H.Hrg.119

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                  THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY5                                 BUDGET6=======================================================================78                                HEARING910                               BEFORE THE1112                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY1314                                 OF THE1516                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE17                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES1819                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2021                             FIRST SESSION2223                               __________2425                             JUNE 10, 20252627                               __________2829                           Serial No. 119-243031[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3233     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce3435                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy36                        energycommerce.house.gov3738                               __________3940                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISING OFFICE4163-804 PDF	              WASHINGTON : 202642=======================================================================4344                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE4546                        BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky47                                 Chairman48ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey49H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia           Ranking Member50GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado51RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois52EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    DORIS O. MATSUI, California53GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              KATHY CASTOR, Florida54NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                PAUL TONKO, New York55DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York56JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice       RAUL RUIZ, California57    Chairman                         SCOTT H. PETERS, California58RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan59RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas60TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois61RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California62AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                DARREN SOTO, Florida63DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         KIM SCHRIER, Washington64MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts65KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas66JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York67JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts68CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana69ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey70RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          KEVIN MULLIN, California71LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio72NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia73THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey74MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio75GABE EVANS, Colorado76CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas77JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota78                                 ------7980                           Professional Staff8182                     MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director83                SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director84               TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director85                         Subcommittee on Energy8687                         ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio88                                 Chairman89RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas, Vice     KATHY CASTOR, Florida90    Chairman                           Ranking Member91GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              SCOTT H. PETERS, California92RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey93TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 KEVIN MULLIN, California94AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia95DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado96MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       DORIS O. MATSUI, California97JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 PAUL TONKO, New York98CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  MARC A. VEASEY, Texas99RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          KIM SCHRIER, Washington100LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas101NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York102MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio               JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts103GABE EVANS, Colorado                 FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex104CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas                  officio)105JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota106BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex107    officio)108                             C O N T E N T S109110                              ----------111                                                                   Page112Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State113  of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     1114    Prepared statement...........................................     4115Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of116  Florida, opening statement.....................................     7117    Prepared statement...........................................     9118Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the119  Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................    11120    Prepared statement...........................................    13121Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the122  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    15123    Prepared statement...........................................    17124125                                Witness126127Christopher Wright, Secretary, Department of Energy..............    19128    Prepared statement...........................................    22129    Answers to submitted questions \1\130131                           Submitted Material132133Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.134List of documents submitted for the record.......................    93135Fact sheet from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient136  Economy, ``The Industrial Demonstrations Program is Essential137  for American Competitiveness,'' March 2025.....................    94138Letter of June 6, 2025, from Air-Conditioning, Heating and139  Refrigeration Institute, et al., to Hon. Mike Lee, et al.......   101140Article of June 6, 2025, ``Coal and Gas Plants Were Closing. Then141  Trump Ordered Them to Keep Running,'' by Claire Brown and Harry142  Stevens, New York Times........................................   104143Article of June 1, 2025, ``Trump is forcing this dirty, costly144  coal plant to stay open,'' by Evan Halper and Jake Spring,145  Washington Post................................................   108146Letter of May 9, 2025, from Henry Dargan McMaster, Governor of147  South Carolina, to Hon. Lindsey Graham, et al..................   112148Letter of May 16, 2025, from Mike Braun, Governor of Indiana, to149  Hon. John Thune, et al.........................................   114150Fact sheet from the Appliance Standards Awareness Project,151  ``Proposed Rollbacks of Efficiency Standards Would Cost152  Consumers $43 Billion,'' May 2025..............................   116153Report from Dallas Fed Energy Survey, ``Oil and gas activity154  edges higher; uncertainty rising, costs increase,'' March 26,155  2025...........................................................   119156Letter of May 5, 2025, from Travis D. Stice, Chairman of the157  Board and Chief Executive Officer, Diamondback Energy, Inc., to158  stockholders...................................................   133159Article, ``Florida electric bills skyrocketed recently. Here's160  why,'' by Teghan Simonton, Tampa Bay Times.....................   136161162----------163164\1\ Secretary Wright's reply has been retained in committee files and165is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20250610/166118357/HHRG-119-IF03-Wstate-WrightC-20250610-SD532.pdf.167Article, ``Florida Power & Light seeks $9B rate hike with high168  shareholder profit,'' Tampa Bay Times..........................   146169Article, ``Florida Power & Light Requests Largest Rate Increase170  in U.S. History,'' Food and Water Watch........................   149171Article of May 3, 2022, ``Get Ready for Another Energy Price172  Spike: High Electricity Bills,'' by Ivan Penn, New York Times..   152173174            THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET175176                              ----------177178                         TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025179180                  House of Representatives,181                            Subcommittee on Energy,182                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,183                                                    Washington, DC.184    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m. in185the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,186Hon. Robert E. Latta (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.187    Members present: Representatives Latta, Weber, Palmer,188Allen, Balderson, Pfluger, Harshbarger, Miller-Meeks, James,189Bentz, Fry, Langworthy, Evans, Goldman, Fedorchak, Guthrie (ex190officio), Castor (subcommittee ranking member), Peters,191Menendez, Mullin, McClellan, DeGette, Matsui, Tonko, Veasey,192Schrier, Fletcher, Ocasio-Cortez, Auchincloss, and Pallone (ex193officio).194    Also present: Representatives Joyce, Obernolte, Ruiz,195Dingell, and Carter of Louisiana.196    Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations; Clara197Cargile, Professional Staff Member; Jessica Donlon, General198Counsel; Andrew Furman, Professional Staff Member; Sydney199Greene, Director of Finance and Logistics; Emily Hale, Staff200Assistant; Calvin Huggins, Clerk; Megan Jackson, Staff201Director; Sophie Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff Director; Mary202Martin, Chief Counsel; Sarah Meier, Counsel and203Parliamentarian; Joel Miller, Chief Counsel; Ben Mullaney,204Press Secretary; Jake Riith, Staff Assistant; Jackson Rudden,205Staff Assistant; Chris Sarley, Member Services/Stakeholder206Director; Peter Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member; Matt207VanHyfte, Communications Director; Katie West, Press Secretary;208Aurora Ellis, Minority Law Clerk; Waverly Gordon, Minority209Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio,210Minority Staff Director; La'Zale Johnson, Minority Intern;211Kristopher Pittard, Minority Professional Staff Member; Emma212Roehrig, Minority Staff Assistant; Kylea Rogers, Minority213Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of214Communications, Outreach, and Member Services; Medha Surampudy,215Minority Professional Staff Member; and Tuley Wright, Minority216Staff Director, ENG.217218OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN219                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO220221    Mr. Latta. I call the Energy Subcommittee to order, and222welcome to today's hearing on the budget of the Department--223sorry, welcome to today's hearing on the Department of Energy's224fiscal year 2026 budget.225    And welcome, Secretary Chris Wright, to your first hearing226before the Energy and Commerce Committee. Welcome.227    Secretary Wright, in your confirmation hearing before the228Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, you stated three229goals: unleash American energy dominance, lead the world in230innovation and technological breakthroughs, and once again231allow for entrepreneurs to build in this country. This232sentiment could not come at a more critical juncture.233    Around the world, adversarial nations like communist China234are exploiting energy markets and critical minerals to advance235their national interests at the expense of the security of the236United States. Our own national--nation faces an electric237reliability crisis that could threaten the everyday lives of238hard-working Americans. Infrastructure development has been239left at a virtual standstill after the regulatory onslaught of240the previous administration. All the while, we are in the midst241of a critical race to lead the world in AI development. The242stakes could not be higher, which is why the ambitious goals243laid out under your leadership are so critical to the interests244of our country.245    After 5 months on the job, your Department has remained246steadfastly committed to these efforts. Your Department247reversed course on the disastrous LNG export ban and once again248ensured our abundant natural resources can be utilized as a249diplomatic tool for allies abroad. To reduce unnecessary250Federal overreach, your Department rescinded dozens of251burdensome and unworkable efficiency regulations and standards252that the previous administration designed to advance as a one-253size-fits-all approach to energy efficiency.254    Over the last few weeks, the Department issued necessary255202(c) emergency waivers to continue the operation of baseload256power plants to protect the grid reliability in regions across257the country during the upcoming summer months. And just 2 weeks258ago, the White House released the Reinvigorating the Nuclear259Industrial Base Executive order, which will empower DOE to260expedite and promote the use of nuclear energy in the United261States. Importantly, these efforts will leverage the bipartisan262work of our ADVANCE Act to fuel a domestic nuclear renaissance,263empowering next-generation industries.264    As you have documented, you are continuing your ongoing265tour of all 17 National Labs, our crown jewels, which will be266critical in leading the world in technological breakthroughs.267This includes the recent announcement of a new supercomputer at268the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab that will be vital to the269continued development of AI and fusion energy. I am encouraged270that your Department has been rightly focused on the energy271needs of our growing AI industry and why it is so important for272our Nation and the world for the United States to win.273    Your Department has also remained committed to President274Trump's agenda to be stewards of finite taxpayer resources by275aligning Federal resources with high-priority projects and276eliminating wasteful spending. As we discuss cost-cutting277measures at your Department, it is important to remember that278the previous administration received over $100 billion in new279funding and $400 billion in loan authority from the Inflation280Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The281previous administration issued financial assistance awards in a282haphazard manner that lacked accountability.283    In fact, in the 76 days between the Election Day and284President Trump's inauguration, the Department issued almost285$100 billion in new loans, compared to the $43 billion in loans286issued over the loan office's 20-year lifespan. This level of287Government subsidies was irresponsible and unsustainable,288focused on misguided priorities, and was often done to the289detriment of free markets and private enterprises.290    The fiscal year 2026 budget reflects these priorities and291will refocus the Department of Energy on its core mission as292you continue reorganization efforts, as is customary for293incoming administrations. We look forward to our continued work294together to achieve common goals to unleash American energy295dominance, lead the world in the next generation of industries,296and fuel economic prosperity throughout the country.297    [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]298    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]299300    Mr. Latta. I look forward to today's discussion, and I301yield back the balance of my time, and at this time recognize302the gentlelady from Florida, the ranking member of the303subcommittee, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.304305  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN306               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA307308    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.309    Good morning, Mr. Secretary. It is our job to hold you310accountable and ask questions, and I appreciate you attending311the briefing today to offer your budget.312    You know, the President promised to cut electric bills in313half, but utility bills are way up, as is the risk of a314resurgent inflation, thanks to the administration's policies.315It always sounded way too good that electricity bills would be316cut in half, but hard-working Americans did not expect you to317actively work to make their lives more expensive, reach into318their wallets, and grab their hard-earned cash. And that is319effectively what your policies have done in just a few short320months.321    And in addition to higher electric bills, the U.S. DOE is322actively killing jobs. The U.S. Department of Energy, once the323envy of the world for innovation, our National Labs, and focus324on cleaner, cheaper energy, is killing jobs.325    Mr. Secretary, you inherited a Department of Energy that326was advancing an energy manufacturing boom, 1,000 new or327expanded factories across America, 400,000 good-paying jobs328just over the past few years. America had a strategy to produce329more energy, reshore jobs, modernize the grid, invent the330energy technologies of the future, and build and scale them331here in the United States. This is smart policy, especially as332energy is central to our national security. But you seem happy333to cede the next generation of energy, innovation, and334leadership to our competitors like the Chinese Communist Party.335    We need you to answer why you and Republicans in Congress336are intentionally sabotaging America's progress, constraining337our supply, and fueling higher household energy bills.338    On top of it all, the administration is piling on