    [Senate Hearing 119-403]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 119-403

                             A PATHWAY TO EUROPEAN
                                ENERGY SECURITY
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND
                         REGIONAL SECURITY COOPERATION

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION
                                   __________

                                FEBRUARY 4, 2026

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Available via http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    63-707 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Chairman
    PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska                JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    DAVID MCCORMICK, Pennsylvania          CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                  CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
    BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee                TIM KAINE, Virginia
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming                 JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                    CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    TED CRUZ, Texas                        BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    MIKE LEE, Utah                         CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    RICK SCOTT, Florida                    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                   JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas
                 Christopher M. Socha, Staff Director
               Naz Durakoglu, Democratic Staff Director
                       John Dutton, Chief Clerk

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND REGIONAL
                          SECURITY COOPERATION

    STEVE DAINES, Montana                  CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming                 TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska                CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                    BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah

                                  (ii)

                          C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   Statements

    Daines, Hon. Steve, U.S. Senator from Montana....................     1

    Murphy, Hon. Christopher, U.S. Senator from Connecticut..........     3

                                   Witnesses

    Pyatt, Hon. Geoffrey, Senior Managing Director for Energy and
      Critical Minerals, McLarty Associates; Distinguished Fellow,
      Global Energy Center, Atlantic Council, Washington, DC.........     5

        Prepared statement...........................................     6

    Byers, Dan, Vice President of Policy, Global Energy Institute,
      U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC.......................     9

        Prepared statement...........................................    11

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to
      Hon. Geoffrey Pyatt by Senator Cory A. Booker..................    37

                                     (iii)

                             A PATHWAY TO EUROPEAN
                                ENERGY SECURITY

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2026

                                   U.S. Senate,
                                 Subcommittee on Europe
                     and Regional Security Cooperation,
                                Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:06 p.m., in
    room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Steve Daines,
    chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Daines [presiding], Barrasso, and Murphy.

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

        Senator Daines. I was just sharing with Ranking Member
    Murphy a chart, which I am going to share with everybody here
    as we start this hearing, that shows some alarming figures with
    you all. Before I get into that I need to officially state,
    this hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will now
    come to order.
        On this iPad, I have a live tracker of European purchases
    of Russian energy since the start of the invasion in Ukraine.
    Now, we are not allowed to have big PowerPoint presentations
    here, but bear with me. This thing is just clicking down, or
    clicking up, I should say, euros. And right now it says
    219,221,431,104, now it has jumped to 581, euros that have now
    been invested in Russia in purchasing Russian oil and Russian
    gas. It is called RussianFossilTracker.com, if you want to see
    it yourself, and it goes back to the beginning of the Russian
    invasion of Ukraine.
        So the number right now, as I mentioned, about 220 billion
    euros. As of December, the EU had provided around 200 billion
    euros of aid to Ukraine. European purchases of Russian energy
    are funding the largest land war in Europe since the Second
    World War.
        I just wanted to set the stage with that before we get
    started.
        I want to thank our two witnesses for being here today to
    discuss such an important topic, and a great deal of thanks to
    Ranking Member Murphy for his participation and help in
    organizing this hearing. Our bipartisan cooperation on these
    issues will shine a light on some of the good work Europe has
    done to shore up its security as well as the policy changes the
    EU can enact to ensure the continent's energy security.
        Now on to our witnesses. Geoffrey Pyatt is a distinguished
    fellow at the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center and a
    senior managing director at McLarty Associates. Prior to his
    current positions, he had a long and distinguished career at
    the U.S. Foreign Service, serving as Assistant Secretary of
    State for Energy Resources, as U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and
    Greece, and other senior postings, both abroad and in Foggy
    Bottom. He has extensive experience working on European energy
    security issues. We are grateful he could be with us here today
    to share his expertise. Thank you.
        Dan Byers is Vice President of Policy at the Global Energy
    Institute at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he focuses on
    environmental and regulatory issues. He previously served as a
    staff director for the House Energy and Environment
    Subcommittee, as an official in the White House Office of
    Science Technology Policy, and on the White House Economic
    Council. Mr. Byers is deeply knowledgeable about energy
    regulation and energy markets, and we are grateful he could be
    here today to share some of his knowledge with us.
        So on to the matter at hand.
        Energy security is national security. Both the United
    States and Europe have become increasingly aware of that fact
    over the last 4 years, creating an opportunity for us to
    collectively build a resilient energy production and transport
    network that would form the bedrock of our economies.
        The European Commission's recent regulatory reform is a
    step in the right direction, aligning bloc-wide regulations
    with more pro-energy, pro-business, and pro-market policies.
    Passing that reform took creativity and courage, and I would
    like to commend the European People's Party and their voting
    partners for the good work they have done on that package.
        But there is still a lot more to do, clearly. All of Europe
    must recognize that it cannot function or recognize its
    economic and security goals without baseload power, and it must
    enact further regulatory reform to modernize the European
    energy ecosystem. The continent has an opportunity to
    permanently end its reliance on Russian energy, providing true
    independence and autonomy for America's partners on the other
    side of the Atlantic. Without enacting further regulatory
    reforms, Europe may find itself staring down the barrel of
    resuming Russian energy dominance or extortion, putting itself
    back in the vulnerable position it found itself in 2022.
        If Europe learns nothing else from the Russian invasion of
    Ukraine, in which it let it be known that energy security and
    supply chains are vital to national sovereignty. Compromises
    cannot be made in those matters, and we must work together to
    ensure those networks' resilience and survivability.
        I remember a trip I took to the Baltics a few years ago. I
    remember hearing a story about a nuclear reactor that was
    dismantled and taken out of production, as it requested to join
    the EU. And they took me up to the Baltic Sea, where I could
    see a beautiful new LNG import terminal. But once upon a time,
    Lithuania used to be a net energy exporter, and after actions
    taken, short-sighted, to remove the baseload power of their
    nuclear power station, they became an energy importer and, of
    course, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that problem
    clearly was further exacerbated.
        I encourage our European partners to take a realistic view
    on building reliable energy infrastructure. One need look no
    further than Spain and Portugal to see the dangers of
    overreliance on intermittent sources. The entire Iberian
    Peninsula found itself without power last year, underscoring
    the vulnerability of countries that fail to maintain a diverse
    set of energy sources. And to be clear where I stand, I want to
    see a diverse energy portfolio. I just want to see more
    electrons and more baseload power and more diverse energy.
        As the West builds the economy that will drive our
    countries forward, baseload power will become even more
    important. Whether it be for data centers, manufacturing, or
    defense production, reliable power is the backbone, certainly
    of future prosperity. The United States and many of our
    partners and allies stand at the ready to work with Europe to
    increase energy supply, be it oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, or
    renewable. The reinvigoration of our economies will require a
    holistic, truly all-of-the-above energy approach.
        And I believe Europe must act now, enacting the regulatory
    reforms and infrastructure investments necessary to sign long-
    term energy import and development contracts and ensure the
    European continent's future. Prosperity and security are
    dependent on such changes, and I look forward to continuing to
    work with our European partners to build a more secure future
    for both Europe and the rest of the world.
        Now I would like to recognize the very distinguished member
    and ranking member for his comments, Senator Murphy.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER MURPHY,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

        Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Senator Daines. Thanks
    for pulling this hearing together. I am really looking forward
    to hearing from our witnesses today.
        When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it
    did not just shatter the postwar infallibility of Europe's
    borders, it exposed this glaring strategic weakness in European
    security, an energy architecture deeply and dangerously
    dependent on Russian oil and gas. For years, Europe's reliance
    on Moscow's pipelines was not just an economic vulnerability,
    it was a geopolitical lever that Vladimir Putin had designed
    and could pull at any time to coerce his neighbors and fracture
    democratic consensus, especially in Europe.
        That leverage became painfully clear when Moscow threatened
    to cutoff energy flowing through Ukraine to the rest of the
    continent, and Europe was left scrambling to ensure its
    citizens had enough power to heat their homes.
        Ultimately, this is a good news story in that Europe did
    not bow to Russia's demands. Instead, the EU has worked
    successfully to end their dependence on Russia and improve its
    energy security. Europe used to buy almost half its gas from
    Russia. Now that figure is down to 20 percent, with a new
    commitment to buy zero oil or gas from Russia in 2027. In yet
    another example of Putin's miscalculations, what he intended as
    leverage to try to split Europe has ended up reducing Russia's
    influence on Europe.
        The Biden administration, by a bipartisan consensus in
    Congress, helped Europe make this transition. For example, at
    Ambassador Pyatt's urging, I led a bipartisan effort to allow
    the Development Finance Corporation to finance strategic energy
    projects in Europe, something that had not been allowed under
    the law prior to that change. And I want to thank Senator
    Johnson and other Republicans who helped make that change in
    law happen.
        But President Trump threatens to unwind a lot of the
    progress that Europe has made, in part because he constantly
    injects frictions into our relationship with Europe that causes
    Europe to spend all of its time trying to plan and plot its
    response to Donald Trump instead of staying united in its
    efforts to fight back against Russia's political leverage.
        Trump's rhetoric, and his policy toward Europe, has been
    wild. It has been erratic. He levies tariffs that have nothing
    to do with the United States and instead simply punitive. He
    threatens war with Europe over, unbelievably, Greenland. He has
    pulled the U.S. out of nearly every important international
    organization where the United States and Europe traditionally
    have built strength to confront Russia and China. He praises
    Putin, gives Putin legitimizing photo ops that Putin so badly
    desires. And, of course, Putin stands and cheers as Trump
    injects such instability into the U.S.-Europe relationship that
    Europe spends its time managing that relationship instead of
    making more down payments on its efforts to become fully energy
    independent of Russia.
        But it gets worse. So listen, I am a supporter of getting
    American LNG to Europe. I believe that is a really important
    near-term and medium-term bridge. But I ultimately want a world
    in which Europe and the United States are energy self-
    sufficient. The sun does shine in Europe. The wind blows.
    Nuclear power works. But President Trump's war on non-fossil
    fuel energy is really bad for European energy security.
        We need to make advancements on solar and wind technology,
    and technology controlled by the United States and Europe, not
    technology controlled by China. Small-scale nuclear has got to
    be on that list, as well, so that Europe can permanently get
    itself off oil and gas. Being dependent on Azerbaijan or Saudi
    Arabia or Venezuela or Iran is not much better than being
    dependent on Russia.
        And then, to top it all off, when the United States does
    get involved in these short-term alternatives, which I think
    are incredibly necessary to Russian oil, corruption creeps in.
    Reports are coming out of the Balkans suggesting that President
    Trump is providing critical American support for an energy
    project that is being led by two individuals whose
    qualifications are simply that they helped Donald Trump attempt
    to overturn the 2020 election. Joseph Flynn and Jesse Binnall
    have no qualifications to build a pipeline in the Balkans. They
    are being pushed by the administration to get involved in this
    project because they are close to the President.
        So there are lots of topics for today's hearing. I think it
    is vitally important. There are lots of places where the
    Chairman and I agree, especially when it comes to the short-
    term work we have to do to shore up Europe's energy reserves
    and their flows. A lot has gone right in Europe. They have made
    this hard pivot off Russian energy. But a lot of examination is
    still left to do in the ways that the Trump administration is
    very often standing in the way rather than helping Europe
    complete this transition.
        Again, I am really looking forward to the witnesses.
        Mr. Chairman, thanks for convening the hearing.
        Senator Daines. All right. Senator Murphy, thank you. Our
    first witnesses is the Honorable Geoffrey Pyatt, Senior
    Managing Director, Energy and Critical Minerals, McLarty
    Associates, and Distinguished Fellow, Global Energy Center,
    Atlantic Council.
        Mr. Pyatt, the floor is yours.

     STATEMENT OF HON. GEOFFREY R. PYATT, SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR
         FOR ENERGY AND CRITICAL MINERALS, MCLARTY ASSOCIATES;
     DISTINGUISHED FELLOW, GLOBAL ENERGY CENTER, ATLANTIC COUNCIL,
                             WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Pyatt. Great. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, Ranking
    Member Murphy. I am delighted to be here. I enjoyed tremendous
    support from this committee during 12 years as a Presidential
    appointee representing the United States around the world, and
    it is a tremendous honor to be speaking now as a private
    citizen, but also to be doing so on issues that my team at the
    State Department focused on every single day, advancing exactly
    the framework that you suggested, Mr. Chairman, the
    understanding that energy security is national security.
        I have a longer prepared statement, which I will simply
    introduce for the record. I would like to focus these oral
    remarks on a couple of simple points. And first of all, Mr.
    Chairman, I want to say I am with you on the tracker and the
    iPad data you showed, and I will just recall, and I expect
    Senator Murphy will also recall, a long evening in the winter
    of 2013, spent with President Yanukovych in Kiev, where the
    President filibustered to explain all of the difficulties that
    he was living with. But the No. 1 difficulty was the pressure
    that President Putin was applying to President Yanukovych as he
    was trying to navigate through the political complexities of
    the Maidan.
        And I also remember vividly many visits to Ukraine with
    Senator Murphy, with Senator McCain, many others, where we
    talked about exactly the issue you highlighted, which was the
    risks to Europe from its dependency on Russian energy supplies
    and the importance of breaking that dependency as fast as
    possible.
        I would also say, in this regard, I was so pleased to see
    the news last week with the Foreign Relations Committee
    reporting out the SHADOW Fleet Act. That is exactly the kind of
    measure the United States ought to be taking, to write into law
    sanctions against Novatek, Arctic LNG 2, to harmonize U.S.
    sanctions against Nord Stream 2 with European sanctions.
    Because when Congress acts in this way, the markets listen,
    because that has the force of law, and it will last from one
    administration to the next. So this is so, so important.
        I want to highlight, and I have also highlighted in my
    written statement, the point Senator Murphy made, the dramatic
    progress that we have achieved through bipartisan efforts over
    many years to change the European approach to Russian energy.
    And I would put a particular spotlight on the regulations that
    the European Union implemented just this week, which will
    accomplish a full phase-out of all Russian gas by 2027, but, in
    fact, within 2 months will bar spot contracts on LNG. This
    represents a huge win for the United States. It also advances
    President Trump's vision of forcing Putin to negotiate, by
    signaling to him that there is a real cost from his continued
    war in Ukraine, the attacks that he is waging even this week on
    the people of Ukraine.
        And I think it has not been sufficiently appreciated in the
    Washington conversation what an enormous accomplishment this is
    for American transatlantic energy diplomacy, but also the
    degree to which it was enabled, not just by Putin's strategic
    short-sightedness--and he has lost Europe as a market forever,
    I am quite confident--but also by the accomplishments of the
    U.S. LNG industry, by our producers, who have achieved massive
    efficiencies, who have grown the United States into the largest
    LNG exporter in the world, and who have demonstrated to the
    Europeans that the cleanest, most reliable, and most affordable
    option for displacing Russian gas is American LNG.
        The other point I want to put a spotlight on for just a
    moment is the work that Europe continues to do to build the
    infrastructure that is necessary to remap its energy system
    from one that was earlier dependent on Russia to a new one that
    will be oriented to the West.
        One project that is emblematic in this area, which I was
    proud to champion, both as Ambassador to Greece and then as
    Assistant Secretary, is the Vertical Corridor, which involves
    building infrastructure and utilizing old Soviet infrastructure
    to bring gas and LNG from Southeastern Europe, and especially
    from re-gas facilities in Greece, northward into Bulgaria,
    Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine. And just to give you one
    specific example, just in the past few weeks, Ukraine's largest
    private energy company, DTEK, for the first time had a delivery
    of American LNG, which was landed at Revithoussa, outside
    Athens, was then delivered to Ukraine and put into Ukraine's
    underground storage facilities, then delivered to customers in
    Poland. So already the Vertical Corridor is demonstrating its
    utility as a strategic project.
        The best work that I did in government is the work that
    others followup. I am absolutely delighted that Jarrod Agen, at
    the National Energy Dominance Council, and Secretary Wright,
    have championed this project, and I am confident between the
    alignment of the Ukrainian partners, what Greek companies are
    doing, and what the European Commission, importantly, is doing
    will see this become a successful template for how we
    reengineer the energy map of Europe, for an era where Europe
    will never again be dependent on unreliable Russian supplies.
    Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pyatt follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Hon. Geoffrey R. Pyatt

