (IE) to house TEFP, or the potential
    benefits or challenges of such a change. However, we offer the
    following insights beyond the scope of our review of the TEFP:
        IE and TEFP have similar goals of supporting development of tribal
    energy projects:

       IE is charged with promoting Indian energy development,
            reducing energy costs and improving electrification on tribal
            lands. It administers grant funding and provides technical
            assistance to federally recognized Tribes, including Alaska
            Native villages, and other eligible tribal entities to support
            tribal energy development needs.

       TEFP supports federally recognized Indian Tribes or tribal
            energy development organizations that develop energy resources,
            products, or services using commercial technology.

        However, IE and LPO generally provide different types of funding
    for projects of different sizes with little overlap in project needs,
    according to IE officials. IE provides grant funding for smaller-scale
    projects that address Tribes' electrical needs, and awards range from
    $100,000 to $5 million, according to DOE documents. In contrast, LPO
    finances larger utility scale projects that provide Tribes with
    economic development opportunities, and the median loan request for the
    program is $108 million, according our TEFP review. Therefore, while IE
    has significant experience working with Tribes on their energy
    projects, it has no experience with loans or loan guarantees and has
    limited expertise to provide technical assistance on the larger
    projects that TEFP currently targets, according to IE officials.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                              Dr. Anna Maria Ortiz
        Question 1. GAO reported that the Department of Energy's Loan
    Program Office (LPO) allocates time from shared staff from other DOE
    offices to administer the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program (TELGP),
    and that these staff often do not have experience or expertise in
    Tribal energy finance. Please describe how this is increasing LPO's
    challenge of timely processing applications and any impact on the
    Program's effectiveness, particularly for Tribal applicants who seek to
    finance commercial-scale projects.
        Answer. Without adequate experienced staff, LPO could continue to
    face challenges effectively processing Tribes' applications, according
    to LPO officials and staff. This can increase application review times
    and require greater use of outside consultants to fill knowledge gaps,
    which can increase costs for Tribal applicants.
        For example, LPO staff who review Tribal Energy Financing Program
    (TEFP) applications are shared with other LPO loan programs and may
    prioritize review of these programs' applications, which can prolong
    TEFP review times. \1\ One tribal applicant reported that it
    experienced LPO resources being taken away from its application and
    that LPO officials told it that they were unlikely to prioritize the
    project for staffing because the project was small and LPO staff
    resources were limited. Tribal projects submitted for TEFP can be
    smaller than those submitted to other LPO programs. Specifically, we
    reported that the average loan requested for projects that completed
    financial close for LPO's Title XVII Clean Energy Financing Program
    (Section 1703) was $1.9 billion. \2\ In contrast, the average loan
    request for TEFP was $820 million, according to our TEFP review. \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created the Tribal Energy Loan
    Guarantee Program (TELGP), which initially only provided loan
    guarantees. Pub. L. No. 109-58, tit. V,  503(a), 119 Stat. 594, 764-78
    (codified in relevant part as amended at 25 U.S.C.   3501, 3502(c)).
    The program was first funded in 2017, and in 2022 it was expanded to
    allow direct loans. DOE refers to the expanded program as the Tribal
    Energy Financing Program (TEFP).
        \2\ GAO, DOE Loan Programs: Actions Needed to Address Authority and
    Improve Application Reviews, GAO-25-106631 (Washington, D.C.: May 8,
    2025).
        \3\ As we reported in our TEFP review, the median loan request for
    TEFP was $108 million. Loan and loan guarantee requests ranged from
    $23.7 million for a solar project to $8.7 billion for an ammonia
    production facility. For more information on TEFP project sizes, see
    GAO-25-107441.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        LPO staff's lack of experience with tribal applications can also
    slow application review and require greater use of outside consultants
    to fill knowledge gaps, which can increase costs for Tribes. For
    example, LPO staff reported that the legal nuances of developing
    projects on tribal lands and interconnection can take significant time
    for LPO to evaluate. Without adequate legal support for the program,
    LPO staff said it can take weeks or months to answer Tribes' legal
    questions. They said that having staff with experience with Tribes and
    tribal energy finance-particularly staff with experience in key tribal
    issues such as tribal project funding approaches and tribal land
    ownership types-can help with underwriting tribal energy projects.
    Program leadership said such expertise is best gained by having
    dedicated TEFP staff who develop knowledge and skills by routinely
    focusing on tribal applications. According to LPO officials and staff,
    without adequate experienced staff, LPO could continue to face
    challenges effectively processing Tribes' applications.

        Question 1a. Could the Office of Indian Energy enter into an MOU
    (or other official arrangement) with LPO to dedicate shared staff for
    the Tribal Energy Finance Program to address the lack of Tribal
    expertise, as mentioned in your report and testimony?
        Answer. We have not analyzed IE's capacity to enter into a
    Memorandum of Understanding or other official arrangement with LPO to
    dedicate shared staff to TEFP, nor have we analyzed the potential
    benefits or challenges of such a change. However, we offer the
    following insights beyond the scope of our review of TEFP:
        As noted above, IE has similar goals to LPO; however, IE and LPO
    provide different types of funding to different types of projects with
    little overlap in project needs, according to IE officials. IE provides
    grant funding for smaller-scale projects that address Tribes'
    electrical needs, with awards ranging from $100,000 to $5 million,
    according to DOE documents. In contrast, LPO finances larger utility-
    scale projects that provide Tribes with economic development
    opportunities, and the median loan request for the program is $108
    million, according our TEFP review. IE has no experience with loans or
    loan guarantees and has limited expertise to provide technical
    assistance on projects of the scale that TEFP targets, according to IE
    officials.