arbitrary339tariffs. That's making the energy sector more expensive because340tariffs lead to increased costs and disruptions, ultimately341impacting both consumers and the broader energy market. DOE is342supposed to be leading the energy--supposed to be leading343energy innovation and security, from grid resilience to344critical minerals to renewable power to next-generation345renewable power. But you and Elon Musk and DOGE have taken a346chainsaw to the scientists, experts, and congressionally347mandated initiatives at DOE.348    Witnesses and experts testify before this committee349consistently that we need to support expansion of electricity350transmission infrastructure in the U.S. because it is critical351to providing affordable and reliable power. Yet the Big Ugly352Bill, as we affectionately call it, the billionaire tax break353package, rescinds support for transmission, facility financing,354electricity transmission planning, modeling. It takes back the355grants to facilitate the siting of interstate electricity356transmission lines.357    And recent studies have shown that a comprehensive approach358to building transmission lowers costs for consumers. In the359Northeast, average electric bills could decrease by more than360one-third. A new report released yesterday finds that every $1361spent on transmission returns up to $4.70 in customer benefits.362    In addition, 2 weeks ago you canceled industrial363demonstrations funded by Congress to cut carbon emissions and364toxic air pollution from industrial sites and power plants. DOE365claimed these projects failed to advance energy needs of the366American people, they are not economically viable, they don't367return a positive investment for taxpayers. But that is not368true.369    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the370record a report from the American Council for Energy Efficient371Economy that finds the industrial demonstrations would bring372$14 billion in private investment and keep industrial373facilities competitive with countries around the world.374    Mr. Latta. Well, without objection, so ordered.375    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]376    Ms. Castor. This dysfunction at the Department of Energy is377killing investment in America. Look at the Loan Programs378Office, which House Republicans tried to kill--are trying to379kill in their Big Ugly Bill. The LPO is exactly the kind of380tool we need to provide low-cost financing to projects that381traditional investors won't fund.382    However, since President Trump took office, companies--many383of whom have spent years and millions of dollars to secure384conditional LPO loan commitments--are walking away. They can no385longer trust the Department of Energy to be a reliable partner.386CORE POWER, who received a conditional loan to build a new387lithium battery manufacturing facility, has canceled the388project, resulting in 3,000 lost American jobs. Aspen Aerogels389received a conditional loan to build a plant in Georgia to make390thermal barriers for EV batteries. They have canceled the plant391and will instead expand production in China and Mexico. The392list goes on and on.393    And, you know, Americans expect policymakers like you to394deploy taxpayer dollars wisely, spur cost-saving innovations,395and make people's lives better. But your proposed budget fails396to advance that vision. And when an administration holds a397vision based on propping up only dirty power sources, we lose398Americans' capacity--America's capacity to innovate and drive399costs down, which ultimately hurts American businesses and the400American people.401    So you have a lot to answer for today. I look forward to402the exchange.403    [The prepared statement of Ms. Castor follows:]404    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]405406    Ms. Castor. I yield back my time.407    Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the Chair408now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chair of the409full committee, for 5 minutes for questions.410411 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN412           CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY413414    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you to Secretary Wright for415being here.416    We welcome you to the Energy and Commerce Committee. Many417people may not fully appreciate the functions that the418Department performs in the Federal Government and your419responsibilities as Energy Secretary. You oversee a national420security agency and an energy security agency. DOE has designed421and produced every nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal. It422powers the nuclear navy. It plays critical roles in423nonproliferation, international nuclear security, and other424energy security missions.425    DOE is a world-class science, engineering, and technology426agency. It is an environmental engineering and cleanup agency.427It is an energy emergency support agency and produces essential428energy information for our energy industry and public, as well429as employing the fastest computers in the world. Its work is430performed through a nation-spanning complex of National Labs,431production sites, and facilities, and involves the largest432contract workforce outside of the Department of Defense.433Ensuring this agency operates efficiently can be a challenge,434as the Committee on Oversight over the years has demonstrated.435    That said, successful management of DOE's missions and a436focus on its core missions means America will be secure and437stay ahead of our adversaries. You are taking charge of DOE at438a critical time for the nation. Right now we are fighting to439achieve AI dominance. It is a technological race that we cannot440afford to lose to China. The threat of China succeeding at our441expense equals, if not surpasses, the threats we faced almost44290 years ago in the race to harness atomic energy, which443America fortunately won.444    The success of the Manhattan Project, a project that is in445DOE's DNA, safeguarded our Nation's security for two446generations. We are confronting a similar treacherous time447today. Over the past 4 years our adversaries have been448emboldened--China, in particular. Here at home our Nation449confronts tremendous new demand--tremendous new demand for450energy and a burning need to revitalize our energy sector. We451need energy and more of it. We need to build out the types of452energy that we can rely on to power our technological needs, to453support our allies, and to build our economy.454    Against this backdrop, understanding how you plan to455address the urgency of this moment is critical. Recent actions456by the administration to supercharge the drive to restore our457nuclear energy leadership, including at DOE, represent the kind458of positive actions this Nation needs. What will matter is how459you execute these policies. So it is important to understand460how you plan to manage the agency and align its budget to461effectively meet your priorities and responsibilities, and to462measure the results.463    Every new administration takes steps to align DOE structure464to meet its priorities. President Trump did it in his first465term. President Obama did it twice. We should give you the466flexibility to have the organization you need to be effective467and to allow you the--to find efficiencies in agency468management.469    We should not lose sight of the reality that the Department470of Defense today operates about 35,000 more contractors and471employees than it did 5 years ago, most of that increase in the472past four years. The agency used to put out a detailed annual473performance report, but the last administration did not produce474those reports, limiting accountability for measuring the475results of work. Restoring accountability on that front would476be welcome.477    And there certainly is room to be more efficient and478effective across the agency and the enterprise for the sake of479taxpayer stewardship. Ultimately, what matters is aligning DOE480to deliver the nuclear and energy security results that are481most essential for the Nation and to support the engineering482and science that will help us sustain a prosperous future.483    I really appreciate your willingness to be here to testify.484We appreciate you being here this morning.485    [The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]486    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]487488    Mr. Guthrie. And I will yield back.489    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The chairman yields back490the balance of his time. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman491from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, for4925 minutes for an opening statement.493494OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE495            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY496497    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.498    Today we are here to discuss the Department of Energy's499fiscal year 2026 budget requests, but the destruction of our500national energy policy had already started before we received501this flawed and harmful budget. It started on day one, when502Trump signed disastrous Executive orders that halted Federal503grants and propped up polluting fossil fuels. It continued with504House Republicans passing the One Big Ugly Bill that eliminates505programs that are lowering energy costs and helping to build506clean energy manufacturing here in America, all so Republicans507can give giant tax breaks to billionaires.508    And now we have a Trump budget that will increase household509energy costs, prioritize oil and gas, undermine clean energy,510and gut energy assistance programs. And at a time when energy511demand is increasing, this budget will make it harder for our512Nation to meet the moment.513    So, Secretary Wright, welcome to the Energy and Commerce514Committee. But I have to say I have tried to get answers from515you on a number of actions at DOE, ranging from staffing costs516to project delays and funding freezes. But every single letter517I have sent has gone unanswered.518    When appearing before a different committee, you seem to519indicate that you view responding to Congress as an optional520part of your job, and I want to be clear it is not. And521responding to this committee is part of your responsibility to522the American people. After all, you owe them an explanation of523your actions over the last 6 months.524    The agency has forced Americans to pay higher energy bills525to keep outdated and expensive coal plants online. It is526revoking energy and water efficiency standards that lower527energy bills for American families. It cancelled $3.7 billion528in grants that would lower emissions from the industrial sector529and create thousands of good-paying energy jobs.530    The Department of Energy also threw open its doors to Elon531Musk and his DOGE minions. Musk forced out more than 3,500 DOE532staffers, and now the agency has lost experienced and valuable533personnel with critical expertise. And now the Trump534administration sends Congress a budget request that hollows out535DOE even more, slashing funding by more than 25 percent. It536slashes funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program,537zeroes out grants for renewable grid integration and wind and538solar energy, and cuts loan programs for advanced vehicle539technologies and Tribal energy.540    So, Mr. Secretary, in your confirmation hearing you541indicated that expanding the grid was--and I am quoting now--542``important to securing and modernizing resilient electricity543grid to meet growing electricity demand.'' But your budget544proposal rescinds billions of dollars in investments in the545Nation's power grid, making it even more difficult for us to546modernize and secure it for the future.547    The Trump administration and congressional Republicans548claim to care about competing with China. I hear that over and549over again. But every action that they take only leaves America550further behind in the global energy leadership race. By551freezing and canceling investments in emerging clean-energy552technologies, the Trump administration is letting China win. By553undercutting manufacturing projects set to build electric554vehicles and solar panels here in the United States, the Trump555administration is leaving the door wide open for our556competitors. They are letting China further grow its own supply557chains and its global market share. And we were on the verge of558a clean energy manufacturing renaissance, and the Trump559administration has ground it all to a halt.560    And the Trump administration allowed its reckless alliance561with Elon Musk and his DOGE minions to threaten the operations562of the National Nuclear Security Administration and the563Bonneville Power Administration. And now that that alliance564between Musk and Trump, I guess, has come to an end with this565ongoing war of words on social media--but still the Trump566administration now claims that Musk is only looking to support567his financial interests.568    Well, they did not voice any concern from us--very real569conflict of interest when he was decimating our Federal570agencies or indiscriminately firing workers and all while571covertly stealing Americans' sensitive personal data. They572didn't seem to care about it then. Now they say they care.573    But before I finish, Secretary, it looks like you and I574agree on at least one issue, and that is that nuclear energy is575worth investing in, and that the Loan Programs Office has an576important role to play. And that is something I hope you will577reiterate with committee Republicans today who don't seem to578share your view on this. In the One Big Ugly Bill they579completely zeroed out funding for DOE's Loan Programs Office.580    It also appears that even you have some concerns about this581budget request. In testimony before the Senate last month, you582asked Congress to send DOE the budget it needs, not the one you583asked for. And so I question your own support for the budget584that you are here to defend. So I am looking forward to finally585getting some answers today.586    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]587   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]588589    Mr. Pallone. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the590balance of my time.591    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back592the balance of his time, and this now concludes Member opening593statements.594    The Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to committee595rules, all Members' opening statements will be made part of the596record.597    We want to thank our witness, Secretary Wright, for being598here today and taking time to testify for the subcommittee.599    Mr. Secretary, you will have the opportunity to give an600opening statement followed by a round of questions from601Members.602    And again, of course, our witness is the Honorable Chris603Wright, Secretary of the Department of Energy.604    We appreciate you being here, and, Mr. Secretary, we look605forward to hearing your opening statement. And you have 5606minutes. Thank you very much.607608   STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF609                             ENERGY610611    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Chairman Latta, Chairman612Guthrie, Ranking Member Castor, and Ranking Member Pallone, and613members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you614today as Secretary of Energy to discuss the President's fiscal615year 2026 budget request for the Department of Energy.616    Under President Trump's leadership, our priorities for the617Department are clear: to unleash a golden era of American618energy dominance, strengthen our national security, and lead619the world in innovation. A reliable and abundant energy supply620is the foundation of a strong and prosperous nation. When621America leads in energy, we lead in prosperity, security, and622human flourishing.623    America has a historic opportunity to secure our energy624systems; propel scientific and technological innovation,625including AI; maintain and strengthen our weapons stockpiles;626and meet Cold War legacy waste commitments. The Department of627Energy will advance this critical mission while cutting red628tape, increasing efficiency, and ensuring we are better629stewards of taxpayer dollars.630    The President's fiscal year 2026 budget will ensure631taxpayer resources are allocated appropriately and cost632effectively. We will invest DOE's resources in sources and633technologies that support affordable, reliable, and secure634energy, and provide a return on investment for the American635taxpayers. We will return the Department to its core mission636and eliminate spending on projects that fail to provide such a637return, fail to advance our energy needs, and fail the test of638economic viability.639    It is deeply concerning how many billions of dollars were640rushed out the door without proper due diligence in the final641days of the Biden administration. DOE is undertaking a thorough642review of financial assistance that identifies waste of643taxpayer dollars, protects America's national security, and644advances President Trump's commitment to unleash American645energy dominance. As a result, we recently announced the646termination of 24 projects totaling over $3.7 billion in647taxpayer-funded financial assistance. These projects failed to648meet the economic, national security, or energy security649standards necessary to sustain DOE's investment, and the650taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize them.651    Instead, we are advancing a policy of energy addition,652fully leveraging affordable, reliable, and secure sources that653have powered our country for generations. The United States is654blessed with an abundance of coal, oil, and natural gas, and655our administration is committed to using them to meet growing656energy needs of the American people. Every one of these657resources was unleashed through the world-changing power of658American innovation. Our National Labs are the engine that659drives research and development to expand our energy dominance.660We will prioritize research that supports true technological661breakthroughs and maintains America's global competitiveness.662    America must play a leading role commercializing a663reliable, safe, and secure nuclear energy, and we are taking664steps to accelerate innovation in this sector. DOE is working665to advance the rapid deployment of next-generation nuclear666technology, including small modular reactors. I am proud to667report that we have officially ended