        Chairman Daines, Ranking Member Murphy, members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity again to share with the
    Foreign Relations Committee some thoughts on European energy security,
    opportunities for trans-Atlantic cooperation and the role of new
    infrastructure like the Vertical Corridor between Greece and Ukraine in
    helping to build that energy partnership for the long term.
        Although my comments today are offered in a private capacity, they
    are informed by efforts I led at the State Department as Assistant
    Secretary of State and Ambassador to Greece and Ambassador to Ukraine.
    In all these roles, the support of this committee was essential to my
    work, and I am grateful to appear before you again.
    Energy Security is National Security--Ending Russia's Energy Coercion
         For more than two decades, a major focus of transatlantic
    diplomacy through Republican and Democratic administrations was ending
    Europe's dependence on unreliable Russian gas supplies and thwarting
    the Kremlin's ability to use energy as a tool of political coercion. I
    saw that Russian coercion firsthand during both of my ambassadorships,
    and as Assistant Secretary I worked closely with our LNG producers and
    energy companies to leverage America's energy abundance in furtherance
    of our alliance relationships.
        We saw an historically important breakthrough on this issue last
    week when 27 EU member states formally adopted the regulation phasing
    out imports of Russian pipeline and liquefied natural gas. This full
    ban on Russian gas will come into effect in 2027, and is qualitatively
    different from earlier sanctions measures, since the phase out is now
    written into European law, making it difficult to walk back even if
    there is a future settlement over Ukraine. On February 3, that
    regulation entered into force, with a ban on spot contracts from April
    and long term LNG contracts banned from January 1, 2027--giving
    European importers the force majure cover to void any existing
    relationships with Russia.
        This is major shift in European energy policy is a direct response
    to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and repeated attempts to use
    energy cut offs as a coercive tool. But it also reflects a shift in the
    international gas market driven by the success of American producers
    and our rapid emergence the world's largest LNG exporter. Indeed, it is
    no exaggeration to say that surging American LNG exports to Europe were
    an indispensable element of our NATO response to the full-scale
    invasion of Ukraine--something Washington and Brussels recognized with
    the LNG taskforce I worked on during my time in government. Conversely,
    Russia's permanent loss of its traditional European market for exports
    reflects one of Putin's most significant strategic defeats.
        This remapping of European gas supplies creates a natural
    opportunity for expanded trans-Atlantic cooperation, something both the
    Biden and Trump administrations have sought to advance. But the key
    enabler here has been the success--and innovation--of American gas
    producers, who have massively grown the output of U.S. industry. The
    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), for instance, projects
    that U.S. LNG exports will increase from 11.9 billion cubic feet per
    day in 2024 to 18.1 in 2027. Europe will import record levels of LNG
    this year, with the International Energy Agency (IEA) projecting
    purchases of more than 185 billion cubic meters, mostly from the United
    States. According to EU data, the U.S. is Europe's largest provider at
    58 percent of LNG imports. The EU is also the largest buyer of U.S. LNG
    at 65 percent of U.S. exports. For context, before the Russian invasion
    of Ukraine, the EU relied on Russia for more than 45 percent of its gas
    imports. This is now at 12 percent and will reach zero once the
    RePowerEU plan is fully implemented.
        Even before RePower EU's phase-out of Russian pipeline gas and LNG,
    the EU has been rapidly weaning itself off of Russian energy--as a
    result Russia's energy revenues were down 20 percent in 2025 as
    compared to 2024. By the Kremlin's own account, Moscow is confronting a
    significant deficit this year due in large part to lower energy
    revenues and a widening discount for Russian crude. Thus, U.S. energy
    exports--and Europe's decoupling from unreliable Russian supplies--
    contribute directly to the White House goal of encouraging the Kremlin
    to negotiate in good faith to end its invasion of Ukraine in a way that
    preserves the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
    Harmonizing Regulations and Climate Policies
        European off-takers--like their counterparts in Asian markets such
    as Japan and Korea--have made clear their desire to source non-Russian
    gas supplies in a way that is reliable, affordable and sustainable. In
    this regard, U.S. LNG remains the cleanest and most secure solution for
    Europe to eliminate its reliance on Russian gas. In an environment
    where we are each other's largest market and largest LNG suppliers, it
    should not be too difficult to imagine a solution to recent debates
    over European regulatory measures like the EU Methane Regulation or the
    EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).
        These issues were a regular topic of discussion in the U.S.-EU
    Energy Council formerly led by the State Department's Bureau of Energy
    Resources. In my Atlantic Council capacity I also had the opportunity
    to cover these topics in a public setting last fall at the UN General
    Assembly with EU Director General for Energy Ditte Jul Jorgensen. DG
    Jorgensen laid out an EU approach to energy security based on
    diversification of suppliers, an integrated and interconnected EU
    energy market, and the deployment of homegrown clean energy.
    Specifically, the RePowerEU initiative rests on three legs: 1.)
    replacing Russian molecules with other sources (with Norway, U.S. LNG,
    and Qatar being the most important), 2.) accelerating the build out of
    renewable energy to replace Russian molecules with clean energy
    wherever possible, and 3.) pursuing energy efficiency and savings-being
    smarter about how Europe uses energy. Also relevant here is the U.S.
    experience in switching the majority of our thermal power generation
    from coal to gas, which in turn has enabled a substantial reduction in
    emissions from power generation here in the United States.
        As these EU regulations have moved closer to implementation, we are
    seeing pragmatic shifts in the continent's plans for the Methane
    Regulation as well as CBAM. For instance, in December, EU energy
    ministers adjusted their approach to the requirement that importers of
    oil and gas monitor and report methane emissions associated with their
    imports. Companies now can show compliance either through buying
    certificates from third-party verifiers which assign an emissions value
    at the production location, or by the ``trace and claim'' method, in
    which gas volumes are assigned a digital ID which is attached to all
    sale and purchase agreements from that producer, throughout the value
    chain, to the buyer. In parallel, in response to international market
    signals, America's biggest energy companies are reinforcing their own
    commitment to the highest standards of emissions reduction and
    efficiency. Since leaving government I have served in an unpaid
    capacity on the advisory council of PAGE--the Partnership to Address
    Global Emissions. PAGE is a nonpartisan coalition of like-minded
    organizations dedicated to promoting U.S. policies, like permitting
    reform, that protect the climate through the production of natural gas.
    Importantly, the gas producers and energy companies that are part of
    the PAGE coalition (including Pittsburgh based EQT and Tulsa based
    Williams) have understood the role industry must play in reducing
    methane emissions and have taken significant steps to eliminate these
    emissions through investment and innovation, helping establish U.S.
    natural gas as among the cleanest in the world.
    Building Energy Infrastructure for the Long Term
        The third and final issue I would like to touch on is work that has
    already been done in Europe to support diversification away from
    Russian energy supplies, and opportunities to build more for the
    future. These infrastructure investments, along with new production
    (such as Chevron and Exxon from offshore Cyprus and Greece) and a
    larger pool of LNG suppliers, are how Europe can drive down costs over
    the long term to ensure competitiveness. As U.S. Ambassador to Greece,
    I was deeply involved in Europe's initial effort to respond to Russia's
    throttling back of energy supplies in the run up to the full scale
    invasion of Ukraine. In those panicked first weeks of 2022, very few
    imagined that Europe would move as fast as it did to expand
    regassification terminals and deploy new Floating Storage and
    Regasification Units (FSRUs). The result since 2022 is billions of
    dollars of capital investment and some 80 BCM/year in new capacity
    stretching from terminals in Finland and Germany in the north to Italy
    and Greece in the south. Notably, almost all of these projects received
    significant diplomatic support from the State Department and our
    Ambassadors in the field.
        But just as we grapple here in the United States with permitting
    and regulatory reform around pipelines, terminals and transmission
    infrastructure, Europe is also working to build the regulatory and
    commercial infrastructure to support an expanded supply of non-Russian
    gas. One example in which I was personally involved as Ambassador and
    then Assistant Secretary was the ``Vertical Corridor'' to bring gas and
    power from terminals and interconnectors in Greece and the Eastern
    Mediterranean up through the Balkan peninsula to Ukraine and the high-
    demand markets of Central Europe.
        This framework has already demonstrated its commercial and
    strategic value. For instance, in 2024, DTEK--Ukraine's largest private
    sector energy company--took delivery of its first cargo of LNG from the
    United States delivered at the Revithoussa terminal outside Athens. In
    a similar vein, Arlington-based Venture Global has committed to
    regasification capacity at the Alexandroupolis LNG import terminal in
    Greece, which currently accounts for approximately 25 percent of the
    terminal's total capacity. These American volumes will become ever more
    important as the ban on Russian LNG enters force. And in November
    Venture Global signed Greece's first ever long-term LNG supply
    agreement with a U.S. exporter. Recently DTEK also become the first
    company to deliver gas to Poland from Ukrainian storage facilities
    using volumes injected via the Trans-Balkan Corridor, demonstrating the
    Vertical Corridor's full end-to-end functionality and its energy
    security relevance for the wider Central Europe region. To consolidate
    this success, gas buyers and pipeline operators now need to cooperate
    more closely to reduce end to end transport tariffs and allow a longer
    time horizon to cover supply during Ukraine's recovery period.
    Similarly, work is needed to provide assurances that required
    transportation capacity will be available along the route beyond the
    auctioned month. But as with permitting reform in the United States,
    these are all issues where a solution can be found.
        After several recent weeks of extreme cold, European gas storage
    overall is at a historic low, and will need to be replenished this
    coming Summer. Much of this replenishment gas will come from the United
    States, and the coming expansion in liquefaction capacity on the Gulf
    Coast is a natural complement to Europe's phase out of unsecure Russian
    gas. Over the longer term, there are also opportunities to build a
    ``vertical corridor'' also for electricity and data--allowing for
    energy from multiple sources to transit the same route. This in turn
    will require further investment in transmission infrastructure to help
    Central Europe tap into inexpensive renewable energy resources coming
    out of the East Med region and northern Africa and projects such as the
    Greek Public Power Company's (PPC) investment into new data center
    capacity in Western Macedonia.
        Thank you for the committee's focus on these crucial issues and I
    look forward to addressing your questions.