        Question 2. GAO reported that recent presidential actions have
    impacted LPO's overall staffing levels, which are ``likely to affect
    the availability of dedicated staff with expertise to work on Tribal
    applications.'' Will the LPO be able to effectively provide technical
    assistance and process applications with reduced staff, even from those
    without cultural competence or experience in Tribal energy finance?
        Answer. Because the staffing reductions at LPO came after we
    completed the audit work for our review of TEFP, we did not analyze the
    effect of staff reductions on the program. However, before these
    reductions, we found that LPO had few designated staff with tribal
    experience to review TEFP applications. We recommended that LPO
    consistently maintain designated staff in each division reviewing TEFP
    applications and provide additional training to build tribal competence
    and knowledge of tribal energy finance.
        Until LPO implements our recommendation, it cannot ensure TEFP
    applications are processed by staff with the needed cultural competence
    and expertise in tribal energy finance. Without such staff to work with
    them, Tribes may continue to have limited trust in LPO and experience
    increased challenges navigating the program. This can jeopardize
    Tribes' ability to secure funding for energy projects that could
    provide them important economic development opportunities.

        Question 2a. Will the reduced number of staff result in delays or
    fewer applications being processed?
        Answer. Because the staffing reductions at LPO came after we
    completed the audit work for our review of TEFP, we did not analyze the
    effects of reduced staff on the program. However, before the staff
    reductions, we found that the long application review timeline was a
    pain point for applicants. We also reported that cultural competence
    and expertise in tribal energy finance is critical for timely review of
    applications. Unless LPO consistently maintains designated staff with
    the appropriate knowledge and training to review TEFP applications, it
    cannot ensure TEFP applications are processed by staff with the needed
    expertise.

        Question 2b. How many FTEs does the LPO need to support origination
    and monitoring of new loans without the availability of the $75 million
    credit subsidy that was rescinded in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act?
        Answer. Because Public Law 119-21-commonly known as the One Big
    Beautiful Bill Act--was enacted after we completed the audit work for
    our review of TEFP, we did not analyze the act's effect on the program
    or its staffing needs. \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ An Act To provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H.
    Con. Res. 14, Pub. L. No. 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (2025).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In our August 2025 review of TEFP, we reported that, as of May
    2025, LPO had designated 12 of its 274 federal staff positions to focus
    primarily on TEFP or to work for the program on a recurring basis but
    had not consistently filled those positions. We also reported that as a
    result of recent presidential actions, LPO was undergoing significant
    changes to its overall staffing levels, which likely would affect the
    availability of dedicated staff with expertise to work on tribal
    applications. Specifically, as of July 18, 2025, 110 LPO employees had
    elected to resign on a deferred basis and were on administrative leave
    until their resignation or retirement date, and 43 additional positions
    were vacant, according to DOE officials. We followed up with DOE
    officials in September 2025, and they confirmed these numbers remained
    the same.
        Changes to program design (e.g., conducting due diligence in-house
    or streamlining the application process) and in the number and
    complexity of TEFP applications can affect the number of staff LPO
    needs to originate and monitor new loans.

        Question 3. GAO reported that the Department of Energy received 20
    total Tribal Energy Finance Program applications for direct loans and
    loan guarantees. How many applications were in each category?
        Answer. Of the 20 applications DOE received, 16 were for direct
    loans and four were for loan guarantees.

        Question 3a. What was the range and average of the direct loans
    requested?
        Answer. The 16 direct loan requests ranged from $24 million to $8.7
    billion. The average request was for about $914 million.

        Question 3b. What was the range and average of the loan guarantees
    requested?
        Answer. The four loan guarantee requests ranged from $61 million to
    $115 million. The average request was for about $88 million.

        Question 4. You testified that due diligence costs are a
    ``significant'' financial barrier that keeps Tribes from participating
    in the TELGP/Tribal Energy Finance Program. How can the Department of
    Energy help reduce due diligence costs?
        Answer. In our review of TEFP, we found that DOE was taking some
    steps that could reduce due diligence costs. However, these actions
    were still under development at the time of our review and their
    current status is uncertain:

       DOE planned to apply $5 million in technical assistance
            funding to help tribal applicants develop their application
            materials before the due diligence phase. DOE officials told us
            this could help reduce overall application preparation costs
            for tribal applicants, which would help offset the amount of
            due diligence work needed and associated costs charged to
            tribal applicants.

       LPO was developing a public finance application pathway for
            evaluating lower-risk projects, which it hoped would reduce the
            length of LPO's review process and due diligence fees charged
            to the applicant. LPO's typical application review pathway
            assumes a riskier corporate finance project structure, which
            requires more due diligence. In contrast, the public finance
            pathway would support lower-risk projects--such as those that
            are smaller scale or use established technologies--that are
            backed by a Tribe's government. Implementing a second
            application review pathway for Tribes could require less
            overall due diligence (thus lowering fees and expenses) and
            reduce application timeframes, according to LPO officials.

        Question 4a. Could the Department of Energy complete due diligence
    ``in-house'' for program applicants? Does Congress need to act or can
    the Department of Energy act administratively? Is there an approximate
    cost for doing so?
        Answer. We have not analyzed the capacity and cost for DOE to
    complete due diligence in-house for TEFP. In our review of TEFP, we
    recommended that LPO continue to develop and implement options to
    revise its TEFP due diligence review process to reduce or eliminate
    related fees. These options could include providing in-house
    underwriting.
        At the time of our audit, LPO was exploring options to reduce or
    eliminate due diligence fees, but these actions were still being
    developed. Such an effort is expected to include determining LPO's
    capacity in terms of expertise and legal authority.