the previous668administration's reckless pause on LNG export permits, and have669returned to regular order for reviewing and approving new670permits.671    DOE will also work to replenish the Strategic Petroleum672Reserve, a national asset that protects our security in times673of crisis. I want to thank this committee for prioritizing674funding to refill the SPR in the One Big Beautiful Bill as675well. We are advancing President Trump's pledge to lower the676cost of living and expand choice by right-sizing DOE's approach677to home efficiency standards and regulations. Under the678President's direction, we have begun slashing more than 47679regulations as part of the largest deregulatory effort in680history. These actions are projected to save the American681people approximately $11 billion while restoring consumer682freedom and lowering costs.683    The responsible stewardship and modernization of the684nation's nuclear weapons system is paramount for this685administration. DOE is focused on addressing critical upgrades686for the U.S. nuclear stockpile and maintaining our engine687powerhouses for submarines and aircraft carriers. Both tasks688will be even more crucial in the next few years.689    Our nuclear innovation as a nation began with the Manhattan690Project, and the Manhattan Project is clearly AI. DOE has a691significant role to play in driving AI innovation for692scientific discovery and national security. Our agency has693world-class, high-performance computing capabilities, including6944 of the world's top 10 supercomputers. Harnessing our energy695potential to power global AI leadership while meeting growing696energy demand will be the challenge of our time. But America697doesn't back down from big challenges or big builds.698    As Secretary of Energy, I am honored by the responsibility699to help meet the American people's growing energy needs and700lead the world in energy development. I appreciated the701opportunity to work with many of you on this committee to702unlock America's full energy potential and drive down costs for703families with the One Big Beautiful Bill, and I look forward to704continuing to work together to achieve President Trump's energy705dominance agenda.706    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this707committee.708    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]709    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]710711    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for--or712Mr. Secretary--for your testimony today. And we will now move713into the question-and-answer portion of the hearing, and I will714begin the questioning and recognize myself for 5 minutes.715    One of the things I have asked over the last 4 years is the716same question of our witnesses coming before us, Mr. Secretary:717Do we need to have more energy or less energy produced in this718country?719    Secretary Wright. Unquestionably, more energy.720    Mr. Latta. And, you know, as we look at this, you know, we721are looking at a widening gap between our projected electricity722needs, largely driven by the new data centers you pointed out,723and we also have a reshoring of domestic manufacturing, the724amount of reliable energy entering the system to meet that725demand.726    As you know, record levels of baseload generation are727prematurely retiring. How is the Department viewing this728existential threat, and what do you see as the potential729consequences for not meeting the moment?730    Secretary Wright. Yes, if one were to look at recent data,731growth in electricity production and energy more broadly in732China has been rapid. And in the United States, particularly in733the electricity sector, we saw almost no growth in American734electricity production during the 4 years of the last735administration. Yet with almost no growth in production, we saw736across the country an average 25 percent increase in737electricity prices. This is clearly a pathway to losing the AI738arms race. If we can't grow our electricity production and keep739prices in check, America is in trouble.740    Our administration is entirely focused on unleashing741private capital, getting the government out of the way to grow742and expand our supply of reliable, firm electricity. That is743what AI needs: 24/7 365 electricity. But of course, that is744what the American electricity grid needs as well. No one wants745the lights to go out or electricity production to decline when746your kid is on a ventilator or when your factory is running. We747need reliable, affordable, secure electricity.748    We are meeting with commercial providers across the749spectrum about how to build and enable the expansion of750American electricity generation. That is priority number one.751We need to grow the supply of electricity even faster than the752demand. That is the only way to meet the demands of AI and753reshoring manufacturing, and to stop the highly destructive and754politically polarizing rises in electricity prices. There is a755lot of momentum behind this increasing the cost of electricity,756restricting the ability to develop or even operate the existing757plants. So it is a big challenge.758    As Ranking Member Castor mentioned, yes, electricity prices759have been rising fast under the last administration, and760stopping that on a dime is a tricky challenge, but it is a761challenge we can and must meet.762    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. Your Department is undergoing a763reorganization effort to align with priorities of the764administration and most effectively accomplish your goals of765energy dominance, technological superiority, and fueling766economic prosperity. Would you give us an update as to where767things stand with the reorganization efforts and the number of768staff that have departed the agency?769    Secretary Wright. Yes, look, the Department of Energy is770full of a bunch of tremendous, hard-working, committed men and771women trying to better the direction for our country. But772again, like with electricity prices, headcount at the773Department grew over 20 percent during the last administration,774with only increasing costs of energy and no increase in the775supply of electricity. Clearly, that is a trajectory we don't776want to go on.777    So like with any business or any organization where you778care about performance, we have got to critically look at what779we do, how we do it, how we can be more efficient, and how we780can concentrate limited resources on what matters the most. We781have followed a careful, thoughtful way to look at how we are782going to reorganize the Department and to bring the headcount783more aligned with an appropriate budget for the times we are784in. We have done this almost entirely through voluntary785measures, so a lot of engagement with people. And we have had786voluntary offers to give generous financial treatment for787people that maybe--that are choosing to move on to a different788chapter in their career.789    These are hard and tough, and this is still ongoing. There790is significant timeframe people have to choose whether this is791the pathway they want to go or not. People will be moving from792some offices to other offices to make sure we are appropriately793staffed in every office. But I am proud of the hard work of the794team, some of the people working behind me, and many, many more795back at the Department.796    In the next few weeks we will probably get more clarity on797exactly where the reorganization is going to end, but I think798it has been a great effort to align the people and the staffing799with the mission we have at hand, and to align our expenditures800with the output of the Department.801    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. My time has expired, and I802will submit my other questions in writing to you.803    But at this time I will recognize the gentlelady from804Florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes805for her questions.806    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.807    Mr. Secretary, you have actively been throttling back808energy production, you have been complicit in raising American809families' electric bills, and gutting innovation, so it is810really hard to determine where to even start with this. But I811will start with an initiative that is very popular across the812country that helps our neighbors back home save money, and that813is Energy Star. It is a joint DOE-EPA initiative mandated in814statute by Congress. In the past it has been very bipartisan.815    But your budget request runs counter to law. It actually816proposes to completely eliminate Energy Star. No one thinks817that is smart. Actually, I correct myself: The polluters and818the utility companies that want consumers to use a lot more819energy, they like it. But I am going to offer for the record a820letter from leading residential and real estate organizations821that describes Energy Star as a key element of the all-of-the-822above strategy. It says electricity saved by Energy Star helps823free up space on the grid needed so the U.S. can lead the world824to power and grow AI, bring manufacturing back to our shore. It825reduces Americans' electricity bills.826    I will offer that to you, Mr. Chair.827    Mr. Latta. And without objection, so ordered.828    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]829    Ms. Castor. So, Secretary Wright, in a press release you830said that DOE claims that when you eliminate Energy Star you831save Americans $11 billion by rolling back energy efficiency832standards. However, according to DOE's own estimates,833eliminating those standards would increase Americans' utility834bills by more than $54 billion. So how do you justify robbing835Americans of $54 billion in savings from energy efficiency836standards?837    Secretary Wright. So, of course, increasing energy838efficiency, which has been going on for 200 years, is great. If839you can invest, you know, $1 in increasing energy efficiency840and save many dollars of energy costs, people do that all day841long, every day, and they have been doing it throughout human842history, and certainly long before----843    Ms. Castor. So how do you justify it?844    Secretary Wright [continuing]. There was a Department of845Energy. Because individuals and businesses should make the846choice to evaluate those trade-offs.847    Ms. Castor. And they do. There are no mandates in energy848efficiency standards or appliances that people want to849purchase. My folks back home are replacing a lot of appliances850because we were socked by two hurricanes in a row and did real851damage. And every time you say that you are--and the852Republicans have been complicit on this--that you can't--you853are not going to provide the information to consumers that they854need to lower their electric bills at this time, that does real855damage.856    Secretary Wright. We are not preventing any product being857purchased by any consumer. Quite the contrary----858    Ms. Castor. Yes, you have, in eliminating Energy Star, in859the war on energy-efficient appliances. This is the opposite of860what you said. You said you want to be good stewards of861taxpayer money, but you are not. You are asking people to pay862more, and taking the tools they need away from them.863    I will move on to the industrial demonstrations, because864you said America needs to be focused on innovation and lead the865world. You know, China is doubling down on industrial-sector866innovation and decarbonization. In April, China announced 101867new demonstration projects, including low-carbon steel,868geothermal heat pumps, and green fertilizer. These--those869projects will receive, of course, direct support, expedited870approvals, prioritization. That is how they work. So the least871that America can do if we want to keep up our competitive edge872is to provide strategic support.873    But you announced 2 weeks ago you are going to cancel those874industrial demonstrations. You said these cancellations would875strengthen our national security. Do you believe that allowing876China to overtake the United States in these key sectors877actually strengthens our national security?878    Secretary Wright. It is critical that the United States879lead in the technologies that matter, but----880    Ms. Castor. But you are taking the resources away from881these kind of innovative companies. They have come to you, they882have come to the Department of Energy. They are bringing their883own capital. They are not doing it on their own. And you are884taking these tools away from them, kind of like pulling the rug885out from under them, and ceding this to China. Why do you think886that is a good idea?887    Secretary Wright. If American taxpayers invest a dollar,888and the potential return on that dollar is a penny or maybe a889dime, that is not a good expenditure of American dollars, and890it is certainly not the pathway to win in a competitive891marketplace.892    Ms. Castor. Now, you said you are all for energy dominance,893but it--you are doing the opposite. You are taking a hatchet to894what makes America strong and what makes America great, and895that is innovation and doing it in partnership with our private896businesses. I think it is a recipe, again, for higher electric897bills for our families and businesses back home, and it is a898recipe for ceding ground to China that we are not going to put899up with.900    I will yield back.901    Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the Chair902now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the903full committee, for 5 minutes for questions.904    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chair.905    So, Mr. Secretary, we talked AI and we talked throughout906this committee. My understanding is--we talked about907decarbonization of China--the one concern on AI and defeating908China at AI is the big, vast delta of China's expanding energy909sector and our flat growth in energy. And my--what is, kind of,910the components of China's growth in energy? My understanding is911they have strong use of coal.912    Secretary Wright. Yes, by far the biggest source of913electricity in China is coal. Coal is----914    Mr. Guthrie. So would China be the world leader in915decarbonization?916    Secretary Wright. No, China is definitely not the world917leader in decarbonization. In fact, thank you for going back to918that point.919    There is one leader in decarbonization that by far leads920the world, and that is the United States of America. We have921reduced global greenhouse--we have reduced greenhouse gas922emissions more than the next five countries after us combined.923But--and these reductions----924    Mr. Guthrie. Well, at the same time using coal as our925energy generation as well. You can do coal in a clean way. My926guess is China is probably not the leader in clean coal that we927are.928    Secretary Wright. Correct. And our decarbonization was929driven by market forces, not by government programs or930incentives. They have had actually a relatively small role. The931much bigger impact of government subsidies and involvement in932our energy sector is to drive our energy prices up. And when933you drive our energy prices up, you don't make things in the934United States. They get offshored, and mostly to China.935    Mr. Guthrie. Thanks. And so you wouldn't hold China up as936an example of decarbonizing the world?937    Secretary Wright. Absolutely not.938    Mr. Guthrie. And if we dismiss what they are doing, such as939we--so we need 152 gigawatts of power over the next decade,940estimated. We have 112 gigawatts, including coal and clean941coal, scheduled to come offline. What is your concern there?942Not only do we have to make up the 152 we need, we have to943create 112 that we are losing as well.944    Secretary Wright. Oh, it is a huge concern. Look, as I945said, almost no growth in our electricity production over the946last 4 years. You quoted some high numbers there, over 100947gigawatts of needed new power to lead the reindustrialization948of our country and lead in AI. And at the same time, we are949going to retire well-working, reliable, secure energy sources.950    If you got to build up a mountain, the first thing to do is951stop digging the hole.952    Mr. Guthrie. Exactly. So if you look at that during the One953Big Beautiful Bill, we have a provision in there--because the954concerns you hear from people investing in energy, you know,955some energy is a 20-, 30-year return on investment. And when956there is--every 2 to 4 years, the policy seems to be changing957out of Washington. They are concerned.958    And to address that, one, I would love to see if we could959all work together to have a bipartisan energy bill to show that960we can work together. And, hopefully, that is still possible961for us to do. We are going to make that effort. I can guarantee962both sides of the aisle, we are going to work on that.963    But you also came up with a provision that we put in the964bill to help as well. And it is not really insurance companies965can pay into, but can you describe that program a little bit966for us?967    Secretary Wright. Yes, look, energy infrastructure takes968time to build. Maybe the most famous example in the United969States was the Keystone XL pipeline to bring Canadian oil down970to American refineries so we can turn them into high-value971products and sell them to Americans or export them overseas.972Billions of dollars were spent on this pipeline, and then an973administration came in and just stopped it.974    Who is going to build long-term infrastructure if the next975administration may just flush your investment? The Governor of976New York did the same thing on pipelines that could lower the977cost of energy in New York State and New England. Hundreds of978millions of dollars were spent for these obviously beneficial979pipelines, and then the--Governor Cuomo in New York just980stopped them.981    So the idea is we need to build confidence for people to982make long-term investments again. And if the Government comes983and changes their mind, they at least give you the money back984that you invested to try to help the American economy.985    Mr. Guthrie. That is only if the Government decision is986what drives the loss of the investment, right?987    Secretary Wright. That is correct. Look, as a long-time988entrepreneur, we make investments all the time. Sometimes they989turn out great and sometimes they don't. That is the nature of990business. But if your investment only fails because the991Government changed the policy, well, the Government should have992a cost for changing that policy.993    Mr. Guthrie. OK. I only have a few seconds left, but my994understanding is that over the past 