        Senator Daines. Mr. Pyatt, thank you.
        I will turn now to Mr. Dan Byers, Vice President of Policy,
    Global Energy Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
        Mr. Byers, the floor is yours.

    STATEMENT OF DAN BYERS, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY, GLOBAL ENERGY
          INSTITUTE, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Byers. Thank you, Chairman Daines, Ranking Member
    Murphy, for the opportunity to testify today.
        As you said, I am Dan Byers with the U.S. Chamber of
    Commerce Global Energy Institute, where among other things we
    focus on expanding market access for U.S. exports while
    boosting energy security for America and our allies.
        As we enter 2026, Europe continues to take important steps
    to reduce its dependence on Russian energy, but it does still
    remain the world's largest buyer of Russian gas, importing LNG
    in pipeline volumes worth an estimated 15 billion euros in
    2025. As you have said, these purchases fund the Kremlin's war
    machine and leave the continent exposed to significant security
    and supply risks.
        Fortunately, more progress is on the horizon with newly
    approved EU legislation last month mandating the complete
    phase-out of Russian gas imports by the end of 2027. The Trump
    administration has strongly encouraged this development, and in
    December convened the Partnership for Transatlantic Energy
    Cooperation, or the P-TEC, forum in Athens, where several
    important business deals and policy goals were announced
    alongside European leaders. This high-level political support
    is bolstered by the fact that energy is a centerpiece of the
    U.S.-EU trade deal and further complemented by U.S. export
    industry more than ready to help the EU meet this challenge.
        Already the world's leading exporter, the U.S. has
    dominated global LNG project development and contracting
    activity since the Department of Energy's pause on licensing
    new facilities was lifted in early 2025, with more than $60
    billion in new investments now underway. In short, America's
    growing LNG supply is an obvious and timely solution to
    Europe's growing natural gas supply gap, and the industry is
    poised to deliver the security and market stability our allies
    need.
        Despite this progress, a number of regulatory and
    investment obstacles are hampering transatlantic commercial
    relationships and must be addressed. On the regulatory side, I
    want to call attention to the Corporate Sustainability Due
    Diligence Directive and EU Methane Emission Regulation. My
    written testimony expands on both of these, but in brief, CSDDD
    is a sweeping law requiring U.S. companies to align their
    global operations with EU standards that are not binding under
    U.S. law, and it could make American companies liable in EU
    courts for conduct that is perfectly lawful in the U.S. This
    extraterritorial overreach is a major obstacle to enhance trade
    and investment, and the Chamber is leading efforts to address
    it.
        Meanwhile, the EU Methane Emissions Regulation, which
    requires importers of oil and gas to report producer-level
    emissions data and meet certain methane emission intensity
    standards, subject to noncompliance penalties of up to 20
    percent of the importer's total worldwide revenues. This has
    imposed significant risks that are impeding negotiation of new
    supply agreements with U.S. gas exporters. These concerns are
    not limited to the United States. In Europe, various industry
    coalitions have issued increasingly urgent warnings that the
    law is, quote, ``unworkable, jeopardizes European energy
    security and competitiveness, and is likely to lead to higher
    energy costs.''
        We face an equally important challenge on the investment
    side, where a number of strategic infrastructure projects are
    needed to reduce vulnerabilities and unlock access to regional
    markets. In particular, I want to followup Ambassador Pyatt in
    highlighting the Vertical Gas Corridor, which aims to expand
    continuous south-to-north transport capacity from Greece to
    Ukraine, providing countries in Southeastern Europe a reliable
    LNG alternative to Russian pipeline gas and so-called Turkish
    blends transiting into the EU from Turkey.
        Despite strong political support, the Vertical Corridor
    faces commercial, regulatory, and financing barriers that must
    be resolved for it to fully proceed. The Chamber and its
    members are eager partners in the ongoing effort to derisk the
    Vertical Corridor and realize the LNG-enabled security benefits
    that it could deliver.
        And before I close I would be remiss if I did not emphasize
    both the environmental and economic benefits that accompany
    U.S. LNG's role as a guarantor of global energy security. A
    study undertaken by S&P Global for the Chamber last year found
    LNG exports add $1.3 trillion to U.S. GDP through 2040, and
    support nearly 500,000 jobs. Importantly, 37 percent of those
    jobs are based in non-producing States, so the benefits extend
    through the energy value chain and far beyond locations where
    gas is produced and exported.
        Additionally, the study detailed the significant emissions
    reductions that accompany LNG exports, finding that, among
    other things, the emissions intensity of Russian LNG and
    pipeline gas is 44 percent and 59 percent higher, respectively,
    than that of U.S. LNG.
        In summary, with strong leadership and cooperation between
    U.S. and EU government and industry-targeted policy measures
    can unlock Europe's pathway to long-term energy security,
    support U.S. jobs and economic growth and reduced emissions.
    Thanks for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to
    the discussion.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Byers follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Daines. Mr. Byers, thank you.
        I know I heard the name Senator McCain invoked here a
    couple of times, and I think it was back in 2014, when Senator
    McCain had that famous line about Russia, just a great-big gas
    station masquerading as a country. The more things change, the
    more things they don't, don't they, in terms of it is still
    true today.
        And you mentioned that Vertical Corridor today. The other
    exciting development, you see long-term geopolitically what is
    happening, and, in fact, Senator Murphy and I are working on
    this on Central Asia with the Jackson-Vanik restrictions, but
    as Brzezinski once said, ``The caucuses are the cork, and
    Central Asia is the wine bottle.'' You know, popping that cork
    here with the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement now opening up
    an east-to-west flow now with energy toward Europe and the west
    is going to be another important part, rather than seeing
    energy flowing north or back to the east. Vice President Vance,
    in fact, will be in Yerevan and in Baku this week.
        So there are exciting things going on there, which are
    really, in many ways, underreported around the world. But as we
    all know, we have been watching this issue for a lot of years
    progress, and that is why, also, Senator Murphy and I are just
    committed to getting those Jackson-Vanik restrictions lifted
    for those important Central Asia partners.
        As both of you know, the EU is looking at implementing its
    Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, or as you
    mentioned, Mr. Byers, the CSDDD, a regulation that amounts to
    nothing more than regulatory extortion designed to drive
    American producers out of Europe, or even out of business.
    Economic analysis that we have seen indicates that the full
    adoption of the regulation could cost up to 800,000 American
    jobs and over $1 trillion. These are massive numbers.
        While the regulatory omnibus passed by the EU Parliament
    last fall amended the CSDDD to remove some of the more
    objectionable portions, the regulation still has the capacity
    to cause major damage to both Europe's energy security as well
    as global energy producers' ability to do business on the
    continent.
        Mr. Byers, could you tell me a little bit more about the
    potential economic impact of CSDDD, that you brought up part of
    that in your testimony, as well as changes you might like to
    see to the regulation?
        Mr. Byers. Yes. Well, thank you for that question, Senator.
    It is a top priority for our members. I think the first thing I
    should mention about CSDDD, it is economy-wide, so this is not
    just an energy regulation. It hits all sectors--automotive,
    banking, et cetera.
        And it is really remarkable and unprecedented in its reach.
    As I said in my testimony, it can reach not just to any company
    that has more than $1.5 billion of revenue into the EU. They do
    not even need to have an employee there. It forces them and
    their subsidiaries and suppliers to take certain measures to be
    consistent with EU standards in their global operations, not
    just their U.S. operations. So it can make a U.S. company
    liable for actions that are completely lawful in the United
    States, liable in an EU court.
        As you said in December--and we were fortunate the Chamber
    led a large effort alongside European business and industry to
    explain the harm of this to both Europe's competitiveness and
    the transatlantic relationship. So a number of very challenging
    provisions were removed, including Article 22, which requires
    net zero commitments--not just a commitment but an
    implementation plan for companies through their entire supply
    chain. So that has been next steps. It is a very positive step.
    But the extraterritoriality that I mentioned, the reach into
    the U.S. operations, remains, so that is what we are going to
    continue to try and fix in the year ahead.
        And I will say I think this has been recognized as a major