        Question 5. Did the One Big Beautiful Bill Act impact the
    Department of Energy's $20 billion TELGP/Tribal Energy Finance Program
    loan authority or its ability to guarantee up to 100 percent of those
    loans?
        Answer. In the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Congress rescinded the
    unobligated balance of TEFP's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
    appropriations. \5\ As a result, the program has appropriations for
    credit subsidy costs, if any remain unobligated, of $10.5 million--$8.5
    million in pre-IRA appropriations and $2 million in post-IRA
    appropriations. \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H.
    Con. Res. 14, Pub. L. No. 119-21, tit. V, subtit. D,  50402(b), 139
    Stat. 72, 152 (2025). Congress in the IRA had appropriated $75 million
    for credit subsidy and to administer TEFP. An Act To provide for
    reconciliation pursuant to Title II of S. Con. Res. 14, Pub. L. No.
    117-169,  50145(a), 136 Stat.1818, 2045-46 (2022). In GAO-25-107441,
    we did not assess the effects on the program of this rescission of
    unobligated funds.
        \6\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-31, 131
    Stat. 135, 313; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Pub. L. No. 117-
    328, 136 Stat. 4459, 4637 (2022). This total excludes appropriations
    for administrative expenses.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The One Big Beautiful Bill Act did not amend DOE's $20 billion in
    loan authority. DOE had $19.9 billion in remaining loan authority as of
    September 2025, according to DOE officials. \7\ According to LPO
    officials, information submitted in support of the President's fiscal
    year 2025 budget request estimated that from fiscal year 2029 through
    2030, $10.5 million of appropriated credit subsidy funding would
    support the use of loan authority totaling $4.4 billion. However, the
    specific amount of loan authority DOE uses will vary based on factors
    such as the total dollar amount and risk of loans DOE makes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Loan authority is the statutory limit to the total outstanding
    amount of loans and loan guarantees LPO may issue for a program for a
    given period.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The One Big Beautiful Bill Act did not change DOE's authority to
    guarantee up to 100 percent of loans. \8\

        \8\ Prior to the IRA's enactment, DOE was authorized to guarantee
    no more than 90 percent of the unpaid principal and interest due on any
    loan under TEFP. See 25 U.S.C.  3502(c)(1) (2021). This restriction
    was eliminated by the IRA. Pub. L. No. 117-169,  50145(b)(1), 136
    Stat. at 2045-46. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act did not amend this
    provision or reinstate the restriction. See generally, Pub. L. No. 119-
    21, 139 Stat. 72.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question 6. What is the status of the 20 applications after the
    TELGP's $75 million in unobligated credit subsidies was rescinded by
    the One Big Beautiful Bill Act? Are they active? Inactive? Withdrawn?
    Paused? Some other status?
        Answer. We previously reported that as of February 2025, DOE had
    closed one loan guarantee, seven applications were active, and 12 were
    inactive. \9\ Five of the 12 inactive projects were withdrawn,
    according to DOE's February 2025 data. We followed up with DOE in
    September 2025 and officials confirmed that the status of the existing
    applications remained the same and that they had not received any new
    applications.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ GAO-25-107441.

        Question 7. What are the immediate and potential long-term impacts
    of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to the TELGP or the Tribal Energy
    Finance Program?
        Answer. Because we completed the audit work for our review of TEFP
    before the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was enacted, we have not fully
    analyzed the effects of the legislation on the program. As discussed
    above, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act did not change the program's loan
    authority of $20 billion.
        However, as stated above, the act rescinded the unobligated balance
    of IRA appropriations. As a result, the program has only the remaining
    balances from the $10.5 million in appropriations for subsidy costs
    from other acts. The act also changes the availability of tax credits--
    including by restricting a credit for investment into certain renewable
    projects to those placed in service by December 31, 2027--which could
    affect Tribes' ability to develop renewable projects. \10\ However, we
    did not analyze the impacts of these provisions in our review of TEFP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 119-21, tit. VII, subtit. A,
    70513(a), (g)(3), 139 Stat. at 270-73 (codified in relevant part at 26
    U.S.C.  48E(e)(4), 48 note).

        Question 8. Does the TELGP need new statutory authorizations,
    additional continuing appropriations, or other authorities to issue new
    loan guarantees following enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act?
        Answer. We have not analyzed the need for additional statutory
    authorizations and appropriations for TEFP. However, DOE is still
    authorized to issue loan guarantees and direct loans, consistent with
    applicable law and available appropriations.
        As stated above, the act reduced the appropriations available for
    loan subsidies, leaving the remaining balances from $10.5 million in
    non-IRA cost subsidy appropriations, but did not change the program's
    loan authority of $20 billion. According to LPO, information submitted
    in support of the President's fiscal year 2025 budget request estimated
    that in fiscal years 2029 and 2030, $10.5 million of appropriated
    credit subsidy funding would support the use of loan authority totaling
    $4.4 billion. However, the specific amount of loan authority DOE can
    use will vary based on factors such as the total dollar amount and risk
    associated with the loans it makes.

        Question 9. What are some best practices that the U.S. Department
    of Agriculture implements in vetting its public financing loans and
    loan guarantees that are not currently used by the LPO, and how could
    adopting these practices improve access to financing for Tribal energy
    projects?
        Answer. According to officials from the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture (USDA), USDA federal loan and loan guarantee programs that
    issue loans to tribal applicants complete underwriting in-house and
    have limited or no additional due diligence fees.
        In contrast, as we discuss in our report on TEFP, DOE requires TEFP
    applicants to pay for external consultants whom DOE may engage for its
    due diligence. The resulting level and unpredictability of due
    diligence costs discourages Tribes from applying to TEFP, according to
    potential participants and stakeholders we interviewed for our August
    2025 review of the program. One Tribe that decided not to apply to the
    program noted that the costs could translate into millions of dollars,
    making it difficult for Tribes to plan. Another tribal applicant with
    previous experience seeking energy financing noted that the expected
    due diligence costs under TEFP were double what it would expect from
    other financing sources for its proposed energy project. This Tribe
    told us it likely would withdraw its TEFP application in part because
    of the high application costs.
        Another important practice USDA officials identified is to have
    trained staff in the field who have experience working with Tribes and
    understand how to conduct underwriting that is appropriate for tribal
    finances. During our review of TEFP, LPO officials told us that having
    staff with experience with Tribes and tribal energy finance--
    particularly staff with experience in key tribal issues such as tribal
    funding approaches and types of tribal land--is beneficial for
    underwriting tribal energy projects. Program leadership said such
    expertise is best gained by having dedicated TEFP staff who develop
    knowledge and skills by routinely focusing on tribal applications.