5 years DOE has expanded by99535,000 people, employees and contractors. Are you--I am sure996you are looking at that and kind of--what is your explanation997of that, and what you are doing with that?998    Secretary Wright. Yes. Look, it is another just example of999growing headcount, spending more money, and hiring more people1000does not necessarily lead to positive results. And in fact,1001historically, at the DOE it has led to the opposite. We hired a1002lot of people whose main job was to try to stand in the way of1003energy development. That is not a productive use of people or1004capital.1005    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. My time has expired. I appreciate1006you being here, and I will yield back.1007    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired, and1008he yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New1009Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes1010for questions.1011    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1012    This is not my question, but I just have to say it is1013ironic you are talking about, you know, what the previous1014administration did in terms of discouraging investment--which I1015don't agree, but, I mean, the irony right now is that you and1016the Trump administration are doing everything you can to1017prevent any kind of moving forward on clean energy. And so why1018would anybody--you know, you are killing all the clean energy1019initiatives around the country.1020    And so, you know, what is happening now, which is very sad,1021is that--what we really should be for is all-of-the-above in1022terms of energy. And my Republican colleagues claim that. But1023that is not what you and they do. You kill clean energy and you1024encourage fossil fuels. And this going back and forth, back and1025forth is certainly not good for the future in terms of1026America's dominance or energy independence.1027    But that is not what I wanted to ask, Mr. Secretary. I1028wanted to talk about the fact that the Trump administration has1029been laser focused on raising energy costs for Americans,1030despite what the President campaigned on. And the example came1031in the last month when your Department ordered two power plants1032burning coal, natural gas, and fuel oil to stay online mere1033days before they were scheduled to shut down for good. And just1034one problem: No one asked for these plants to stay open--not1035their grid operators, not their utilities, and not their State1036regulators.1037    So my question is--and you could just answer quickly--who1038made the decision to issue those orders under section 202(c) of1039the Federal Power Act? Was it you?1040    Secretary Wright. I made those decisions.1041    Mr. Pallone. That is fine. I want to move to the next1042question. It is not fine, but, I mean, I--that is what I wanted1043to hear.1044    Now, your Department ordered the utilities running those1045plants to get permission from FERC to charge customers to keep1046those plants online. According to the chair of Michigan's1047utility commission, those extra costs could costs homeowners1048and businesses tens of millions of dollars.1049    And just in case anyone doubts these facts, I would like to1050insert two articles on these orders into the record, Mr.1051Chairman. One is from The New York Times and one is from The1052Washington Post that, you know, back up what I just said.1053    So let me----1054    Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.1055    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]1056    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1057    Mr. Secretary, your background is in the oil and gas1058sector, not the electric sector. So why do you think that you1059knew better than the grid operators, the utilities, and the1060State regulators, you know, to actually try to revive these,1061even though no one seemed to care?1062    Why are you increasing electricity prices for millions of1063people? Because you know better about what you think we should1064do with these plants?1065    Secretary Wright. So keeping the coal plant open in1066Michigan, in southwestern Michigan--2 days after we issued the1067order to stop that plant from closing, there was a blackout in1068MISO. MISO is the tightest reserve margin place we have in the1069country. You need to be able to keep the lights on.1070    Mr. Pallone. OK.1071    Secretary Wright. Two days later, the lights went out. It1072is hard to overestimate the extent----1073    Mr. Pallone. Well, that was a different part of the State.1074But in any case----1075    Secretary Wright. Same grid.1076    Mr. Pallone [continuing]. It is going to increase monthly1077energy bills for millions of Americans. That is my point.1078    And I want to ask one more question, because, you know, we1079don't have a lot of time. I want to turn to a statement you1080made about the Department's Loan Programs Office at a recent1081Senate hearing. You said, and I quote, ``We do need to make1082sure we have funding available in the Loan Programs Office1083because, used judiciously, it is a way to leverage private1084capital to make things happen fast.''1085    Now, the Republican Governors of South Carolina and Indiana1086have made it clear that achieving the administration's desired1087nuclear build-out will be impossible without the Loan Programs1088Office, and I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into1089the record a letter from the South Carolina Governor in which1090he states that, without the existing Federal tax credits and1091loan programs for nuclear power that make--making financing new1092nuclear power generation possible, that effort would be dead1093without the loan program.1094    So let me just ask you, do you think that----1095    Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.1096    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]1097    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1098    Do you think that it is possible, if Federal funding for1099the Loan Programs Office is clawed back, that they are going to1100be able to accomplish this goal? That is not what the Governor1101says.1102    Secretary Wright. There is a funding request in the1103proposed budget for the DOE to continue the Loan Programs1104Office. And yes, I do think it is a helpful tool to launch1105nuclear energy, which is why we are requesting money to do just1106that.1107    Mr. Pallone. Right. But in the House Republican1108reconciliation bill, they get rid of it. So that is1109inconsistent, obviously, correct?1110    Secretary Wright. I am not sure all of the funding is gone1111in the House reconciliation bill, but it----1112    Mr. Pallone. But it says all unobligated funding. I mean,1113clearly it is going to cripple the program.1114    I mean, all I am asking you to say is you would like to see1115the program continue, despite whatever the Republicans are1116doing here. Is that accurate?1117    Secretary Wright. That is accurate.1118    Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you so much.1119    [Pause.]1120    Mr. Latta. Does the gentleman yield back?1121    Mr. Pallone. Yes.1122    Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back the balance of his1123time. The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the1124subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, for 5 minutes for1125questions.1126    Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1127    And Mr. Secretary, we thank you for being here. And before1128I get to the questions I want to note for the record that the1129Keystone pipeline would have come into my district over there1130on the Gulf Coast of Texas, 830,000 barrels of product a day.1131And I was unaware that there was billions of dollars poured1132into, I guess, engineering and developing that process before1133President Obama killed it. I actually got to meet him when I1134came into Congress, and he said he was considering the Keystone1135Pipeline. Then, of course, he killed it.1136    From my colleagues across the aisle, 830,000 barrels a day,1137if you took an 18-wheeler that holds about 7,000 gallons or11389,000 gallons--if it is a small, medium, or large one--it would1139take--you divide that into barrels of product a day, it is1140about 120 barrels per 18-wheeler. It would take 5,318 wheelers1141on the highway every day to move that amount of oil. And I1142thought our friends across the aisle were against emissions,1143those kinds of emissions, but I defer, so I will--let me go to1144my questions, Mr. Wright.1145    U.S. LNG exports, which--I have three LNG plants in my1146district--are a critical part of President Trump's energy1147dominance agenda, with my district serving as a major hub with1148Freeport LNG, Golden Pass LNG, Port Arthur LNG, and Cheniere1149Sabine's LNG, which is actually across Louisiana's border, that1150other foreign nation about 6 miles from us that--we help them1151get their product out into the Gulf.1152    Since 2016, the U.S. has become the world's largest LNG1153exporter, generating over 400 billion--with a B--dollars in1154economic growth, and has supported an average of 273,000 direct1155and indirect U.S. jobs. However, I was concerned about the USTR1156301 action, which threatened to suspend LNG export licenses for1157current as well as future facilities if certain vessel1158requirements were not met. So I am so grateful that the penalty1159was recently proposed to be removed.1160    So the question is, Does the DOE have the sole authority1161over LNG export licenses, and what steps are we taking to1162further support and grow U.S. LNG exports, Mr. Secretary?1163    Secretary Wright. Yes, the DOE is the entity with authority1164to grant or not grant LNG export licenses. We take it very1165seriously. We have a lot of projects in the queue. We evaluated1166them thoroughly and expeditiously, and it is the fastest-1167growing United States export. And in fact, natural gas is by1168far the fastest-growing source of energy in the United States1169and around the planet.1170    So it is huge economic opportunity for the United States,1171and I am excited to see the huge capital--private capital1172flowing in to grow the capacity.1173    Mr. Weber. Sure. Well, I appreciate that. And of course, as1174you know, Texas is the number-one wind energy State as well as1175solar panel State in the country. Twenty percent of our power1176comes from wind, and 5 percent comes from solar. It is funny to1177hear my friends across the aisle talk about how we are trying1178to kill green energy. No, we are not. We are just recognizing1179that we need a stable, reliable, dependable, affordable energy1180base to be able to do these things.1181    Let me move on. And, you know, maybe--I wonder if you would1182be willing to testify at the Science, Space, and Technology1183Committee if we could get you in there some time. I am the1184committee chair--subcommittee chair for energy there, too, but1185we will catch up on that a little later.1186    Under President Biden, Mr. Secretary, the petroleum1187reserve, Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as we discussed, 601188percent of it in my district--60 percent of it--has been1189unbelievably drawn down. It has reached its lowest level since11901983. When Biden took office, the SPR contained 638 million1191barrels of oil. Today it is 375 million barrels, roughly half.1192    In his 2025 inaugural address, President Trump made a1193commitment to refill the SPR. In this committee's1194reconciliation title we authorized $2 billion to big crude1195purchases, conduct--to buy--to conduct repairs and buy back 71196million barrels from mandated sales. So do you think the1197Department's plan to refill the SPR will work with what we have1198done in the reconciliation package?1199    Secretary Wright. It is a start, absolutely.1200    Mr. Weber. OK.1201    Secretary Wright. I mean, the immediate thing we need to do1202is finish the repairs on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It1203was drawn down so quickly, that causes some damage to the1204infrastructure itself. So those repairs are ongoing, and they1205are a nontrivial amount of money to repair the SPR.1206    Then we also have to spend some money to offset planned1207additional sales of oil that were also entered into to reverse1208those so we don't shrink the deposits, and then additional1209funds will be used to fill it.1210    Mr. Weber. OK.1211    Secretary Wright. But yes, I thank you for that funding,1212and--1213    Mr. Weber. Very quickly, before I yield back, Mr. Chairman,1214if I can--so you actually have a plan to build up our energy1215and at affordable prices, not make energy higher. Thank you,1216Mr. Secretary.1217    I yield back.1218    Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired, and the Chair1219now recognizes the gentleman from California's 50th district1220for 5 minutes for questions.1221    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1222    Thank you, Secretary Wright, for coming. I appreciate it,1223seeing you today. I want to ask some questions about1224transmission and the grid.1225    In your first secretarial order, you committed to use all1226lawful authorities to strengthen the grid, including the1227backbone, our transmission system. Since 2005, FERC has had the1228authority to act as the sole permitting agency for large,1229multistate transmission lines that your Department deems to be1230in the national interest. But the Federal Government has not1231once used this authority, due to litigation and endless1232bureaucracy regarding DOE's role in the process. That is Bush,1233Obama, Trump, Biden. It never used the authority.1234    The backstop permitting authority for transmission is also1235a fraction of the authority that FERC has long had over natural1236gas pipelines and LNG, which always get their one-stop1237permitting shop at FERC.1238    So my question is, Would you support bipartisan efforts in1239Congress to streamline this permit authority for large1240transmission lines, including would you be supportive of1241establishing permitting parity at FERC between natural gas and1242transmission?1243    Secretary Wright. Absolutely. The United States needs to1244build more energy infrastructure of all kinds, and certainly1245including transmission lines.1246    Mr. Peters. OK. And I agree with my colleagues that we1247are--we have a--we are walking into a reliability and1248affordability crisis. And I think, to the extent that is1249because right now our grid is planned in a way that is1250segmented, costly, and inefficient, the various regions across1251the country have no incentive to work together or ensure that1252we are meeting load growth in the most efficient and cost-1253effective way.1254    Last year, the North American Electric Reliability1255Corporation, NERC, released a study showing that an additional125635 gigawatts of interregional transmission capacity, which are1257grid connections between--among regions, would make the grid1258more resilient against extreme weather, would lower costs, and1259enable us to meet load growth. The study also says that1260building interregional transmission maximizes the use of energy1261resources, including peaker plants like natural gas, by1262enabling regions to send power where it is abundant to where it1263is most needed. Do you agree with the results of that study?1264    And what can you do with the Department to help build more1265regional, interregional transmission infrastructure and use DOE1266authorities to build more regional transmission?1267    Secretary Wright. Look, there is--so I can't speak to the1268specifics in that study. I do read a lot about the studies, but1269I can't comment on that one. But yes, are we better off with1270more----1271    Mr. Peters. Sometimes--the Seam Study. You might have heard1272of it that way.1273    Secretary Wright. Yes. Look, there is no doubt that our1274country and our grid would benefit from more transmission. And1275it is a subject at--of active study and discussion at the DOE.1276    The problem, as you know, the historical record of building1277transmission is just deathly long, incredibly hard. NEPA and1278environmental protests have made it more than a decade to build1279anything. Very frustrating. We are working on that. We would1280love to get that faster. And in the meantime, we are also1281working on things to take existing right-of-ways and either1282have dynamic rating on lines--they have a certain maximum power1283they can put through, but it depends on temperature and wind1284speed.1285    Mr. Peters. I don't disagree with any of that. I think--1286actually I am working on NEPA right now myself, because I agree1287with you.1288    But the issue I am raising is the lack of incentive among1289regions to cooperate with each other to build transmission that1290I think undisputedly would make our system more reliable and1291offer lower cost for consumers. And what I would love to get is1292the opportunity to work with you, get your commitment that that1293is something you want to do, and that you would work with us on1294a bipartisan approach to getting that done.1295    Secretary Wright. I would love to work with you, we would1296love to. And you are right, not just in the interregional1297transmission, but there is a lot of just the wrong incentives1298in our electricity grid because of the regulatory environment.1299So I look forward to working with you in a bipartisan basis to1300figure out how to make electricity easier to move and cheaper1301to buy.1302    Mr. Peters. All right. And also, I think we have some1303different understanding of the facts of the production of1304energy. I just wanted to say the U.S. produced record oil and1305gas in 2023, more than we have ever produced before. We always1306thought it was an irony that we produced more oil and gas under1307Biden and more renewables than under Trump--and more renewables1308under Trump than we produced under Biden. And in fact,1309electricity production is up about 5 percent over the last 51310years. We know we got to do more electricity production.1311    And the one thing I would just say, you mentioned a concern1312about investors losing their investment in energy because of a1313change in Government policy, and maybe the Government should1314reimburse them. We are about to do just that. There's 2,6001315gigawatts of energy lined up to get connected. About 90 percent1316of that is nonemitting, what we call clean energy. And they1317depend on these--the--many of the tax incentives that have been1318laid out in existing law. And I think the administration's1319proposing not to phase those out, but just to cut them off, and1320a lot of that energy