[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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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]