        Question 10. To the extent possible, please provide answers to the
    following questions related to GAO-25-107441. How many DOE employees
    are designated to support the review and processing of Tribal Energy
    Finance Program applications?
        Answer. We reported that as of May 2025, LPO had designated 12 of
    its 274 federal staff positions to focus primarily on TEFP or to work
    for the program on a recurring basis but had not consistently filled
    those positions. We also reported that as of July 18, 2025, 110
    employees had elected to resign on a deferred basis and were on
    administrative leave until their resignation or retirement date, while
    43 additional positions were vacant. When we followed up with DOE
    officials in September 2025, they confirmed LPO's unfilled positions
    remained the same. However, it is unclear how many of TEFP's designated
    staff remain at the agency.

        Question 10a. How many of these employees are FTEs?
        Answer. Because a significant portion of the staff designated for
    TEFP are shared with other programs and LPO's practice is to assign
    staff to projects based on availability, GAO did not analyze the number
    of FTEs assigned to TEFP.

        Question 10b. How many of these positions are vacant?
        Answer. As of May 2025, seven of LPO's 12 designated TEFP staff
    positions were vacant. As noted above, LPO is undergoing significant
    changes to its overall staffing levels, and it is unclear how many of
    TEFP's designated staff remain at the agency.

        Question 10c. How many of these positions are solely dedicated to
    the Tribal Energy Finance Program?
        Answer. As of May 2025, LPO's two outreach positions were staffed
    to work solely with TEFP. As noted above, LPO is undergoing significant
    changes to its overall staffing levels, and it is unclear how many of
    TEFP's designated staff remain at the agency.

        Question 10d. How many are dedicating part of their time to other
    LPO matters?
        Answer. As of May 2025, LPO had 10 staff positions that dedicated
    part of their time to TEFP in addition to other programs. As noted
    above, LPO is undergoing significant changes to its overall staffing
    levels, and it is unclear how many of TEFP's designated staff remain at
    the agency.

        Question 10e. How many of these employees have expertise working in
    public finance and with Tribal governments?
        Answer. We reported that LPO's outreach staff for TEFP are hired
    for their tribal cultural competency and receive in-house training on
    energy projects and finance. LPO has provided its staff with general
    training about working with Tribes and recently began providing some
    staff with more specific training that addresses topics such as
    awareness of tribal law and government procedures. However, we did not
    gather data on how many of LPO's employees have expertise working in
    public finance and with tribal governments.

        Question 11. GAO reported that LPO has difficulty administering the
    TELGP/Tribal Energy Finance Program effectively, citing several factors
    including lack of culturally competent staff and expertise in Tribal
    energy finance. Would the Program be more effective if housed under
    OIEPP?
        Answer. We have not analyzed the capacity of DOE's Office of Indian
    Energy Policy and Programs (IE) to house TEFP, or the potential
    benefits or challenges of such a change. However, we offer the
    following insights beyond the scope of our review of TEFP:

        IE and LPO's TEFP have similar goals of supporting development of
    tribal energy projects:

       IE is charged with promoting Indian energy development,
            reducing energy costs and improving electrification on tribal
            lands. It administers grant funding and provides technical
            assistance to federally recognized Tribes, including Alaska
            Native villages, and other eligible tribal entities to support
            tribal energy development needs.

       TEFP supports federally recognized Indian Tribes or tribal
            energy development organizations that develop energy resources,
            products, or services using commercial technology.

        However, IE and LPO generally provide different types of funding
    for projects of different sizes with little overlap in project needs,
    according to IE officials. IE provides grant funding for smaller scale
    projects that address Tribes' electrical needs, and awards range from
    $100,000 to $5 million, according to DOE documents. In contrast, LPO
    finances larger utility-scale projects that provide Tribes with
    economic development opportunities, and the median loan request for the
    program is $108 million, according to our TEFP review. Therefore, while
    IE has significant experience working with Tribes on their energy
    projects, it has no experience with loans or loan guarantees and has
    limited expertise to provide technical assistance on the larger
    projects that TEFP currently targets, according to IE officials.

        Question 12. What are the statutory maximums or minimums, if any,
    on Tribal Energy Finance Program application loan amount? Are there
    other statutory requirements that would limit the size or type of loan
    under the Program?
        Answer. In our report on TEFP, we did not identify any statutory
    maximums or minimums on individual TEFP loan amounts. However, by
    statute, Tribes are required to pay at least 20 percent of total
    project costs as equity for loan guarantees, and this requirement
    extends to direct loans. \11\ The equity requirement means that for a
    $100 million energy project, a tribal applicant would need to cover at
    least $20 million of total project costs.

        \11\ By statute, DOE must make all loan guarantees in accordance
    with section 1702 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended,
    including that, unless otherwise provided by law, no loan guarantee
    shall exceed 80 percent of the project costs of the facility that is
    subject to the guarantee, as estimated at the time the guarantee is
    issued. 42 U.S.C.  16512(a), (c).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question 13. Does LPO have statutory or regulatory authority to
    establish investment caps or limits on TELGP/Tribal Energy Finance
    Program applications?
        Answer. Our report on TEFP did not include a detailed analysis of
    whether LPO has statutory or regulatory authorities to establish
    investment caps or limits on applications to the program. However, as
    stated above, by statute, the program has a loan authority of $20
    billion and Tribes are required to pay at least 20 percent of total
    project costs as equity for loan guarantees, and this requirement
    extends to direct loans.
        Our analysis of applications to TEFP showed that tribal applicants
    submitted applications for a broad range of amounts and corresponding
    total project costs (i.e., the loan request plus equity paid by
    Tribes). Loan and loan guarantee requests ranged from $23.7 million for
    a solar project, with a total project cost of $29.6 million, to $8.7
    billion for an ammonia production facility, with a total project cost
    of $12.1 billion.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Murkowski to
                                  David Conrad
        Question 1. You stated to the Committee that DOE-IE continues to
    manage and support the Indian Country Energy and Infrastructure Working
    Group (ICEIWG) with internal DOE-IE resources. When is the next
    scheduled ICEIWG meeting? Please provide DOE-IE's plan for the ICEIWG
    platform in this administration.
        Answer. DOE recognizes ICEIWG as a trusted forum that provides
    invaluable on-the-ground perspectives from Tribes regarding their
    priorities, identification of challenges, and collaboration with DOE on
    advancing energy development and infrastructure. DOE-IE is currently
    planning the second ICEIWG meeting of 2025. We anticipate holding the
    second meeting in the coming months. IE will continue to host ICEIWG
    meetings and work with members and DOE leadership to collaborate to
    advance reliable, affordable, and secure American energy.