won't be realized because of that. I1321assume you are not suggesting we pay those people for changing1322the law like you just said?1323    Secretary Wright. No, look, the subsidies for wind----1324    Mr. Latta. If you could answer the gentleman's--1325    Mr. Peters. I am----1326    Mr. Latta. He is out of time. If you can do it in about 101327seconds, that would be great.1328    Secretary Wright. Yes. Those subsidies are decades old. We1329absolutely should get rid of them as soon as possible.1330    Mr. Peters. We are changing the law and hurting investors1331like you said you were concerned about----1332    Secretary Wright. Removing subsidies is not preventing1333construction.1334    Mr. Peters. It is current law.1335    Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired, and the Chair1336now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia's 12th district for 51337minutes for questions.1338    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chair Latta, for holding this1339important hearing.1340    Thank you, Energy Secretary Wright, for being here to1341testify before the subcommittee and taking on this enormous1342challenge that we have before us at such a time as this.1343    During the last administration, our energy prices1344skyrocketed. And in fact, if you were born after 1982, you had1345never experienced inflation greater than 2 percent in this1346country, so it was a great awakening. And a lot of that was1347costly regulations that made energy costs higher for our1348constituents.1349    I am glad to have an administration in the White House that1350is focused on unleashing our domestic energy production and1351focusing on being energy dominant. Free-market competition is1352the only way to reduce inflation and to reduce costs.1353    I am proud to highlight that my district is home to Plant1354Vogtle, the Nation's largest and most advanced clean-energy1355nuclear facility with units 3 and 4 now fully operational.1356Nuclear energy is critical for our Nation's energy security,1357and as the Trump administration has issued Executive orders1358promoting nuclear energy, I look forward to working with you in1359deploying our nuclear energy capabilities.1360    President Trump's Unleashing American Energy Executive1361order directed the Department of Energy to safeguard the1362American people's freedom to choose from a variety of goods and1363appliances in lieu of these mandates from the previous1364administration. Congress aided by repealing several Biden final1365rules that would have restricted consumer choice.1366    Under your purview, how has the Office of Energy Efficiency1367and Renewable Energy refocused on core missions?1368    Secretary Wright. Yes, we are refocused on core missions.1369And in fact, I was down in your great State not long ago,1370celebrating the fact that a tankless natural gas hot water1371heater manufacturing company----1372    Mr. Allen. Yes.1373    Secretary Wright [continuing]. Was not shut down.1374    Mr. Allen. Right.1375    Secretary Wright. It would have been shut down with--the1376Biden rule had gone into place. That is exactly--providing the1377most popular, low-cost, efficient way to heat water but was1378deemed not worthy by the Government, removing a choice and1379raising up the price at which people would buy hot water1380heaters.1381    So I am about choice and opportunity.1382    Mr. Allen. Well, thank you. Thank you for advocating for us1383there.1384    Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, DOE is1385required to review energy-efficient standards of covered1386products no later than 6 years after the issuance of a final1387rule. Has this led to the weaponization of EPCA, with the1388previous administration using it as a tool in its antifossil1389energy agenda?1390    As this administration evaluates energy efficiency1391standards in the future, how will DOE prioritize consumers'1392affordability in the letter of the law?1393    Secretary Wright. Yes. So number one, the constraint is to1394follow the letter of the law, you know, and EPCA is a law--I1395might say unfortunately, but it is the law. So we have to work1396around that constraint.1397    But yes, it has been weaponized to bring in all sorts of1398different devices or things people might use, and decide that1399Big Brother, the Government, should decide how they heat1400themselves on their outdoor patio or their hot tub or every1401other part of their life. I think this is just the perfect1402example of government run amok and getting involved in choices1403that are going to be made differently by different people.1404    Mr. Allen. Yes, and I think we heard that loud and clear.1405The American people want choice.1406    OPEC+, mostly steered by Saudi Arabia, recently agreed to1407the third monthly hike in a row, driving oil prices lower as1408the cartels aim to reclaim their share of global markets. I am1409concerned that OPEC+ is not just managing supply from member1410countries, but that there is a strategic and geopolitical1411intent that is detrimental to U.S. producers.1412    We have got about 40 seconds. You and subsequently1413President Trump recently visited the Middle East. It is great1414to see the Secretary of Energy promoting U.S. energy on the1415global stage again. Can you tell us more about the1416conversations that took place related to global oil markets?1417And I need to do that in about 20 seconds.1418    Secretary Wright. Yes. Hey, look, two main topics were1419discussed. The huge amount of capital they developed, their1420goal is to invest as much of that as possible in the United1421States, into our energy infrastructure and other industries in1422our country. And we welcome that investment.1423    And we discussed decadal-long outlook for demand for1424energy, just trying to base in reality what investments are1425needed today to supply energy demands a decade, two decades,1426four decades from now. There was almost zero dialog on today's1427oil prices or supply and demand in the short run.1428    Mr. Allen. Good. Thank you, sir, for your service to our1429country.1430    And I yield back.1431    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The----1432    Secretary Wright. Thank you, thank you.1433    Mr. Latta [continuing]. Gentleman's time has expired, and1434the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey's 8th1435district for 5 minutes for questions.1436    Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman.1437    Secretary Wright, this administration has made clear it1438wants to make America energy dominant. Is that correct?1439    Secretary Wright. Yes.1440    Mr. Menendez. And would you agree that the best way to1441achieve energy dominance is by an all-of-the-above approach to1442energy production? Just yes or no.1443    Secretary Wright. I have never supported all-of-the-above,1444because if something is going to make energy more expensive and1445less reliable, I am not for that.1446    Mr. Menendez. Well, OK, actually, let's walk through that.1447So more expensive, less reliable. Is that correct? That is why1448you are not a proponent of all-of-the-above strategy which1449would include renewable energy.1450    Secretary Wright. All energy sources that will provide1451secure, affordable, reliable energy over the long term I am in1452favor of. I have worked in solar, in geothermal, in nuclear,1453across the energy spectrum. I haven't worked in wind or coal,1454but almost every other energy source I have worked in.1455    Mr. Menendez. All right, we will keep moving. Would you1456agree that energy affordability is an issue important to so1457many Americans, including when it comes to their energy bills?1458Just yes or no.1459    Secretary Wright. Oh, yes.1460    Mr. Menendez. Yes, I agree. And would you agree that1461increased production of all types of energy, including1462renewables, helps bring down costs for consumers?1463    Secretary Wright. Absolutely not. That is not at all how1464the marketplace has worked.1465    Mr. Menendez. OK, let's keep going. ``Absolutely not.'' I1466am going to make a note of that.1467    So do you know which States have been most successful in1468driving down energy prices for consumers?1469    Secretary Wright. It depends on the baseline where you1470begin. I will tell you Florida over 15 years has had very1471little rise in their electricity price, and California has more1472than doubled them. And you can see the dramatically different1473policy in those two States.1474    Mr. Menendez. So let's go with Texas. Earlier this year,1475the Energy Information Administration predicted that Texas was1476one of the few places in the country where energy prices were1477expected to decrease. Were you aware of that?1478    Secretary Wright. I am aware of electricity price trends in1479Texas, yes.1480    Mr. Menendez. And do you know where Texas ranks in terms of1481deployment of renewable energy sources?1482    Secretary Wright. It would be the largest, because you can1483build things in Texas. It is predominantly natural-gas-powered1484grid, but they have a huge amount of wind power and solar power1485as well.1486    Mr. Menendez. That is exactly right. Texas leads the Nation1487in wind production, is the second-largest producer of solar1488power after California. In 2023, renewable sources provided1489almost 30 percent of Texas's total electricity generation. Over1490the past 10 years, Texas has seen electricity prices decline as1491solar and wind have grown rapidly.1492    Would you say that this decline in energy prices is good1493for Texans? Yes or no.1494    Secretary Wright. Declining electricity prices is a good1495thing. The 200-plus people who died in the blackout in 2021 was1496a very bad thing.1497    Mr. Menendez. I agree with that. Would you agree that1498consumers in Texas are benefiting from lower energy prices that1499result from increased renewable energy production?1500    Secretary Wright. I don't think that is a meaningful driver1501of reduced energy prices in Texas.1502    Mr. Menendez. Why is that?1503    Secretary Wright. Because they--when--the more----1504    Mr. Menendez. Lower energy production leads to lower1505prices, isn't that generally the idea of supply and demand?1506    Secretary Wright. Only if you can store something. You have1507to match supply and demand at every instant on the electricity1508grid. You can't just put extra energy in a pot. Peak----1509    Mr. Menendez. It seems like Texas has been successful at1510that because production has gone up with renewable energy. It1511accounts for about 30 percent of their energy production, and1512consumers are seeing lower prices.1513    Secretary Wright. Natural gas is the biggest source of1514electricity in Texas. Natural gas prices have gone down. It is1515also the----1516    Mr. Menendez. Well, going back to the all-of-the-above,1517Texas has both legacy energy production and also clean1518renewable energy. And what you are seeing is lower prices. Is1519that not accurate?1520    Secretary Wright. Look----1521    Mr. Menendez. It just seems like that is just a truth that1522you don't seem to want to admit to.1523    Secretary Wright. It is--lower prices are good.1524    Mr. Menendez. Yes.1525    Secretary Wright. Lower prices are good. And renewables at1526any penetration level are not necessarily ruinous. I am just1527saying the drive-down in Texas electricity prices has not been1528primarily driven by wind and solar.1529    Mr. Menendez. Primarily, but would you say it is a1530contributing factor?1531    You are going to say zero, it is not a contributing factor1532at all. That is your testimony today. It has zero impact on the1533price for consumers.1534    Secretary Wright. That is not my testimony. My testimony is1535it is more complicated than you are putting it out there as.1536    Mr. Menendez. And I think it is simpler than you are making1537it seem.1538    So let me ask you this. Despite Texas's success in1539embracing renewables and the real results of bringing energy1540prices down for consumers, are you still opposed to an all-of-1541the-above energy approach that includes renewables? Just a1542simple yes or no.1543    Secretary Wright. I am not opposed to renewable energy at1544all. I don't use the term ``renewable,'' because they are not1545renewable. But I am not opposed to alternative----1546    Mr. Menendez. Clean energy.1547    Secretary Wright [continuing]. Energy sources.1548    Mr. Menendez. Yes.1549    Secretary Wright. I have worked in them, I have invested in1550them, so I am not opposed to them.1551    Mr. Menendez. But it is----1552    Secretary Wright. But we need to do them to lower prices1553and keep grids stable, not as ways for wealthy people to gather1554dollars from the Government.1555    Mr. Menendez. Well, I--that is a lot to unpack in the 51556seconds that I have, so I will leave it there. But I think your1557administration is doing a disservice to the people that want to1558see a growth in renewable, clean, alternative energy. And we1559should continue to invest in it because we have seen success in1560places like Texas. Thank you for being here.1561    I yield back.1562    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has1563expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's156412th district for 5 minutes for questions.1565    Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,1566Secretary Wright, for being here today.1567    I will start off with U.S. LNG exports have been a game1568changer for natural gas producers in Ohio, the State where I1569represent, as well as our allies around the world. Opponents of1570LNG exports often push the narrative that exports raise1571domestic natural gas prices. However, the vast majority of1572studies, as well as Henry Hub data, show the opposite: Boosting1573exports increases domestic production, which lowers the price1574for American consumers.1575    In fact, while LNG exports rose by roughly 14 BCF per day1576between 2016 and 2023, dry gas production jumped by 31 BCF per1577day. And despite total U.S. natural gas consumption almost1578doubling from 2010 to 2023, the 2023 average natural gas price1579of $2.54 was the second-lowest level in over 35 years, only1580exceeding 2020 pandemic levels.1581    Mr. Secretary, can you talk about the potential of U.S. LNG1582exports, not only for our allies but how boosting LNG can keep1583natural gas prices low for the consumers here at home?1584    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Representative, and I agree1585very much with your premise. Seventeen years ago, the United1586States was the largest importer of natural gas in the world,1587and we had over 1,000 rigs drilling specifically to produce1588natural gas. Today that over 1,000 rigs is only 100 rigs1589drilling in the United States for natural gas.1590    And as you pointed out, we have become the largest net1591exporter of natural gas in the world. This is technology, this1592is efficiency, and this is infrastructure that gets built to1593move natural gas at scale. All of those ultimately lower the1594cost to produce natural gas, they lower the cost to American1595consumers of what is today the biggest energy source in the1596United States.1597    Seventy percent of total energy--not just electricity, but1598total energy consumed in the United States--comes from two1599things: natural gas and oil. And so you are right, this growth1600in natural gas has not only been great for American consumers1601and businesses, but it is our fastest-growing export. Within a1602decade, I think, it will be the largest export from the United1603States of America.1604    The natural gas story has been a great story. It has faced1605a lot of headwinds and a lot of political pushback and battles1606in the--on the way there, but it has been a great story of1607lowering costs for American consumers and giving greater1608security to our allies abroad and growing the geopolitical1609influence of the United States.1610    Mr. Balderson. Thank you.1611    Secretary Wright. And Ohio has been a leader in that, I1612should say, as well.1613    Mr. Balderson. Amen. Thank you, Secretary, I appreciate you1614putting Ohio out there.1615    One of the greatest threats to affordability is not exports1616but the lack of pipeline infrastructure, especially in the1617Northeast. As you know, expanding our pipeline capacity is a1618top priority for natural gas producers in Ohio and the Utica1619and Marcellus Shale.1620    How is your Department working with FERC to prioritize1621natural gas pipeline development?1622    Secretary Wright. Oh, active dialogs not just with FERC but1623across the Government. And I think you pointed out a classic1624example. Why does the 6 States of New England all have1625expensive electricity and relatively expensive home heating?1626Just a lack of a pipeline. Tremendous gas resources in1627Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio that have changed the1628game for people living in those regions.1629    But New York State has historically stood in the way of1630building a new pipeline or expanding pipeline access through1631its State. I think we are going to change that. I hope we are1632going to see 2 pipelines under construction in the next 121633months, which would really lower electricity costs, home1634heating costs, and opportunities for businesses to expand in1635New York State and New England.1636    So building and, of course, not just in New England. The1637United States needs a fair amount of new pipeline1638infrastructure. There are private developers and private1639capital that will fund it. To your point, we just need to have1640a more sane and reasonable regulatory environment to get1641certainty in a reasonable timeframe to build these pipelines,1642but I support 100 percent your point.1643    Mr. Balderson. Thank you. With just 45 seconds left--so be1644watchful of the time. Given your role as Secretary of Energy1645and vice chair of the National Energy Dominance Council, I1646wanted to get your thoughts on an issue that presents a major1647threat to grid reliability: the broken interconnection queue1648process. You have 30 seconds.1649    Secretary Wright. Yes. I think, as we heard earlier, 951650percent of the projects in the queue to get connected at FERC1651are wind, solar, or batteries. The vast majority of them have1652no chance of being built, but you can just throw your name in1653the queue, and you can clog up the queue with a million1654studies. And it has led to inefficiencies.1655    So we need to look at that process and make--and prioritize1656projects that are impactful, and make it move faster and more1657efficiently.1658    Mr. Balderson. And we have a bill that we would like you