    non-tariff barrier, and we were pleased that in the trade
    agreement, the U.S.-EU Framework Trade Agreement, CSDDD was
    explicitly called out as a hindrance. And so we hope there will
    be continued cooperation to address extraterritoriality.
        Senator Daines. Mr. Byers, thank you.
        Ambassador Pyatt, can you talk a bit more about, as you see
    it, the impact that this regulation might have on European
    energy security, particularly Europe's reliance on Russian
    energy, if LNG exporters are unable to do business in Europe?
        Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
    start by underlining my own sense, from having been engaged
    intensively on these issues with European officials in Brussels
    while in government, but also having lived in an EU member
    state for 6 years, as U.S. Ambassador.
        The gist is in U.S. democracy. A lot of these legislative
    actions in Europe are the product of balancing constituencies'
    competing priorities. And importantly, as Dan alluded to, as
    regards to these two big measures in the energy-adjacent area--
    CSDDD and the EU Methane Regulations--we see a strong
    orientation toward pragmatism in the European approach.
        It is important to remember that today Europe represents 65
    percent of American LNG exports, but more important, the United
    States is 58 percent of Europe's supply on LNG, and closely
    behind the United States is Qatar. Both Secretary Wright and
    his Qatari counterpart have delivered strong messages to
    Brussels and to European capitals about making adjustments on
    these provisions.
        And then I would also note that European companies--the CEO
    of TotalEnergies, the CEO of Siemens--together signed a letter
    a couple of months ago, in October, on behalf of 46 European
    companies, calling for a full repeal of the CSDDD.
        I think European democracy is functioning on these issues,
    and ultimately I think the driving factor is Europe's
    determination never again to become dependent on Russian
    energy, and the importance of the transatlantic energy
    relationship, which is also reflected in the Europe trade
    agreement that President Trump reached with President von der
    Leyen last year.
        Senator Daines. Ambassador, you spent a lot of time working
    on the ground in Europe. Based on your assessment and in terms
    of the way things are shaping up there, do you think the
    Europeans are receiving those concerns well and will make
    adjustments accordingly?
        Mr. Pyatt. I think so. There has clearly been an adjustment
    in the European level of ambition. As Senator Murphy said,
    Europe is very clear: They want to find reliable, affordable
    energy with, as you said yourself, Mr. Chairman, an all-of-the-
    above approach. But they have realized that to sustain all of
    their wind and solar power they are also going to need that
    baseload supply. So U.S. LNG is going to be a critical
    component of the European energy mix for decades and decades to
    come.
        We have to get this right, and as I said, I am confident,
    from my own conversations both as a U.S. Government official
    and now as a private citizen, that the European Commission also
    understands the importance of finding a middle ground on these
    issues because there is really not a good alternative. So much
    of what is evolving in terms of the energy alliance between the
    United States and Europe is driven ultimately not by political
    proclamations on one side of the Atlantic or the other but by
    market factors, and the fact, as I said in my opening
    statement, that U.S. energy, U.S. LNG, is the most affordable,
    reliable, and importantly, the cleanest option.
        And maybe if I can make one other observation, especially
    on the issues around methane and climate impacts, it is
    important to recognize the leadership that American companies
    are demonstrating in this area. American gas producers have
    become increasingly efficient in terms of using electricity for
    a lot of their production, in terms of monitoring and capturing
    and abating, venting, and flaring of associated gas.
        There is a very strong alignment of interests here, and I
    am very confident that the officials who are now responsible
    for negotiation these issues will be able to find a
    constructive way forward.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Ambassador.
        Senator Murphy.
        Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
    inquire on the flip side of this equation. I do not think it is
    a smart strategy for the United States to build our entire
    energy relationship on hopes that Europe is going to continue
    to import and need access to fossil fuels. Europe has made a
    commitment to renewable energy. That is real today. You know,
    50 percent of their consumption comes from renewables. It is
    going to be even more true in the future.
        Our relationship has to be built both with a knowledge that
    they are always going to need some access to fossil fuels, and
    the United States can be a player, but that we are really
    disadvantaging the American economy if, as Europe's share of
    power generation continues to move toward renewables, China,
    rather than the United States, is their primary partner for
    business.
        Maybe I will ask Mr. Byers and Mr. Pyatt to both speak to
    that. Speak to the fact that whereas a lot of time is spent on
    this committee now talking about LNG, appropriately, I do not
    really understand what our President is doing in trying to
    hamstring our ability to stand up advanced battery technology,
    solar technology, wind technology, and essentially cede that
    ground to the Chinese. They will become the preferred partner
    of Europe if we do not have an industrial policy in the United
    States that allows us to catch up. There is just no way that
    without an industrial policy--and you can tell me if you think
    I am wrong--a combination of incentive and tariff, that we are
    going to be able to be competitive with China as Europe is
    bidding out a lot of work and a lot of product when it comes to
    renewables.
        So a question for both of you on that subject.
        Mr. Byers. Yes, thank you, Senator. I will go ahead and
    start. I think you are absolutely right. We want to open
    markets into Europe for all technologies, all of the above. We
    have got a lot of exciting investment and support from U.S.
    companies and a lot of opportunity there.
        I think, realistically, China has the market cornered on
    solar panels, so that is a supply chain where I do not know
    that there is a pathway to come in. So I think we have to be
    strategic and targeted on where the opportunities are. Nuclear
    is a big one. We are really excited about opportunities in
    nuclear, and Europe is sort of changing its attitudes there. We
    have, thanks to your work on DFC, we have some exciting
    opportunities for support on nuclear.
        And I will say, on gas, we watch this very closely, just
    sort of overall energy demand and the market share that is
    expected in the coming years. Europe is going to need a lot for
    the long term, and it is actually going to increase Europe's
    gas demand in the short term, over the next 5 to 10 years. And
    then once it peaks it is going to probably plateau. And this
    is, by the way, with assuming continued rapid buildout of
    renewables, because even in Eastern Europe you are having
    continued economic growth, and that is just leading to more
    energy demand. And if they adopt data centers, for example, in
    the same way that we are, they are way behind us on that. But
    if that starts to materialize in Europe the way it is in the
    U.S., the overall energy demand will also continue to stay
    higher than projected.
        We are going to need all the energy sources. You are
    absolutely right about that. But I think we have to be
    strategic about exactly where the best opportunities are for
    U.S. companies to come in and sell products and technologies.
        Mr. Pyatt. Senator Murphy, I agree completely, and I will
    tell you a short story that I think illustrates the point.
        In September, I had the opportunity to go back to Kiev, and
    I was there for the inauguration of Eastern Europe's largest
    battery storage facility. It was a project run by DTEK, a
    private energy company, using technology from a company called
    Fluence. Fluence is headquartered just across the river from
    us, in Boston, and I went to go talk to the CEO there when I
    came back from Kiev. It is a fantastic story. Fluence is an
    American champion in the battery energy storage space. Their
    main competitors in the market today are BYD and CATL, two of
    the Chinese State-supported companies that are operating in
    battery storage.
        DTEK went with Fluence because it was American technology,
    but they also delivered a competitive price, and importantly,
    DTEK is now taking exactly the same Fluence battery product and
    they are developing in Poland.
        It is absolutely vital that we remain competitive across
    all of these spaces. I would second Dan's point, as well, on
    nuclear, and especially SMR. When I was in government,
    tremendous, tremendous interest across Central and Eastern
    Europe on SMR opportunities in Bulgaria, in Romania, in Poland,
    and certainly in Ukraine. And here we have got a number of
    American developers.
        And I remember I used to say, with my counterpart, Eliot
    Kang, when Eliot was Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation,
    and we were thinking about these issues, the global market for
    SMR development outside the U.S. is going to be decided in
    Central and Eastern Europe, because that is the place where you
    have a huge hole that needs to be filled to replace electrons
    that formerly came in the form of Russian gas.
        Senator Murphy. One of the advantages we do have over China