        Question 2. Does DOE-IE plan to hold an in-person grantee convening
    next year?
        Answer. IE's program review is an important event for sharing
    knowledge and successes between IE's grantees, IE staff, as well as the
    broader Tribal energy community. IE has not begun planning the 2026
    program review but will work to ensure it is both impactful and cost-
    effective.

        Question 3. Are Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs)
    eligible for technical assistance from the DOE-IE Office? If not, is
    this something that can be addressed administratively at DOE or is
    legislation necessary?
        Answer. Many, but not all TDHE's are eligible for IE technical
    assistance (TA).
        TDHEs, as defined in 25 U.S.C.  4103, include nonprofit entities
    authorized to receive federal funds for the development or improvement
    of low-income housing, and can be authorized or established by both
    federally recognized Tribes and State recognized Tribes. As provided
    under 25 U.S.C.  3502(b) (and the controlling definition of ``Indian
    tribe'' at  3501(4)), the Office of Indian Energy is only able to
    serve TDHEs authorized by federally recognized Tribes. Furthermore, the
    TDHE would need to be seeking to carry out energy-related activities
    within the TA services offered to take advantage of IE's TA.

        Question 4. GAO testified that Tribal expertise is not a strength
    of the Loan Programs Office (LPO), but it is a strength of the DOE-IE.
    GAO also described what it characterized as ``the mismatch between
    Tribal Energy Financing Program (TEFP) and the other financing programs
    housed at LPO. What resources, expertise, staff capacity and
    authorities would be needed for DOE-IE to take over the TEFP from LPO?
        Answer. DOE understands the importance of the TEFP to Tribal
    economies and to SCIA. DOE would like to develop a well-researched
    proposal on how best to structure joint efforts between LPO and IE in
    partnership toward the common goal to maximize the accessibility and
    impact of the TEFP, drawing upon the core capabilities and unique
    strengths of each office. The proposal will include respective roles
    for IE and LPO in program design, implementation, and evaluation.

        Question 5. In DOE's response to the GAO Report, Tribal Energy
    Finance: Changes to DOE Loan Program Would Reduce Barriers for Tribes,
    the agency stated that LPO would continue developing and testing the
    public finance application pathway for lower-risk Tribal energy
    projects. What steps does LPO plan to take to develop and test this
    pathway in this administration? Please provide a timeline for
    implementation of this pathway.
        Answer. The Department is continuing to conduct a department-wide
    review to ensure all activities follow the law, comply with applicable
    court orders and align with the Trump administration's priorities and
    ensure the responsible stewardship of American taxpayer dollars. The
    Department of Energy is hard at work to deliver on President Trump's
    promise to restore affordable, reliable, and secure energy for the
    entire Nation.

        Question 6. GAO testified that DOE has $10.5 million available to
    support credit subsidy costs for the Tribal Energy Financing Program.
    Can you confirm that this is accurate, and that project applications
    continue to be reviewed under TEFP?
        Answer. LPO confirms that $10.5 million is available to support
    credit subsidy costs.
        Project applications continue to be reviewed under TEFP.

        Question 7. How many outreach employees at LPO are solely dedicated
    to TEFP? How many underwriting employees are solely dedicated to TEFP?
    How many full time FTE positions dedicated to TEFP are filled, and how
    many are vacant? Are there any active plans to fill the vacant
    positions? In the meantime, how is LPO filling the gaps?
        Answer. LPO is not structured around individual loan programs.
    Instead, LPO is structured around technologies with vertically
    integrated teams focused on the Administration's priorities. These
    technology-based teams work with applicants to determine which loan
    program is the best fit for the proposed project (e.g., Title 17,
    Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing, Tribal Energy Financing
    Program). Each integrated team includes staff with expertise in
    outreach and business development, underwriting and structuring,
    technical and environmental, and Portfolio Management. Team members are
    assigned to applications and loans as they move through the application
    process.
        In addition to the technology-based teams, LPO recognizes the
    specific nature of tribal projects and outreach. Therefore, LPO has a
    dedicated tribal outreach team. The tribal outreach team currently
    includes one Federal staff and four contractors. The tribal outreach
    team works closely with the appropriate technology-based teams on
    individual tribal financing applications.
        LPO continuously evaluates its staffing needs across its divisions
    and technology teams. LPO will ensure designated staff for TEFP
    applications, within the current resources available to LPO under
    current Executive Orders, budget authority, and OPM and DOE guidance on
    staffing.
        LPO includes additional training to build Tribal competence and
    knowledge of Tribal energy finance as part of the annual assessment of
    its staff training needs.

        Question 8. How is the DOE's Navigator Service similar to or
    different from the technical assistance staff IE maintains?
        Answer. Many Tribes are capacity-constrained and have multiple
    priority issues competing for their attention including but not limited
    to energy issues. The Office of Indian Energy Tribal Energy Navigator
    service responds to inquiries from Tribes and Tribal entities to reduce
    administrative burden and facilitate more efficient access to DOE and
    other federal energy programs available to them. The Tribal Energy
    Navigator, an IE staff service, provides human interaction which is
    often a preferred method of communication with Tribes especially within
    a large bureaucracy. Relative to IE's Navigation service, IE's TA
    program is technical in nature. IE's TA program helps advance energy
    projects and energy commerce with expert support, through IE staff,
    national labs and partners at the Department of Commerce, the Denali
    Commission, and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. Each TA
    project is no-cost to the Tribe and culminates in a specific
    deliverable to inform the next steps in energy development. Common
    types of TA include:

       Community-wide strategic energy planning: Inform vision and
            goals. The process uses facilitators, who are experienced in
            Indian Country, to help Tribal communities clarify their energy
            vision. This is a recommended starting point for many Tribes
            before they pursue analysis and funding of energy projects.