to1659look at sometime.1660    Secretary Wright. Great.1661    Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.1662    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the1663Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Virginia's 4th1664district for 5 minutes for questions.1665    Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Chairman Latta.1666    Secretary Wright, as you may know, Virginia is the data1667center capital of the globe. But we are also the clean energy1668capital of the south, and I am particularly concerned about the1669Trump administration's impact on growing solar and wind1670projects in Virginia and how in the world we are going to meet1671our energy demands with the administration kneecapping solar.1672    And your testimony to the contrary, experts agree that1673solar is the fastest, cheapest, and cleanest source of energy1674now. And even Appalachian Power has acknowledged that coal is1675becoming more expensive, has contributed to rising electric1676costs for their customers, and their parent company has said1677that coal is not the most cost-effective choice for new1678investments, and they relied heavily on coal for a very long1679time.1680    But I don't think we are going to agree today on the1681benefits of wind and solar versus fossil fuels, so I want to1682focus on what I have heard consistently from my constituents1683concerned about workforce cuts, grant funding freezes, and lack1684of communications from the Department.1685    Seventy-five Clean City coalitions work under annual1686cooperative agreements with the Department of Energy to promote1687clean and affordable transportation fuel options. This is a1688program that has strong bipartisan support, but the coalitions1689are still waiting for notification of their contracts or signed1690financial agreements for the project period that started on1691April 1 of this year. Some of the coalitions have heard that1692the agreements are still under review, and the Virginia Clean1693Cities Coalition has reached out to my office with concerns1694that their work will go unpaid and that there will be1695disruptions in their programmings.1696    My staff asked the Department of Energy for an update. We1697still haven't heard back. So Secretary Wright, has anybody at1698the Department been instructed to withhold information about1699the status of grants and contracts, or to provide only vague,1700general, ``We have received your request''?1701    Secretary Wright. No one has been told to withhold1702information. We are not withholding. We have no unpaid invoices1703or behind on that stuff. We are administering all the existing1704projects, and we are carefully evaluating the projects that are1705committed, which run into the thousands.1706    Ms. McClellan. OK. Well, they still have not gotten any1707response on their contracts, and I haven't gotten responses to1708my inquiry, so can you----1709    Secretary Wright. We will have to look into that.1710    Ms. McClellan. Can you give me a--I would like a specific1711date when the Department will notify the Clean Cities Coalition1712about their contract status. We have been waiting for 2 months,1713and I don't think it is acceptable for community partners or1714Members of Congress to go 2 months without an answer to their1715questions.1716    In addition, the Department recently canceled dozens of1717grants issued by the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations for1718carbon capture and decarbonization processes. And your fiscal1719year 2026 budget eliminates this office entirely. Were the1720Department's subject matter experts involved in reviewing and1721deciding to cancel grants?1722    Secretary Wright. I am sorry. Can you repeat just the last1723part of the question?1724    Ms. McClellan. So the grants issued by the Office of Clean1725Energy Demonstrations that have been canceled--was the1726Department of Energy experts involved in that, or was that1727DOGE?1728    Secretary Wright. Oh, that is entirely the Department of1729Energy. We have five DOGE employees at the Department, a very1730small part of the staff, not----1731    Ms. McClellan. OK.1732    Secretary Wright [continuing]. Not involved in any project1733evaluations.1734    Ms. McClellan. OK, thank you. Did you personally review any1735of the grant cancellations?1736    Secretary Wright. Yes, I do.1737    Ms. McClellan. OK. Can you confirm that each awardee was1738given a chance to address any of the concerns raised by the1739Department of Energy before their grant was canceled?1740    Secretary Wright. Most of the evaluations we are doing we1741have sent out large data requests that come back. Some of them1742that were more--that were--looked very unlikely to get over the1743hump were notified of decisions, but they have an ability to1744engage back with us, an informal dialog with us. And then there1745is a--two additional appeal processes after that.1746    So if we have made mistakes or the projects really are1747beneficial, that will be sorted out.1748    Ms. McClellan. Well, I hope--I am glad to hear that. And1749again, I have found it very--I have only been here--this is my1750third year in Congress, but I have been very concerned by the1751lack of responsiveness that I have heard from the1752administration, particularly from the Department of Energy, as1753we try to get answers for constituents that have had either1754grants cut, who have had notifications that they should have1755gotten months ago go delayed.1756    And as part of my job as oversight--and I recognize I am in1757the minority party, but I am a Member of Congress, too, who has1758oversight over your agency. And I certainly would hope that1759when Democratic Members of Congress ask questions to the agency1760and our legislative liaisons that we get answers. And when we1761don't, every time I see you I am going to ask you those1762questions directly. So thank you.1763    Mr. Latta. Well, the gentlelady's time has expired, and the1764Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee's 1st1765district for 5 minutes for questions.1766    Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1767    And thank you, Secretary, for being here today. You know,1768Tennessee is well known for providing nuclear services, and1769that is the line of questioning I am going to go down today.1770    We know nuclear fuel is essential to the success of1771America's nuclear renaissance and our energy security, and this1772committee led on the Russian uranium ban legislation enacted1773last year, and the legislation provides certainty to the market1774and is a prerequisite for new investment in the U.S. nuclear1775fuel supply chain.1776    My question is, Is the DOE committed to continuing to1777implement the ban legislation going forward, including a1778rigorous process to grant waivers to the ban?1779    Secretary Wright. Yes, we are, and you are--I think the1780motivation behind the ban I agree with 100 percent, and we are1781working diligently to make America able to agree--to comply1782with that ban.1783    But as you know well, today in the commercial power sector1784there is no American-owned enrichment based in the United1785States of America. It is really a sad state we have fallen1786into. We are working hard both through grants and just with1787dialogs with providers in this country. We really want to build1788up as fast as we can commercial enrichment in the United1789States, because, of course we should not be dependent upon1790Russia to fuel our nuclear reactors.1791    Mrs. Harshbarger. Right.1792    Secretary Wright. And I am confident we will get there. I1793wish we were going to get there faster than we are, but we will1794get there, and your actions in legislation and on that bill are1795obviously helping prod it even faster. And I thank you for1796that.1797    Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, we are going to talk about some1798ways to do that here in just seconds. So given concerns1799regarding potential circumvention of the uranium ban via China,1800is the administration committed to implementing the1801anticircumvention provisions in the legislation?1802    Secretary Wright. Yes.1803    Mrs. Harshbarger. OK.1804    Secretary Wright. Yes, we are.1805    Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. Will you work with the committee to1806ensure the ban is implemented effectively?1807    Secretary Wright. Yes, we will.1808    Mrs. Harshbarger. Fantastic.1809    President Trump recently released four Executive orders to1810accelerate nuclear fuel in this country, and I am in full1811support of those efforts. And I appreciate the forward-thinking1812and push to advance the High-Assay, Low-Enriched uranium, the1813HALEU, fuel supply chain by establishing U.S. enrichment for1814the next generation of reactors. And I encourage you to keep1815the pressure on.1816    However, we know it is going to take a few years to get the1817capacity up and running to meet the demand. And the Executive1818orders direct DOE to look at adding 20 metric tons of HALEU1819through downblending. And my district is home to BWXT's Nuclear1820Fuel Services. And in addition to manufacturing all of the1821Navy's nuclear fuel, they also currently operate NNSA's1822downblending for the tritium program.1823    So we have unique capabilities like NFS in the U.S. that1824can help move these critical, pro-U.S. energy policies forward.1825Have you identified enough feedstock material to deliver the 201826metric tons through downblending?1827    Secretary Wright. I should--I believe the answer is yes,1828but I am not sure of that, so I should be careful on that.1829    Mrs. Harshbarger. OK.1830    Secretary Wright. But----1831    Mrs. Harshbarger. OK, you could get back to me on that.1832    Secretary Wright. Yes.1833    Mrs. Harshbarger. More broadly, how is DOE engaging1834industry to support these type of efforts?1835    Secretary Wright. We are meeting with all existing people1836that work in the nuclear fuel cycle, people that may enter to1837work into that space.1838    And, you know, after the end of the Cold War and the1839decommissioning of nuclear weapons and the flood of fuel that1840put on the marketplace and Russia's strategic interest in1841flooding the market with enriched uranium has really devastated1842the supply chain in the United States for nuclear energy, and1843we need to reverse it.1844    Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, we have Oak Ridge, we have Y-12.1845NFS has also been awarded a recent contract by the DOE's NNSA1846to develop a centrifuge pilot plant to ensure domestic supply1847of enriched uranium for defense purposes. So there is a lot of1848energy around domestic enrichment for civilian nuclear power,1849and I appreciate that. But however, there is a lot less1850conversation regarding domestic uranium enrichment for national1851security, specifically for NNSA's deterrence program and highly1852enriched uranium for naval reactors.1853    Can you share with the committee what the NNSA is doing to1854advance the so-called unobligated enrichment for national1855security?1856    Secretary Wright. It is an active dialog. We do do1857enrichment, as you know, for our own--for our weapons programs1858and our national security reasons.1859    Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.1860    Secretary Wright. And I should say as well, look, Tennessee1861is a nuclear powerhouse. And not only me personally but the1862country: Thanks, Tennessee, for what you provide to the nuclear1863complex, and I believe what we will----1864    Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.1865    Secretary Wright [continuing]. You will growingly provide1866to the to the country going forward.1867    Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. You know, Oak Ridge has a centrifuge1868technology, and I understand that NNSA selected an industrial1869partner to help advance the lab's U.S.-derived technology with1870plans to build a pilot plant. Can you provide an update here1871for the record on where this program is----1872    Secretary Wright. Well----1873    Mrs. Harshbarger [continuing]. And where it ranks in NNSA's1874priorities? Because China and Russia----1875    Mr. Latta. Well, pardon me.1876    Mrs. Harshbarger [continuing]. Aren't sitting idle.1877    Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired. So if you1878want to submit that question for the record, that would be----1879    Mrs. Harshbarger. OK.1880    Mr. Latta [continuing]. Advisable.1881    Mrs. Harshbarger. I can do that. I got a couple more.1882    Mr. Latta. Yes. Well, thank you.1883    Mrs. Harshbarger. We will submit them.1884    Thank you.1885    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired.1886The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado's 1st1887district for 5 minutes for questions.1888    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.1889    Welcome to my fellow Coloradoan. Mr. Secretary, one of the1890things that frustrates us on this side of the aisle is the1891expression of lofty goals regarding energy expansion and1892operational efficiency. You talked about it in your opening1893statement. And I want to expand on my colleague's exploration1894of the issue of nuclear energy with you, which I know is one of1895the administration's energy goals, is that right?1896    Secretary Wright. Yes. Yes, absolutely.1897    Ms. DeGette. And so just to let you know, last Congress1898former Chair Jeff Duncan and I worked with the committee and1899the Senate to enact into law a bipartisan bill. I am sure you1900know about it, the ADVANCE Act. It seeks to accelerate the1901deployment of nuclear energy technologies while ensuring the1902protection of public health and environment for future1903generations. I was really proud to be cosponsor of that.1904    We had to do that bill because the NRC was already severely1905understaffed and overleveraged. In 2022 the NRC had shrunk by190623 percent in just 6 years, and over a third of the agency1907personnel were eligible for retirement as recently as last1908year. So this was even before the Trump administration came in.1909    So I want to talk about some of the cuts the administration1910is proposing in nuclear energy to the DOE, because what we are1911worried about--the NRC is already struggling, the DOE is1912cutting money. I don't see how we can achieve these lofty1913goals. So isn't it true the administration's budget would cut1914the Office of Nuclear Energy's funding by more than 20 percent?1915    Secretary Wright. I believe it is a little bit less than 201916percent.1917    Ms. DeGette. It is actually about 24 percent.1918    Secretary Wright. I may be in error.1919    Ms. DeGette. OK.1920    Secretary Wright. But I will check that. But it----1921    Ms. DeGette. The budget also cuts the Advanced Reactors1922Demonstration Program funding by half. Is that correct?1923    Secretary Wright. That program----1924    Ms. DeGette. Yes or no will work.1925    Secretary Wright. That program is phasing down, so yes.1926    Ms. DeGette. OK, so yes. Since the beginning of the1927administration, DOE has lost over 20 percent of its staff due1928to terminating probationary employees and employees taking1929deferred resignations. Isn't that correct?1930    Secretary Wright. From deferred resignations----1931    Ms. DeGette. Yes, so it is about 20 percent, correct?1932    Secretary Wright. I don't have final numbers yet.1933    Ms. DeGette. OK. I will guarantee you it is.1934    And finally, DOE is currently under a hiring freeze right1935now. Is that correct?1936    Secretary Wright. That is correct.1937    Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, so I want to talk about the1938administration's own stated goals for a minute.1939    The President signed an Executive order last month charging1940DOE with bringing three new reactors to criticality by July of19412026--that is just a little over a year--is that correct?1942    Secretary Wright. That is our goal, absolutely.1943    Ms. DeGette. OK, that was what the Executive order said, is1944that right?1945    Secretary Wright. I don't have it in front of me, but we1946have an aggressive goal to ramp things up in a year.1947    Ms. DeGette. I will tell you that I never ask incorrect1948questions.1949    [Laughter.]1950    Secretary Wright. I wish I was as flawless as you, but I1951will----1952    Ms. DeGette. OK, you are not--I am not flawless, but I1953check my facts.1954    [Laughter.]1955    Ms. DeGette. Looking at all reactors built since 1950, are1956you aware that the average build time of those reactors was 8.11957years?1958    Secretary Wright. And dramatically longer these days, but1959yes.1960    Ms. DeGette. Yes. Now, are you aware that the average1961application review process can take up to 5 years, and the1962commission phase typically takes 1 to 2 years?1963    Secretary Wright. Yes, I think you are correctly1964identifying some problems.1965    Ms. DeGette. You are--here's some good news. I have a1966minute and 16 seconds left, so I would like you to explain to1967this committee, given all the cuts that I just outlined and1968given the personnel freezes, how the administration thinks that1969it is going to approve and bring online three new reactors to1970criticality by July next year.1971    Secretary Wright. So, number one, there are going to be1972demonstration reactors at the Idaho National Laboratory. These1973are commercial companies that have technologies they want to--1974--1975    Ms. DeGette. And they are not going to actually--so they1976are going to be demonstration, not actual energy-producing1977reactors.1978    Secretary Wright. That is correct.1979    Ms. DeGette. OK. That is number one. Go ahead.1980    Secretary Wright. And thank you for your leadership on the1981ADVANCE Act, by the way, Representative.1982    Ms. DeGette. You are welcome.1983    Secretary Wright. And we--and the work on nuclear, it is1984not directly tied to the number of people. The NRC has grown1985hugely over decades and didn't deliver approved reactors. So1986there is difference between throughput and number of people.1987    Ms. DeGette. I don't disagree with that, sir, which is one1988reason I did the ADVANCE Act. But if you are going to have a1989plan even to put these three demonstration reactors up by next1990year, you have to have a--do you actually have a plan of how1991you are going to do that between now and then?1992    And if so, I would like you to send it to me, seeing as my1993time is up.1994    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.1995    Secretary Wright. Yes, and will do.1996    Ms. DeGette. Thank you. I yield back.1997    Secretary Wright. Thank you.1998    Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the Chair1999now recognizes the gentleman from Texas's 11th district for 52000minutes for questions.2001    Mr. Pfluger. Secretary, good to see you. I never ask2002incorrect questions, either. And the last Secretary, I asked2003questions about how much energy we use, and she had no clue.2004    So let's get big picture here. You have extreme expertise2005about how energy in this country works. I am worried about2006everybody who has testified here, especially those recently who2007have talked about data centers and the demand that we are going2008to see, rising demand for electricity consumption, and how we2009are going to keep up with manufacturing.2010    Just big-picture priorities that you have set out that will2011enable us as a country to set the conditions for private2012industry to meet that demand with adequate supply, I would love2013to hear your thoughts.2014    Secretary Wright. Yes. Look, as you know, over the years we2015have created huge regulatory burdens on building2016infrastructure, on building pipelines, on building power2017plants, on building transmission lines. If you make it harder2018and harder and more and more expensive to do things, well,2019guess what? You get less of them, and that is what has happened2020in the United States.2021    I heard a comment earlier that U.S. oil and natural gas2022production were at all-time highs in 2023, which was true, but2023that is because it is dominantly on private land and State2024land, and it is not on Federal land. We have had huge Federal2025obstruction efforts. They haven't been entirely effective on2026oil and gas that is produced on private lands and on State2027lands, but when you restrict the ability to build pipelines and2028grow the transportation, you ultimately restrict the growth of2029it.2030    Power plants. With the Clean Power Plan, if you build a new2031power plant today you have to have carbon capture and2032sequestration injected underground, like, 11 years from now.2033That is a technology we don't have at commercial scale.2034Massively expensive. A parasitic load of maybe a third of the2035power plant has to go to that thing. People aren't going to2036invest money and build power plants with constrictions like2037that.2038    It is--there's a lot of reasons we haven't built as much2039new capacity as we should, and for--it is critical for this2040administration and this Congress that we work together to2041remove these obstacles and barriers that chill investment,2042because we need to lead in AI, we need to win in AI.2043    We can lead and we can win in AI, but to do that we need to2044get overly burdensome, truly not-focused-on-environment2045regulations out of the way so capital will flow and things will2046be built. We need some simplification with permitting. We need2047to make FERC move more efficiently. But I will tell you in this2048administration and I know in this Congress there are many2049people working tirelessly to achieve just that. So I am2050optimistic.2051    But yes, big changes need to be made.2052    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you for your work on deregulation. Thank2053you for the work to set the conditions so that it allows2054industry to innovate, it allows industry to provide affordable,2055reliable energy that actually works, as opposed to what we saw2056the last 4 years. And on November 5th the American public spoke2057loud and clear.2058    I want to talk about the Mexico Pacific LNG export site and2059see if you have an update for us on that, what would be a20601,000-BCF-capable pipeline to deliver LNG to our partners and2061allies. And is there a status on this pipeline, on the2062permitting request?2063    Secretary Wright. Representative Pfluger, say that again.2064Which pipeline?2065    Mr. Pfluger. The Mexico Pacific Saguaro Energia, and it2066basically goes from the Permian Basin to the west coast of the2067Pacific with about a 1,000 BCF capability.2068    Secretary Wright. I need to check into that, because that2069will not be just DOE on that.2070    Mr. Pfluger. Sure.2071    Secretary Wright. But I am aware of the project, and I need2072to check into that and get back to you on that.2073    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you for that.2074    And so I know there has been some questions on the SPR. You2075know, just how damaging was it to see 300 million barrels flow2076out and--you know, for political expediency? And I know there2077may have been some questions previously asked about this, but,2078you know, what can we do legislatively so that this never2079happens again?2080    Secretary Wright. I don't have a good answer to the latter2081question, but I think it is a dialog we should have.2082    And as you said, what would the damage--look, there was2083damage to the facilities from drying out oil too fast. That is2084certainly upwards of hundreds of millions of dollars of repairs2085that are going on. It is a reduction in our security right now2086because we have meaningfully less oil stored in our Strategic2087Petroleum Reserve. And I think it is a reduction in confidence2088in the seriousness of the United States.2089    You know, Strategic Petroleum Reserves are for strategic2090challenges that may arise in our future that we need to be2091prepared for. And to show that we are willing for political2092purposes to flush away nearly half of our strategic reserve for2093a short-term help in an election, presumably, I think hurts the2094credibility of the United States in how we view energy and how2095we view our strategic security.2096    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you for your leadership. My district2097represents almost 45 percent of the country's crude oil2098production, and they want predictability. They want a horizon2099that they can provide that affordable, reliable energy on.2100Thank you for helping to set those conditions.2101    I yield back.2102    Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired, and the Chair2103now recognizes the gentlelady from California's 7th district2104for 5 minutes for questions.2105    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank2106you very much, Secretary Wright, for being here today.2107    Now, strengthening American manufacturing and our critical2108mineral supply chain are bipartisan priorities for this2109committee. And it is a top priority for this administration. Is2110that correct, yes?2111    Secretary Wright. I didn't hear everything you said, but2112reshoring manufacturing to this country is absolutely----2113    Ms. Matsui. OK.2114    Secretary Wright [continuing]. A top priority.2115    Ms. Matsui. All right.2116    Secretary Wright. Did I miss----2117    Ms. Matsui. Great. Now, the 45X Advanced Manufacturing Tax2118Credit is crucial for onshoring battery and critical mineral2119supply chains. Do you agree, yes? You have to think about it?2120    Secretary Wright. Yes, these are more complicated.2121Reshoring manufacturing will not dominantly be about tax2122credits or tax policy. It is more about regulatory2123environment----2124    Ms. Matsui. OK.2125    Secretary Wright [continuing]. Is a much bigger factor.2126    Ms. Matsui. OK.2127    Secretary Wright. But it could be helpful in that.2128    Ms. Matsui. Yes, OK. Now, the lithium mining company2129Ioneer, which has received a nearly $1 billion loan from the2130Department of Energy, has said that repealing the Advanced2131Manufacturing Credit would have a ``very direct impact.'' The2132chairman of Ford Motor Company has said, ``We have built the2133business case around that. If it goes away, it puts in peril2134the plant and the jobs.''2135    So why did the House Republicans just pass a bill to kill2136the Advanced Manufacturing Credit? Battery and critical2137minerals industry groups have called the new restrictions in2138Republicans' Big Ugly Bill ``nearly impossible,'' and2139``effectively, a repeal.''2140    Secretary Wright, this bill would require American2141companies to trace the supply chain of every screw, nut, and2142bolt to know information that they cannot obtain, including2143familial relationships of tangentially related parties,2144affiliates of lenders, and more.2145    Secretary Wright, you ran several companies. Do you2146seriously believe you could meet these requirements?2147    Secretary Wright. I think if you want to resource the2148manufacturing sector of the United States, you don't want2149companies that are just pass-through entities for products from2150abroad. So it is a tricky--it is a sticky subject, but it is--I2151don't think it is black and white.2152    Ms. Matsui. Well, could--OK, let's talk about--can Liberty2153Energy meet these requirements?2154    Secretary Wright. I believe----2155    Ms. Matsui. Do you have documentation that you have met2156these requirements or can meet these requirements?2157    Secretary Wright. Well, I--at Liberty Energy we certainly2158were not involved with Government subsidies----2159    Ms. Matsui. Right.2160    Secretary Wright [continuing]. Of any kind, but I don't2161have a specific answer to your question.2162    Ms. Matsui. OK. Now, I will just say this is a repeal, and2163it threatens hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of2164thousands of jobs in American manufacturing. If the President2165truly believes about American manufacturing, I urge you to pick2166up the phone and stop the Senate from repealing this credit.2167    Now I want to turn to another priority I think we can agree2168on. Next-generation geothermal energy has the potential to2169become a critical source of clean energy. Now, Secretary2170Wright, you have been very vocal supporter of geothermal. In2171fact, before joining DOE you invested in Fervo, a leading2172geothermal company. Yes or no, is that accurate?2173    Secretary Wright. That is accurate.2174    Ms. Matsui. OK. And President Trump even included2175geothermal in his Executive orders to boost domestic energy2176resources. Is that correct?2177    Secretary Wright. That is----2178    Ms. Matsui. Yes or no.2179    Secretary Wright [continuing]. Correct.2180    Ms. Matsui. OK. So why are congressional Republicans trying2181to kill the clean energy incentives that the geothermal2182industry is banking on?2183    The CEO of Fervo, Tim Latimer, whose company you have2184invested millions in, was recently quoted as saying, ``Will we2185bring gigawatts on the grid this decade, or will it be the next2186decade? That is what the tax credits mean.'' It doesn't get2187more straightforward than that. The Republicans' Big Ugly Bill2188kills the new energy tax credits, and that will kill next-gen2189technologies.2190    Now, I know you agree with me, because it was reported just2191yesterday that you called for maintaining the clean energy tax2192credits for geothermal at the Energy Imperative Summit, is that2193correct? Yes or no.2194    Secretary Wright. That is correct. I think geothermal2195should be included with nuclear as emerging, reliable,2196dispatchable energy sources for those credits--2197    Ms. Matsui. OK.2198    Secretary Wright. Yes.2199    Ms. Matsui. So will you pick up the phone and push2200congressional Republicans to maintain the energy tax credits2201for geothermal?2202    Secretary Wright. I have been doing just that.2203    Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you very much. And I would just have2204to say that, you know, the majority of new energy in the United2205States is renewable energy. And I think if we are serious about2206meeting the load growth from AI, then you need renewable2207energy.2208    And I realize I am running out of time, and I----2209    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has2210expired, and yields back, and the Chair now recognizes the2211gentlelady from Iowa's 1st district for 5 minutes for2212questions.2213    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking2214Member Castor, for holding this important hearing on the fiscal2215year 2026 Department of Energy budget.2216    Secretary Wright, I appreciate your leadership as we work2217to restore American energy dominance and ensure our Nation's2218energy security. Unlike the last 4 years of the previous2219administration, where we were in energy subtraction mode, we2220are now in energy addition mode, and the President's budget2221reflects the important priorities to bring critical investments2222in our national security that I strongly support.2223    We face unprecedented growth in electricity demand, driven2224largely by AI data centers and advanced manufacturing, and we2225must ensure that the DOE's programs support a diverse and2226resilient energy portfolio that maintains reliability and2227affordability while fostering innovation. And Iowa is one of2228those States that is an energy addition. With the NERC2229projecting potential demand increases of up to 151 gigawatts2230over the next decade, we need to ensure the Department of2231Energy's programs are laser focused on innovation and2232commercialization, and I look forward to working with you on2233that.2234    Secretary Wright, you are requesting $750 million in new2235credit subsidies while cutting administrative expenses in half.2236The program currently has 122 applications totaling 216.72237billion in requested funding. Can you explain how you will be2238able to process these through the pipeline and how you are2239going to address that issue with a decrease in personnel?2240    Secretary Wright. Yes, thank you for the question,2241Representative.2242    And in the Department, of course, there is always massively2243more requests than we can achieve. You know, if you offer low-2244cost money, there is a lot of customers for that. So I think2245key for us is to focus in on which are the projects that can2246bring the greatest benefit to the American energy system and2247the American taxpayers.2248    And yes, the Loan Programs Office with the current budget2249request is shrinking. Personally, I would love to see it a2250little bit bigger than in the current plans right now. But boy,2251I certainly understand the Congress's and the American2252taxpayers' extreme frustration with the Loan Programs Office2253that it was used wildly irresponsibly in the last 4 years, and2254particularly in the 76 days after the election and before2255inauguration. If I saw more than twice as much money lent out2256or committed in 76 days than in the previous 15 years, I would2257be pretty suspicious of that program, as well.2258    So, you know, look, it dug a big hole. And my goal is to2259keep it alive and try to have some scale in it. So next-2260generation nuclear, some critical minerals stuff, potentially2261even geothermal, if there are businesses that can be and will2262be long-term commercial businesses but need a little help to2263get industry started again and it is creditworthy borrowers and2264there is meaningful equity money behind it, I think there's2265some good uses for the Loan Programs Office. But careful and2266judicial, and nothing like we saw in the last 4 years.2267    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. And you answered my followup question,2268so--and I have quite a number of questions I want to try to get2269to.2270    The Bioenergy Technologies program has reduced from 2752271million to 70 million. Given the importance of sustainable2272aviation fuel to both our energy independence and aviation2273sector, what is your strategy for advancing SAF development and2274deployment?2275    And how will you ensure we don't fall behind other nations2276in this critical technology?2277    Secretary Wright. Yes, I think the key area there is the2278last word you just said there, Representative: ``technology.''2279We need to keep--you know, so what we want to support in the2280Department is technology advancement. Biofuels in general are2281challenging, just because the energy density that arrives from2282the sun is not that high. It takes a lot of land to produce2283meaningful amounts of energy. But the more we can get that2284technology better and better, we can increase the energy2285density and grow the future runway for biofuels.2286    So we want to focus on driving technology forward and less2287on sort of corporate subsidies to existing technologies.2288    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. And then I am going to ask this question2289and then submit another one for the record on ARPA-E, but--and2290you can address this question in writing to us. But as we work2291to meet the rising electricity demand and modernize the grid,2292one cost-effective solution is reconductoring existing2293transmission and distribution lines with advanced conductors2294that increase capacity without requiring new rights-of-way.2295    I know I am running out of time, but if you could address2296for us in writing how the Department is willing to consider or2297incentivize reconductoring efforts, particularly in ways that2298enhance system performance and efficiency while keeping2299electricity reliable and affordable for consumers, I would2300appreciate that, especially as MISO is my grid. And had the2301previous administration been listening to grid operators, as2302suggested by the ranking member, we would have been increasing2303energy production and generation the past 4 years instead of2304subtracting.2305    Secretary Wright. And reconductoring is a great solution.2306    Mr. Latta. I am sorry, the----2307    Secretary Wright. So I am with you.2308    Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the Chair2309now recognizes the gentleman from New York's 20th district for23105 minutes for questions.2311    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome and thank you,2312Secretary Wright.2313    Secretary Wright, like many Members before coming to2314Congress, I served in State government, including time at New2315York's State Energy Office, so I would like to try to2316understand the role you envision DOE playing to support its2317State partners with what I hope are yes-or-no questions.2318    Do you believe States have a responsibility in supporting2319energy emergency planning?2320    Secretary Wright. Yes, I do.2321    Mr. Tonko. And what about cybersecurity?2322    Secretary Wright. We cooperate with all authorities we can2323in cybersecurity, whether it is utilities, businesses--yes,2324including States.2325    Mr. Tonko. And what about providing technical analyses for2326public utility commission proceedings?2327    Secretary Wright. Yes. Clearly, States play central roles2328in----2329    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.2330    Secretary Wright [continuing]. Utility evaluations.2331    