    is the fact that generally, when you are dealing with the
    United States and with U.S. companies, you are dealing with
    above-board transactions, whereas when you are dealing with the
    Chinese or many other suppliers you are often required to pay
    bribes, to deal with under-the-table requests.
        I mentioned in my opening remarks, and I will ask this
    question to you, Ambassador Pyatt, there is news coming out of
    the Balkans that suggests the Trump administration is pushing
    on Bosnia a particular partner to help them build a critical
    interconnection, and this partner seems to be run by two
    individuals who have no history in actually producing energy
    projects but who were supporters of the President's attempt to
    overturn the 2020 election.
        You are free to comment on this particular, what appears to
    me to be grift, but at the very least maybe offer thoughts on
    how important it is for the United States to make sure that we
    are not pushing political cronies on countries overseas, that
    we are not engaged in the same kind of corruption that China
    is. This seems to me to be corruption, and projects like this,
    where we are pushing friends of the President who are woefully
    unqualified to do the work, seems to be the kind of thing that
    will push other countries toward China, not toward the United
    States.
        Mr. Pyatt. Senator, thank you for that. Let me answer it
    two ways. First, I would underline the point that the energy
    sector is particularly capital intensive. Most projects run in
    the billions of dollars, and they all take many, many years to
    roll out. I lived through this during my 6 years in Greece, as
    I was working on the Southern Gas Corridor, a project that
    began under my predecessor as Assistant Secretary, three times
    removed, Dick Morningstar. And it took us almost 20 years to
    get that project done, and it is going to take decades for that
    project to return the value that was invested into it. But it
    was hugely important in terms of unlocking Southern Europe's
    dependence on Russian gas supplies.
        So this is a sector where industry and the market has to
    look beyond simply a 4-year election cycle in the United
    States. So having that consistency of purpose that we have
    enjoyed in this area, through Republican and Democratic
    administrations engaging in Europe, on energy diversification
    and on U.S. reliability is tremendously important.
        And it is even more so because of what we started talking
    about today, which is the fact that we are only in the first
    years of what is going to be a fundamental remapping of
    Europe's energy infrastructure. For several decades, as
    Chairman Daines noted in his opening statement, Europe made the
    mistake of anchoring its energy security strategy on cheap
    Russian gas. That has now, thankfully, come to an end. It is a
    tragedy that it took an invasion of Ukraine and millions of
    casualties to make that reality sink home in Europe. But I am
    confident today that Europe will never again look to Russia as
    a reliable energy supplier.
        But we need to be there for the long term, working with
    Europe, with our best companies, operating in a transparent and
    above-board way, and we also have to maintain trust, because as
    I learned through 35 years as an American Foreign Service
    officer, proudly representing this country, that trust is the
    coin of the realm when you are involved in diplomacy. And so
    building that kind of long-term confidence in the way that
    hearings like this, and a bipartisan message from the Hill can
    do, is of tremendous importance.
        Senator Daines. Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador,
    good to see you again.
        A couple quick questions. American energy resources have
    been a lifeline to our allies in Europe. Last month, the United
    States supplied 60 percent of the European Union's liquified
    natural gas. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February
    2022, the U.S. has exported over 3,000 cargos of liquefied
    natural gas to Europe.
        To put it into perspective, one cargo of LNG provides
    enough heat for about a million people in Europe for one winter
    month. So do you believe the United States is a secure,
    reliable, and strategic energy partner?
        Mr. Pyatt. Absolutely. Unequivocally.
        Senator Barrasso. And what additional efforts can the
    United States take to help our allies increase their energy
    security?
        Mr. Pyatt. First and foremost, Senator, we need to keep
    doing what we are doing. We need to continue to expand
    America's industry, and I talked in my opening statement about
    the tremendous accomplishment of American producers who have
    more than doubled America's liquefaction capacity in recent
    years.
        I also think we need to find a way to keep talking about
    the issues around climate and the environment. I had the
    opportunity, for the first time in my life, late last year, to
    be in Lake Charles, Louisiana, and I was there with the
    Governor, and with a number of our biggest LNG producers. But I
    was also there with some of the Europeans, and they had spent
    the day before our conference visiting CP2 and some of the
    other LNG facilities around Lake Charles. And they all said to
    me one version or another of, ``Wow, I expected something that
    looked industrial, with flares and rusty chains, and I saw
    something that looks more like a high-tech manufacturing
    facility.''
        And I think telling that story--and if I can make one other
    anecdote in this area: As Assistant Secretary I had the
    opportunity to travel in Western Pennsylvania and visit some of
    the fracking pads operated by a great Pennsylvania company,
    EQT. And what was most striking to me about that visit, when
    you see what our gas producers are doing in the Marcellus
    region, these are people who are incredibly proud of the work
    they are doing, but they are also producing, sometimes within a
    mile or two of farms and schools and communities. They are
    incredibly attentive to issues like methane and flaring and how
    to produce their goods in the cleanest way possible. We should
    be proud of telling that story.
        Senator Barrasso. I want to switch to uranium if I could,
    because as you know, Russia has dominated the global uranium
    market. As of 2024, Putin controlled roughly 40 percent of the
    world's enrichment capacity, supplied nearly a quarter of
    America's enriched uranium. So I worked on a bipartisan basis
    to enact a prohibition on Russian uranium imports into the
    United States, which takes full effect 2 years from now.
        European nations remain even more dependent on Russian
    nuclear fuel but are now trying to reduce that reliance. As the
    West shifts away from Russian nuclear fuel and global demand
    rises, what kind of strain does that put on our European
    enrichment capacity?
        Mr. Pyatt. I would highlight two issues on this, Senator.
    First of all, I would applaud what you and others did to
    implement a legal ban on imports. And I remember sitting in
    this very chair being asked by Chairman Risch about this same
    issue, and it is tremendous to see the action. And I think it
    was also important that Congress included in its ban on uranium
    imports a provision for a circular fund to help capitalize the
    investment that we are going to have to make in order to build
    a non-Russian supply chain.
        But I would also flag, importantly, that as we see a new
    generation of nuclear reactors, and if our scientists and
    engineers are successful with building out an SMR
    infrastructure, we are going to need greatly increased volumes
    of nuclear fuel supply. So that means uranium. It connects with
    what Chairman Daines talked about in terms of Central Asia, the
    role of Kazakhstan, for instance, as a major uranium supplier.
    And then just like every other mining and mineral issue here in
    the United States, where do we source both the ores but also
    the processing that makes these commodities useable, in this
    case, for nuclear power.
        Senator Barrasso. So the other question is, how important
    is it that our own Department of Energy prioritize building out
    more U.S. enrichment capacity for not only domestic use but
    also to support our allied nations?
        Mr. Pyatt. Critically important. Last night I had the
    opportunity to have dinner with the head of one of Japan's
    largest utility companies, in Osaka. He was here. He spent 2
    days in the United States visiting some of our nuclear
    reactors, and Japan, of course, is looking at a new generation
    of nuclear reactors, after having spent 15 years since the
    Fukushima disaster shutting down facilities. He was incredibly
    enthusiastic about what he saw happening here in the United
    States. But we have to build partnerships with the Japanese,
    with Korea, with Canada, with our European allies.
        And I should emphasize, I talked in my opening statement
    about the Repower EU initiative and the tremendous progress
    that Brussels has made in committing to phasing out of Russian
    energy. And that includes gas, oil, and importantly, nuclear.
    So Europe is going to have the same exact dilemma that our
    operators of reactors have here in the United States.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Daines. Senator Barrasso, thank you. And you
    mentioned Kazakhstan, back to Central Asia here for a moment.
    Turkmenistan has the fourth--or fifth--largest natural gas
    reserves in the world. It is one of these little known facts.
    Again, as we open up that east-west corridor it will be very
    important here as we think long term about energy security.
        Ambassador Pyatt, there have been a number of European
    countries that have pursued investments in energy that would
    create, we believe, long-term stability for their grids.