       Energy audits of buildings and facilities: Assess
            performance, quantify usage and identify cost savings
            opportunities.

       Resource assessments: Quantify energy resources in line with
            Tribal priorities.

       Energy project planning: Modeling, economic analysis, third
            party independent reviews of energy project documents.

       Energy governance development: Energy code development,
            utility formation pre-feasibility assessments.

       Enabling a competitive business environment: Legal
            frameworks to enhance energy sector commerce.

        Question 8. Are there any limitations to the resources the
    Navigator Service connects Tribes and Tribal Energy Development
    Organizations (TEDOs) to? For example, would the Navigator Service be
    able to connect an interested Tribe with staff at LPO?
        Answer. IE's Navigator identifies potential matches between a
    Tribe's energy objectives and federal resources and provides referrals
    to technical and financial assistance (TA and FA respectively) programs
    across DOE, including IE and LPO. Yes--they have been connecting Tribes
    to LPO. TEFP is a resource on BIA's Access to Capital Clearinghouse

        Question 9. In your written testimony you mention the growing
    relationship between the Office of Indian Energy and the Arctic Energy
    Office (AEO), noting the engagement role the AEO is playing in
    connecting Alaska Native Corporations with the resources available at
    the Department. Please share examples of the type of collaboration IE
    has had with the AEO in getting communities the resources they need to
    develop their energy resources and reduce the cost per kilowatt hour to
    Alaskan ratepayers. I would especially appreciate examples referencing
    ongoing projects.
        Answer. IE has had significant impacts on energy affordability,
    accessibility, and reliability in Alaska, having supported 74 projects
    across the state with a combined energy savings of $168 million over
    the life of the projects. These savings were the result of $54 million
    in federal investment. IE also has a strong record of ensuring Alaska
    Native entities have comparable accessibility to the Office's programs;
    since 2010, approximately 28 percent of IE deployment funding and
    approximately 42 percent of all IE technical assistance has gone to
    Alaska.
        Access to IE programs is heightened by key partnerships, including
    regular collaboration with the Arctic Energy Office (AE). Below are
    ongoing examples:

       IE and AE leadership meet monthly to coordinate amongst the
            Offices.

       Staff from IE's technical assistance program participate in
            monthly Arctic Energy Ambassador calls, hosted by AE, to share
            updates on IE's technical assistance program and boost access
            to the program across Alaska. In turn, Arctic Energy
            Ambassadors share the latest needs and trends from Alaska.

       IE has supported several requests from Arctic Energy
            Ambassadors, including a design review for a geothermal
            project.

       IE and AE have co-located workspace in Anchorage to
            facilitate local collaboration.

        Question 10. What are DOE's plans for the unobligated IRA Section
    50122 Tribal Home Electrification and Appliance Rebate funding?
        Answer. The Department is conducting a department-wide review to
    ensure all activities follow the law, comply with applicable court
    orders, align with the Trump administration's priorities, and ensure
    the responsible stewardship of American taxpayer dollars. The American
    people provided President Trump with a mandate to govern and to unleash
    `American Energy Dominance.' The Department of Energy is hard at work
    to deliver on President Trump's promise to restore affordable,
    reliable, and secure energy to the entire nation.

        Question 11. Through conversations with former administrative
    staff, we have heard many positive things about the collaborative
    approach IE takes to addressing community energy and natural resources
    needs. One particularly strong example included working with the
    Department of the Interior's (DOI) Division of Energy and Mineral
    Development (DEMD). How have Tribes/TEDOs utilized both DEMD and IE in
    order to achieve their energy goals?
        Answer. IE and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Division
    of Energy and Mineral Development (DEMD) each have complementary
    functions that benefit Tribal Nations and Alaska Native Villages
    throughout the energy development and deployment process.
        Two distinctions between the two programs are as follows:

       IE conducts TA through access to the DOE national labs and
            more recently the Department of Commerce. This TA, provided at
            no-cost to Tribes and Tribal entities, is useful for early
            analysis to help inform the development of energy projects and
            frameworks to enable energy sector commerce.

       DEMD's financial assistance has focused more resources on
            project development (pre-construction activities) whereas IE's
            financial assistance has focused more resources on deployment
            (construction activities). IE has also funded pre-construction
            activities although less frequently than DEMD.

        Tribes have often staggered IE and DEMD resources to advance
    projects along the development pipeline. The most common path begins
    with IE no-cost TA, followed by DEMD project development resources,
    followed by IE competitive financial assistance to deploy the project.
    However, there are also many examples where a Tribe or Alaska Native
    Village will approach DEMD first for services and then apply for a
    competitive grant under IE financial assistance.
        In addition to offering complementary resources, IE and DEMD staff
    coordinate and support each other as competitive grant application
    reviewers to maximize the use of their specialized expertise and ensure
    the projects are poised for success once selected for negotiation and
    awards.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                                  David Conrad
        Question 1. On average, how many grant applications does your
    office receive in a year?
        Answer. The number of applications received in any given years can
    be dependent on the nature of the announced funding opportunities.
    Between FY 2010-FY 2024, IE received less than 1000 applications.

        Question 2. On average, how many annual applications has your
    office been able to fund?
        Answer. Between FY 2010-FY 2024, IE announced about 260 awards.

        Question 3. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2022 and ending in Fiscal Year
    2025, please provide the number of applications for renewable energy
    development, including wind, solar, and battery storage your office
    received.

        Answer. The vast majority of applications IE received during this
    time period contained one or more of these technologies, in line with
    the FOA objectives at the time: wind, solar, battery storage, as well
    as microgrids which often include wind, solar, and battery
    technologies.

        Question 3a. To date, how many of these applications have been
    funded?
        Answer. 36 of these applications were awarded to date.

