[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]