    Greece--you are an expert on Greece. They announced last year
    that they will be starting a new offshore gas drilling project
    for the first time in 40 years.
        Look at Croatia, another bright spot in Southeastern
    Europe, their Krk Floating Regasification Terminal has opened
    up 6.1 billion cubic meters in annual gas supply, fully
    offsetting their prior reliance on Russian gas.
        For the last decade, the Baltic States have been working to
    cut all ties with Russian energy. And we are seeing the full
    development, as you mentioned, Ambassador, of the Vertical
    Corridor.
        So here is my question, Ambassador Pyatt. Do you believe
    that these projects represent a change in sentiment of the EU
    bloc or are these solely strategic investments being made by
    the countries most threatened by Russia?
        Mr. Pyatt. So, Mr. Chairman, I think these projects, first
    and foremost, are a reaction to the huge wake-up call that
    Europe received at the end of 2021 and the beginning of 2022,
    when Putin demonstrated his willingness to use energy as a
    weapon against the European Union. And I can remember vividly
    conversations with German and other officials who insisted that
    Russia would never cutoff supplies, because Russia needed the
    European market. But, in fact, Putin saw energy cutoffs as an
    essential element of his strategy for destroying Ukraine, and
    as Senator Murphy alluded to, he thought that Europe was going
    to cave. And I would give the Biden administration tremendous
    credit for the work we did, including the LNG Task Force that
    was agreed between President Biden and President von der Leyen,
    and then a lot of on-the-ground work with our LNG producers to
    make sure that Putin would fail in that effort.
        Now, you see a new generation of investment. I would put a
    particular spotlight on the leading role that American
    companies are playing in this area. So for instance, it is
    ExxonMobil, which is working on the Greece project that you
    alluded to. Chevron is playing a leading role offshore of
    Cyprus, offshore of Israel, offshore of Egypt, working to build
    energy opportunities to feed into that European market. And I
    hope that our companies will continue to play an important
    role, which is another reason why, as Dan said, we have got to
    get CSDDD right, because this is one important element of what
    remains, despite all of the frictions. I was in Davos 2 weeks
    ago, and the level of anxiety around Greenland was off the
    chart.
        But in the long term you have trillions of dollars of trade
    and investment that flow across the Atlantic Ocean, so we need
    to find a way to continue to reinforce that partnership, and it
    is the private sector investments in both directions--European
    companies investing in energy here in the United States and
    American companies investing in energy in Europe--that are
    going to help to stabilize that relationship in the years
    ahead.
        Senator Daines. On that investment comment you just made,
    do you think there is an opportunity for targeted investment or
    financing from the Development Finance Corporation or EXIM Bank
    that might help facilitate other projects?
        Mr. Pyatt. Absolutely. And I was so grateful that Senator
    Murphy mentioned the work that he did with Senator Johnson on
    the NDAA in 2019, which gave DFC authorization to work in
    Greece when I was Ambassador. That turned into a $125 million
    investment into a shipyard that otherwise would have gone to
    China. And there is potential for DFC to do more on the
    Vertical Corridor, to do more on transmission lines, to do more
    on gas storage, hopefully to do more, also, on battery storage,
    which is going to be such an important part of the story for
    Europe and for the United States as we seek to stabilize our
    grid in an all-of-the-above environment, where we are also
    going through a super-cycle of expanded demand.
        Senator Daines. Senator Murphy.
        Senator Murphy. Thank you very much. Just one final
    question, and keep you on the spot, Ambassador Pyatt. You
    really have been our most adept and capable Ambassador over the
    last two decades, turning around the U.S. relationship in
    Greece but then also helping to midwife Ukraine through its
    most turbulent, troubled time.
        On Thursday, January 26, the President announced that Putin
    had agreed to pause attacks on Kiev and other cities because of
    the freezing temperatures. Obviously, Russia is directing
    attacks at Ukraine's energy infrastructure. And then on
    February 2, just a few days later, the biggest attacks of the
    year came, attacking Ukraine's energy infrastructure. A bunch
    of us, Democrats and Republicans, got a closed-door briefing
    yesterday on the situation in Kiev, and it is dystopian right
    now, the fact that there is virtually no electricity that is
    reliable amidst a winter that is already off the charts with
    respect to record cold.
        Instead of criticizing Putin for these attacks, President
    Trump tried to explain it away, saying that the moratorium on
    attacks had been secretly post-dated and, in fact, what Putin
    was doing was outside the moratorium, instead of doing what any
    human would have done which is to talk about the immorality of
    making families and children freeze deliberately. That is a war
    crime.
        I just want to ask you, what do you see as the path forward
    to try to shore up, in the short term, Ukraine's energy
    infrastructure? They are not through this awful winter. It
    probably will just harden their resolve to continue the fight.
    Air strikes very rarely have the intended effect, which is to
    cow a population into acquiescence. But what should our role
    be, as a Congress and a country, to help stop this deliberate
    assault on Ukraine's energy infrastructure? What are some next
    steps to get us out of this moment?
        Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Senator Murphy, and I think you put
    it very well. I would just emphasize, first and foremost, your
    point about the humanitarian catastrophe that Putin is
    inflicting on Ukraine today. It is about minus 20 degrees in
    Kiev right now. The situation is extremely difficult. And we
    need to understand, Putin is attacking civilian energy
    infrastructure, conducting what is unambiguously a war crime,
    because he is failing on the battlefield, and he is trying to
    break the will of the Ukrainian people. I am very confident
    that he will fail in that regard, but we need to be doing
    everything that we possibly can to help them in that regard.
        First and foremost, we need to call it out for what it is.
    I was very glad to see Senator Graham and others speaking out
    in exactly these terms this week. Second, I think it is
    important that the United States continues to find whatever
    resources we have available that can be brought to bear to
    source the materials that Ukraine needs to keep the lights on.
    When I was in government I led the G7-plus task force that was
    created by Secretary Blinken in order to support Ukraine's
    energy infrastructure. I had a team of officials in the Energy
    Bureau that was working every single day to find transformers
    and switch gear and generators, and working with all of our
    allies. That is an effort that generated more than $5 billion
    of equipment, most of which was not paid for by the American
    taxpayer, and a lot of which was sourced from American
    manufacturers.
        I understand that there are still certain accounts that are
    floating out there, which related to the demise of USAID, AEECA
    funds and others, that could be channeled for this purpose, and
    I hope that that will happen quickly.
        Senator Murphy. But just underscore that. USAID was a
    critical player for a long time in helping to shore up
    Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Correct?
        Mr. Pyatt. USAID, Department of Energy, and the State
    Department's Energy Bureau under Secretary Blinken's directive.
    And I must say, it is a source of great satisfaction to me that
    when I go back to Ukraine that effort is still very well
    remembered, precisely because it touches every single Ukrainian
    civilian.
        Senator Murphy. Senator Graham's comments were strong, but
    he is not the President of the United States. He is not the
    Secretary of State. We need the White House to be condemning
    the war crimes that Putin is committing, rather than as
    President Trump was, excusing or explaining them away. But I
    appreciate your comments. Thanks.
        Senator Daines. Senator Murphy, thank you. We are going to
    wrap this hearing up. I just was thinking, as we were
    exchanging thoughts here today, it is worth thanking the Indian
    government for their agreement on Monday to continue to reduce
    and end their Russian oil imports. I was over in Delhi 2 weeks
    ago, working with the leaders there in India, and I was glad to
    see President Trump, Prime Minister Modi come to an agreement
    on that trade deal, but importantly, India's work to continue
    to reduce its dependence on cheap Russian oil.
        Without objection, today's complete agenda as well as all
    written statements and letters that have been sent to the
    subcommittee will be included in the record.
        Senator Daines. A sincere thank-you to our witnesses today.
    I think we had a thoughtful back-and-forth, a thoughtful dialog
    on some very serious issues that are facing Europe, and
    providing us with the benefit of your testimony.
        For the information of members, the record will remain open
    until the close of business tomorrow. We ask witnesses to
    respond as promptly as possible. Your responses will also be
    made a part of the record.
        With the thanks of the committee and a warm thanks to my
    ranking member, Senator Murphy, this hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

           Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
              to Hon. Geoffrey R. Pyatt by Senator Cory A. Booker

    Breaking From Longstanding Climate Agreements
              Following President Trump's earlier withdrawal from the Paris
            Agreement for the second time, he recently withdrew the United
            States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
            Change along with 65 other international organizations. This
            undermines U.S. leadership and our commitment to addressing the
            climate crisis on an international scale.

        Question. In what ways does withdrawing from critical climate
    organizations and agreements weaken U.S. international leadership,
    limit our ability to address the global climate crisis, and isolate
    America from its partners?

        Answer. When the United States is not a part of major multilateral
    organizations and agreements, we lose the ability to shape the debate,
    set norms and lead globally on issues related to energy abundance and
    energy transition where American companies can be international pace
    setters. In short, our disengagement or threat to withdraw from
    institutions that the United States helped to establish (like the
    International Energy Agency, established at the State Department,
    during the Nixon administration) undermines America's economic
    advantage and leaves the field clear for adversaries like China that
    have a very different vision of how the world should be organized.
        Beyond climate concerns, countries participate in the UNFCCC, for
    instance, because they recognize that having a seat at the table in
    those negotiations gives them the ability to shape norms and policies
    across a broad range of industries that are also important to America's
    economic competitiveness and job creation.

    Enhancing EU Energy Security
              The EU has high energy import dependency and is actively
            trying to diversify its energy sources through green energy
            investment.

          Question. What role can renewable energy technologies play in
    creating long-term energy independence and security for the EU?

        Answer. As I discussed during the hearing and in my written
    testimony, there is a major opportunity for American LNG, which has
    made and continues to make significant strides in emissions reductions
    and methane abatement, to be the major source of Europe's energy
    security as the EU implements a full phase out of Russian gas and oil
    by 2027. Importing high quality U.S. LNG and rapidly curtailing use of
    coal power is one of the major ways for the EU to meet its emissions
    reduction goals.
        For both the U.S. and the EU, accelerating deployment of renewable
    energy technologies is another means to advance energy security and
    resilience. In this regard, it is worth remembering that in many cases
    today the fastest way to get additional electrons on the grid is solar
    and wind deployment, often paired with grid scale batteries. Deploying
    renewable energy technologies is not just a ``nice to have,'' but
    essential for resilience and affordability in an era when fast growing
    power demand requires a true ``all of the above'' approach.

        Question. President Biden invoked the Defense Production Act (DPA)
    to strengthen domestic supply chains and promote clean energy
    technologies, including solar panels and heat pumps. How would the
    continuation of this policy have supported the ability of the U.S. to
    export clean energy technologies to the EU, thereby enhancing economic
    prosperity for American businesses and enhancing energy security for
    the EU?

        Answer. The Biden administration invoked the DPA so that the
    Department of Energy and DOD could ``accelerate domestic production of
    five key energy technologies: (1) solar; (2) transformers and electric
    grid components; (3) heat pumps; (4) insulation; and (5) electrolyzers,
    fuel cells, and platinum group metals.'' This ``[allowed] the federal
    government to invest in companies that can build clean energy
    facilities, expand clean energy manufacturing, process clean energy
    components, and install clean energy technologies for consumers.''
        This DPA action, passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and the
    work of DOE's Loan Programs Office accelerated investment and
    innovation, spurred U.S. manufacturing and increased U.S. production of
    clean energy and grid components which could also be exported to
    Europe, enhancing the energy security of our allies.
        I would also highlight the considerable progress we made in getting
    European companies and governments to recognize the risks of excessive
    dependence on China for many of these energy technologies. The best
    example of this is the great progress we made in the U.S.-EU dialogue
    on diversification of critical mineral supply chains. I welcome the
    fact that the Trump administration is building on this foundation,
    including with the proposed U.S.-EU critical minerals partnership, the
    State Department's Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement (FORGE),
    and enhanced lending initiatives from DFC and the Export-Import Bank,
    both of which are crucial tools for advancing America's energy security
    diplomacy.

                                   __________

                                     [all]