        Question 3b. To date, how many of these applications have been
    denied and on what basis?
        Answer. IE followed DOE's standard procedures for reviewing
    financial assistance applications. DOE did not make awards based on:
    applicant withdrawal, failure to meet eligibility requirements set
    forth in the FOA, failure to meet the compliance requirements set forth
    in the FOA, failure to meet the responsiveness criteria set forth in
    the FOA; insufficient technical merit based on application of technical
    review criteria set forth in the FOA; application of program policy
    factors set forth in the FOA; and available funding.

        Question 3c. To date, what is the status of pending applications?
        Answer. The American people provided President Trump with a mandate
    to govern and unleash `American Energy Dominance.' The Department is
    continuing to conduct a department-wide review and ensure all pending
    applications are in line with the administration's priorities to ensure
    a responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars, while providing the most
    reliable and secure energy possible, that will lower costs.

        Question 3d. How many of these applications are still under review?
    Why?
        Answer. Applications received under DE-FOA-0003401 ``Tribal Energy
    Planning and Development'' valued at $25,000,000, are pending review.
    The FOA is under review by Department of Energy leadership to ensure
    compliance with Administration policies and priorities.

        Question 4. Does the OIEPP plan to support an all of the above
    energy strategy for Tribal projects in Fiscal Year 2026? Or will there
    be a preference for, or prohibition on, certain energy technologies?
        Answer. While the previous administration pursued a strategy of
    energy subtraction that raised costs and made our grids less reliable
    through funding intermittent energy sources, President Trump's
    administration is advancing a strategy of energy addition-utilizing
    taxpayer resources for energy that is affordable, reliable, and secure
    and will lower costs for the entire Nation.

        Question 4a. Assuming an all of the above approach, how many
    projects would your office be able to fund under the President's Budget
    Request for Fiscal Year 2026?
        Answer. The President's FY26 Budget request includes $30 million
    for IE financial assistance, out of $50 million total requested
    appropriations. If appropriated by Congress, this would allow IE to
    fund approximately 12 to 24 community scale energy projects.

        Question 5. For new grant applicants--are there certain types of
    projects that your office is prioritizing for funding?
        Answer. As Secretary Wright has mentioned, DOE will prioritize
    energy solutions based on people and math, with consideration for the
    local context and available resources and the fact that one of the
    problems we've made the least amount of progress on is affordable
    energy in remote communities. IE's decisions will continue to be guided
    by robust analysis aimed at enhancing energy reliability, security and
    affordability across Indian Country, where the impacts of unreliable
    and high-cost power are acutely felt. Energy resources or technologies
    which address these challenges given the unique circumstances of any
    particular Tribe are a priority for the Office.

        Question 5a. Are there certain types of projects that currently
    require additional rounds of agency scrutiny, review, or evaluation
    that were not implemented in previous years?
        Answer. Consistent with previous years, Department of Energy
    ensures compliance with Administration policies and priorities.

        Question 6. You testified that the Department is not delaying
    funding for wind, solar, or battery projects. For applications to use
    Fiscal Year 2025 funds for wind, solar, and battery projects, has this
    administration, DOGE, the Secretary, or any other person, persons, or
    office directed your office to re-review or evaluate applications for
    wind, solar, or battery projects that would be funded using Fiscal Year
    2025 or earlier appropriations?

        Question 6a. If yes, what are the criteria your office is using to
    re-review or evaluate those applications?
        Answer. The reliability and security of our power grid are
    critically threatened by inadequate and intermittent energy supplies,
    necessitating rapid and robust reforms. Without decisive intervention,
    the Nation's power grid will be unable to support Tribal energy needs
    nor expanded manufacturing, re-industrialization efforts, and the data
    centers needed to win the AI race.
        To clarify the testimony that was provided, any projects selected
    for award in prior years (including projects which use wind, solar, and
    battery technologies) are moving forward, including through
    negotiation, and grantees continue to receive funding under the terms
    of their awards.

        Question 7. You testified that your office's plan was approved this
    summer. Please provide a copy to the Committee.
        Answer. IE's FY 26 Budget Briefing to HEWD is attached to convey FY
    26 program priorities.

        Question 8. What is the current timeline for getting OIEPP's Fiscal
    Year 2025 funds out the door?
        Answer. As stated during testimony, IE is looking forward to
    applying FY 25 funds to a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) targeted
    for release in the coming months.
        Question 9. GAO's Dr. Ortiz testified that the Department has $10.5
    million available to use to support the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee
    Program/Tribal Energy Finance Program. Please confer with the Loan
    Programs Office to provide the Committee with a reasonable
    approximation of the total loan value the available subsidy account
    could support. Assume, for the purposes of analysis, the average loan
    request is $100 million.
        Answer. The credit subsidy calculation is highly dependent on the
    characteristics and credit profile of the loan and underlying project.
    As illustration, LPO estimates that a reasonable credit subsidy rate
    range for TEFP could be approximately 5 to 20 percent, once again
    dependent on the attributes of a given project. Assuming this range,
    the current credit subsidy amount of $10.5 million could support
    between $52.5 million and $210 million in total loans or loan
    guarantees (or one to two projects assuming an average loan request of
    $100 million), out of the $19.9 billion available as loan commitment
    authority overall.

        Question 10. The last time the Department provided testimony to the
    Committee, I expressed concern that Tribes were being penalized for
    using multiple federal funding sources to stand up their energy
    projects based on a double benefit restriction in the Inflation
    Reduction Act (IRA). After enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,
    does the Department agree with GAO that this ``double dipping''
    restriction no longer applies?
        Answer. The Department agrees with GAO that the double benefit
    restriction no longer applies, as this restriction was tied to funds
    provided in the Inflation Reduction Act, which were rescinded by the
    One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

        Question 11. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act rescinded unobligated
    amounts of the $75 million Congress provided to subsize loan guarantees
    for the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program. Please confer with the
    Loan Programs Office to answer the following questions:

        Question11a. How much unobligated IRA funding was rescinded to
    support the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program/Tribal Energy Finance
    Program?
        Answer. The OBBBA rescinded all unobligated TEFP IRA balances. Of
    the $75 million provided for TEFP in the IRA, $70 million was rescinded
    by the OBBBA in 2025. Since OBBBA indefinitely rescinded TEFP IRA
    balances, in the event any obligated balances are recovered in future
    fiscal years, they will be subject to the rescission.

        Question 11b. How much non-IRA funding remains to support the
    Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program/Tribal Energy Finance Program?
        Answer. Available non-IRA funding resources are $19.9 billion in
    loan commitment authority and $10.5 million in credit subsidy
    appropriation. Non-IRA administrative funding available at the start of
    FY 2026 was $5.3 million.

        Question 11c. How many loans could these remaining funds guarantee,
    assuming an average loan amount of $100 million?
        Answer. As illustration, LPO estimates that a reasonable credit
    subsidy rate range for TEFP could be approximately 5 to 20 percent,
    once again dependent on the attributes of a given project. Assuming
    this range, the current credit subsidy amount of $10.5 million could
    support between $52.5 million and $210 million in total loans or loan
    guarantees (or one to two projects assuming an average loan request of
    $100 million).

        Question 12. What is the Department's reduction in force (RIF) plan
    with respect to OIEPP?
        Answer. DOE is not currently planning any RIFs.

        Question 13. Do the President's proposed reductions in Department
    staff that support OIEPP include staff that have already left the
    agency or do they include existing FTE positions that are currently
    filled?
        Answer. DOE is not currently planning any RIFs.

        Question 14. In a House Energy and Commerce hearing, Secretary
    Wright expressed his support for not rescinding unobligated balances of
    LPO's credit subsidy accounts. Please confer with the Loan Programs
    Office to answer the following questions:

        Question 14a. After the rescission of the Tribal loan guarantee
    subsidy account, what is the Department's plan to continue to support
    Tribal energy projects through the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee
    Program/Tribal Energy Finance Program?
        Answer. The Tribal Energy Finance Program (TEFP) at the Loan
    Programs Office will continue to operate. TEFP is focused on supporting
    the White House's priorities while closely aligning with Tribes on
    expanding the use of Tribal energy resources.

        Question 14b. Will the Department allocate other funds to support
    current TELGP applicants?
        Answer. When the Administrative Budget is finalized, LPO will
    evaluate how much funding could be used for loan assistance for
    applicants. LPO will work with the Office of Indian Energy and other
    offices to determine if DOE grant funding could support TEFP applicants
    navigate the application and due diligence process.

        Question 14c. If yes, how much does the Department intend to
    allocate and from where?
        Answer. When the Administrative Budget is finalized, LPO will
    evaluate how much funding could be used for loan assistance for
    applicants. LPO will work with the Office of Indian Energy and other
    offices to determine if DOE grant funding could support TEFP applicants
    navigate the application and due diligence process.

        Attachment

     Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs--Fiscal Year 2026 Budget
           Request--House Energy and Water Development--13 June 2025
    Executive Summary
    FY 2026 Priorities
        Through financial and technical assistance IE will catalyze
    American Indian and Alaskan Native nations to lead the development of
    reliable, firm energy infrastructure in Indian Country to advance
    energy abundance, help restore American energy dominance, and address
    energy access challenges in Indian Country. Priorities:

       Expand reliable, firm energy development in Indian Country.

       Leverage IE's grant making authority to fund energy
            infrastructure planning and deployment.

       Provide expert assistance to Tribes for productive
            engagement with project developers to unleash new American
            energy.

       Improve energy access for Tribes.

    FY 2026 Request

       The FY 2026 Budget Request streamlines the Office of Indian
            Energy's management footprint, but proposes to expandreliable,
            firm energy infrastructure development in Indian Country. IE
            offers financial and technical assistance to Indian Tribes,
            including Alaska Native villages, and eligible Tribal entities
            for advancing electrification and energy development and
            deployment on Indian lands, reducing energy costs, and
            assisting economic development in Tribal communities where
            unemployment and poverty rates far exceed national averages.

    FY 2026 Overview
    Program Overview
        Mission of the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs (45
    U.S.C.  7144e):
        The Director, in accordance with Federal policies promoting Indian
    self-determination and the purposes of this chapter, shall provide,
    direct, foster, coordinate, and implement energy planning, education,
    management, conservation, and delivery programs of the Department
    that--

            (1) promote Indian tribal energy development, efficiency, and
            use;

            (2) reduce or stabilize energy costs;

            (3) enhance and strengthen Indian tribal energy and economic
            infrastructure relating to natural resource development and
            electrification; and

            (4) bring electrical power and service to Indian land and the
            homes of tribal members located on Indian lands or acquired,
            constructed, or improved (in whole or in part) with Federal
            funds.

    FY 2026 Priorities
        Financial assistance to increase reliable, firm power: competitive
    funding opportunities for energy infrastructure deployment to American
    Indian and Alaska Native federally recognized Tribes across the Nation.
    Programs will not support work on solar, wind, or battery technologies.
        Technical assistance to overcome energy development barriers:
    technical assistance at no cost to Indian Tribes to develop a tangible
    product or specific deliverable to address a need or barrier and move
    energy projects forward, and to enable a competitive business
    environment for energy development in Indian Country. Programs will not
    support work on solar, wind, or battery technologies.
    FY 2026 Overview

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY26
              $ in thousands               FY24         FY25       Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Office of Indian Energy                 70,000       70,000       50,000
    Program Direction                       14,000       14,000       10,000
    Assistance Programs                     56,000       56,000       40,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Explanation of Changes from FY25:
        The increase in technical assistance funding will enable the
    expansion of technical assistance to more Tribes and increased local
    providers. The decrease in federal assistance funding focuses support
    on reliable, firm energy infrastructure.
        Programs will not support work on solar, wind, or battery
    technologies.
    FY 2025 Planned Activities
       Development of a strategy to advance electrification and
            energy development and deployment on Indian lands to address
            energy access challenges in Indian Country.

       Issuance of aNotice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)for cost-
            shared competitive grants to eligible Tribal entities for
            energy deploymenton Tribal lands.

                                      [all]