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And what about addressing energy2332affordability challenges?2333    Secretary Wright. I think that is a legitimate area for2334States to work in, absolutely.2335    Mr. Tonko. Sure. So these are just a few examples of2336activities that both red and blue States are already working2337on, and they rely on State energy program funding to support2338their work.2339    The President's budget request zeroes out the Office of2340State and Community Energy Programs, which includes the State2341Energy Program, and proposes rescinding some $47 million in SEP2342funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. How does the2343administration reconcile the need for States to do this2344important energy work while also eliminating funds that enable2345it?2346    Secretary Wright. Well, obviously, there's multiple ways to2347fund State energy offices, and the most logical way is by the2348State government. So whether there is a Federal Government role2349in funding State energy offices, I think it is pretty2350legitimate to say it shouldn't be funded by the Federal2351Government, it should be funded by the States.2352    Mr. Tonko. Well, that is----2353    Secretary Wright. I met with a Governor yesterday, a2354Democratic Governor. So we cooperate with States, no matter2355what. Funding of State energy offices, that is probably better2356left to States.2357    Mr. Tonko. Well, you know, there is talk already about2358adding on the cost of Medicaid to States, providing--asking2359them to have skin in the game for nutrition assistance2360programs, having them enable EPA activities. The list goes on2361and on. And so this is piling up a lot on the States, and I2362don't know if it is realistic.2363    But putting aside 2026 funding, I have heard concerns about2364DOE staff reductions, particularly the Golden field office2365having lost one half of its workforce that are essentially2366stopping State energy program grant review processes. Many2367States are currently waiting for approval for their next2368allocation of previously appropriated funds. Can you give us2369some insights, sir, into what is going on in SCEP, and whether2370you are committed to getting previously appropriated funds2371allocated to States in a timely manner so that they can2372continue the type of work that we have previously discussed2373here?2374    Secretary Wright. Well, I think the main funding out of2375SCEP is done on an annual basis, and those are usually, I2376think, delivered in July. And we are working towards that goal.2377And I think we will make that goal or be very close to it. So I2378don't think you will see a huge disruption there.2379    Mr. Tonko. I hope so.2380    And I know many Members and President Trump have expressed2381concerns about rising energy costs. DOE has a critical role in2382promoting energy affordability, especially through energy2383efficiency, which is often the most cost-effective option to2384lower utility bills.2385    In May, DOE claimed to be saving Americans $11 billion2386through the elimination or reduction of some 47 rules,2387including numerous energy efficiency standards. But according2388to DOE's own analysis, just 12 efficiency standards would save2389more than $54 billion, which is nearly 5 times as much in2390utility bill costs. Therefore, people would see their net costs2391increase by some $43 billion. In addition to this being another2392major blow to energy affordability, this action would be2393illegal.2394    Secretary Wright, the law forbids weakening energy2395efficiency standards once they are finalized. Are you aware of2396that provision?2397    Secretary Wright. I am sorry, Representative. Repeat the2398last sentence.2399    Mr. Tonko. Yes, the law forbids weakening energy efficiency2400standards once they are finalized.2401    Secretary Wright. Well, I can assure you we are following2402the law----2403    Mr. Tonko. OK.2404    Secretary Wright [continuing]. And very carefully reviewing2405these things, but we think that consumers should choose the2406trade-offs they want to make, and not the Government. Making2407people buy more expensive----2408    Mr. Tonko. Right.2409    Secretary Wright [continuing]. Less effective appliances--2410--2411    Mr. Tonko. But back to those energy efficiency standards, I2412am citing section 342 of the Energy Policy and Conservation2413Act. And in 2004 a Federal appeals court ruled that DOE could2414not weaken efficiency standards once they are finalized. So2415Secretary, are you aware of that ruling?2416    Secretary Wright. I can assure you that the legal team at2417the Department of Energy that is heading up these efforts is2418aware of these laws and being very careful to comply with the2419laws while at the same time restoring choice and freedom to2420American people.2421    Mr. Tonko. Right. This attack on energy efficiency2422standards is not only harmful to Americans, but I believe it is2423illegal. So Mr. Secretary, I hope you reconsider this action.2424    I request, Mr. Chair, unanimous consent to add to the2425record this policy analysis document from the Appliance2426Standards Awareness Project on the effects of the proposed2427rollbacks of efficiency standards on consumer energy costs.2428    Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.2429    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]2430    Mr. Tonko. I appreciate that.2431    Mr. Latta. And----2432    Mr. Tonko. And with that, I thank you and yield back.2433    Mr. Latta. And the gentleman's time has expired, and the2434Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan's 10th2435district for 5 minutes for questions.2436    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,2437Secretary Wright, for being here and for the hard work that you2438and the Trump administration are doing to advance an America-2439first energy agenda. Republicans are advancing an all-of-the-2440above approach to ensure that we remain global energy leaders.2441And I like what you have said: all sources that actually work2442in reality.2443    Mr. Secretary, I am extremely encouraged by your agenda. I2444look forward to working with you and your team to ensure that2445we are prepared to meet the moment and continue to excel in2446global energy production. So I am just going to jump right to2447the questions because your time is very precious.2448    In 2024 NERC's long-term reliability assessments, they2449stated that the greatest threat to our power grid is our shift2450to intermittent resources and premature retirements of thermal2451generation. NERC's 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment also2452projected that the Mid-continent Independent System Operator,2453MISO, which covers my district in Michigan, will experience a24544.7 gigawatt shortfall by 2028 if current expected generator2455retirements occur.2456    In your discussions with MISO, have they discussed how any2457current State net-zero policies have contributed to current2458cost increases to consumers and expected power shortfalls in2459the future?2460    Secretary Wright. Absolutely, Representative. Thank you for2461the question. And look, many people at DOE have been in dialogs2462with NERC and with MISO about these issues.2463    But I think you hit the nail on the head. Like, what do we2464want? We want to reshore manufacturing to Michigan. We want to2465bring data centers to Michigan. We need to grow the supply of2466affordable, reliable electricity in Michigan. And closing2467plants--the coal plant, for example--with 15 years left in its2468average lifetime, closed for political reasons--closed to show2469virtue signaling, you know, ``we are going to move away from2470coal''--that is not in the best interest of Michigan ratepayers2471and Michigan citizens.2472    And--but yes, utilities get bullied and influenced by State2473politicians and national politicians that have political2474agendas around energy that are often not aligned with2475ratepayers and citizens in those districts.2476    Mr. James. So premature closures in the past----2477    Secretary Wright. Premature closures.2478    Mr. James [continuing]. Have greatly increased the2479likelihood that ratepayers will pay a higher--thank you for2480that.2481    Secretary Wright. Yes.2482    Mr. James. I have heard back--you were mentioning the J.H.2483Campbell Coal Plant in southwest Michigan. Can you please walk2484me through the administration's reasoning for this order, the2485emergency order? Could you articulate the reasoning for that?2486    Secretary Wright. Yes. And again, along the lines you just2487discussed, MISO, the system operator in which this plant exists2488in the Midwest, is the lowest reserve margin we have, meaning2489the greatest risk of blackout. And of course, it is the2490industrial heartland of the United States.2491    Mr. James. And there was one recently.2492    Secretary Wright. There was a blackout two days after we2493issued that order to keep that coal plant open.2494    Mr. James. So when opponents were saying the White House2495claims--claims--that the intermittent nature of solar and wind2496generation will lead to energy shortages and fail to meet the2497surging electricity demand, 2 days after they said this, there2498was actual shortage.2499    Secretary Wright. Correct.2500    Mr. James. So it sounds like you reacted quickly, and you2501reacted at least on time to make it--not make it worse.2502    Last question. I am very concerned that, even though we are2503trying to keep as much power online as possible, that this is2504going to directly result in increased rates for people in the2505State of Michigan. I am sure you are aware that Consumers2506Energy filed a complaint with FERC against MISO, seeking2507compensation for keeping open the J.H. Campbell coal plant this2508summer.2509    I look forward to working with you and your team to make2510sure that reliability in our region is strengthened while not2511being financially punitive to our energy customers in Michigan.2512As MISO is a large organization where this power is dispatched,2513it is going to benefit the larger organization. And so2514therefore those costs should necessarily be spread out, as we2515all have to make sure that we are cooperating to make sure that2516we keep our power high and keeping our costs low.2517    Is there anything that I have missed that would more2518accurately reflect the administration and your actions2519specifically related to that coal plant?2520    Secretary Wright. I think you are very well spoken, right2521on. And I share your interest for a reliable, affordable grid.2522That is what our citizens and our ratepayers want, and that is2523what we need to work towards.2524    I would also encourage you or thank you for your efforts on2525the Big Beautiful Bill. The reforms in there in energy policy2526will not only save Americans money by stopping the 30-year-long2527subsidies for intermittent energy sources, not only will the2528Federal Government save money, but by putting--stopping the2529rapid increase in intermittent sources on grids, we will reduce2530stress on grids and reduce costs.2531    Mr. Latta. And the----2532    Secretary Wright. So thank you for your leadership in this2533area.2534    Mr. James. I appreciate your support.2535    Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time----2536    Mr. James. Hopefully, we can make consumers whole.2537    Mr. Latta [continuing]. Has expired.2538    Mr. James. Thanks, bye bye.2539    Mr. Latta. And----2540    Mr. James. I yield.2541    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes2542the gentlelady--oh, I am sorry, the gentleman from Texas's 33rd2543district for 5 minutes for questions.2544    Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.2545    Secretary Wright, thank you for being here today.2546Congratulations on your appointment. I know that we have had2547some, you know, good news in the oil patch and some interesting2548news in the oil patch, and I wanted to just ask you a few2549questions particularly around everything that is happening2550nationally.2551    Your fiscal year 2026 budget proposal guts proven2552bipartisan energy programs, some of which directly support our2553domestic workforce and ensures American energy dominance.2554    And here is what is not in your budget that I wanted to2555talk with you about: a plan to deal with the consequences of2556mass deportations in the Permian Basin.2557    As you know, the Permian accounts for nearly 50 percent of2558the oil production. That is around 6 million barrels a day. And2559that production doesn't rely just on rigs and engineers, it2560depends on a workforce. And many of those dangerous jobs in the2561oil patch--as you know, because you have been in the oil2562patch--you know that many of those dangerous jobs are performed2563by people in this country that are undocumented. And so if ICE2564were to hit Midland or if they were to hit Odessa, I don't2565think there is any plan in your budget to replace those workers2566or that lost production.2567    In Odessa, studies show that undocumented workers make up2568about 13 percent of the workforce. That is one of the key hubs2569for Permian operations. And I have seen other anecdotes where2570oil field service companies in Midland have only about 5 or 102571percent of their employees with genuine papers.2572    And so, as you know, those aren't soft-skill jobs. Those2573are people that are out in the heat, people that risk injuries2574to their hands and to their, you know, their limbs. And they2575are having that hot Texas heat. I am sure you have been out2576there in the summer. As someone from Fort Worth, I have been2577out there in the summer, and I can--and I think we all know2578that it is hot.2579    Where in your budget--and this is a question that I have2580for you--where in your budget do you account for the impact of2581potential mass deportations on oil production in the Permian2582Basin? Because if Stephen Miller wants 3,000 people a day2583deported, which has been deported--reported that he does, what2584are you going to do to replace those workers?2585    Secretary Wright. A great question, Representative. And2586yes, you are correct. I have worked for years out there,2587employing thousands of people in that region, and a large2588number of them are relatively recent immigrants from Mexico and2589from further south of the border, tremendous, hard-working,2590awesome workers.2591    But certainly in my company, all of them are here legally,2592they are not illegal immigrants. I am sure there are some, but2593I would suspect the percent that are illegal is quite small.2594    Mr. Veasey. Yes.2595    Secretary Wright. You gave a number of 13 percent. That may2596be one small community. I--2597    Mr. Veasey. Did you use third-party companies for--to hire2598employees, where they weren't hired directly by you but they2599were brought in by a third party that had their papers and had2600their Social Security numbers already ready, or did you hire2601all of those people?2602    Secretary Wright. We hired all of those people. We have2603an----2604    Mr. Veasey. And you used the E-Verify system to--OK.2605    Secretary Wright. Correct.2606    Mr. Veasey. So let me ask you a question. If ICE were to2607show up to Midland today and do a large-scale deportation, and2608it were to get a little bit rowdy, would you support the2609President calling in the National Guard to Midland, Texas, or2610west Texas like he has in Los Angeles?2611    Secretary Wright. Look, in due respect to all the great2612immigrant workers that are--that work in that region and work2613across our country, you need to respect the difference between2614those that came here legally and those that are here illegally.2615    Mr. Veasey. What about the people that are going to have2616their TPS status revoked? A lot of them probably work in the2617oil patch. I mean, you hear the stories. And you can go down to2618the oil patch and see it. For anybody that hadn't been down to2619Texas on the Democratic side or the Republican side, they can2620go down to the oil patch and see for themselves.2621    What about the people--the TPS people that are going to2622have their status revoked? That could be very disruptive to the2623oil patch.2624    Secretary Wright. Yes, the workforce in America is2625critical, and a lot of the workforce in the United States are2626immigrants from overseas, and they are awesome contributors to2627our society. I think the line is just between who is here2628legally and who is here illegally.2629    Mr. Veasey. Let me ask you another question. Is it easier2630to drill, baby, drill with no employees? Or is it easier to2631drill, baby, drill having to go around, let's say, EPA2632regulations?2633    Secretary Wright. Wait. The first, having to----2634    Mr. Veasey. Is it easier if--is it easier to drill for oil2635with no employees, or is it easier to drill for oil having to2636work around a few EPA regulations?2637    I would think it would be harder to drill for oil without2638any employees.2639    Secretary Wright. You definitely need employees to drill2640for oil, absolutely.2641    Mr. Veasey. Yes, OK, thank you.2642    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.2643    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has2644expired, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from2645Texas's 12th district for 5 minutes for questions.2646    Oh, I am sorry, I didn't see the gentleman from Colorado--2647or Oregon in front of me, but the gentleman from Oregon is2648recognized for 5 minutes. I am sorry.2649    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.2650    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. So I am from2651Oregon, and the Columbia River runs across the north side of2652it. And of course, we have all these dams that generate--I2653think the nameplate is around 36,000 megawatts, and the2654continuous about 16,000 megawatts. So it is hugely--obviously,2655hugely important.2656    It happens that the Biden administration entered into a2657nonbinding MOU with Tribal and--breach of certain of those dams2658for using--or ratepayer dollars to ostensibly create solar and2659other intermittent sources to offset the reduction in2660generating capacity that would occur when the four lower Snake2661River dams were breached.2662    I obviously oppose that. I held a hearing up in Washington2663State as chair of the Water Subcommittee on Natural Resources.2664We had 400 people show up that were adamantly opposed to dam2665breaching, and we went through all of the obvious2666justifications for keeping those dams.2667    I believe the MOU is still in place, and I am hoping that2668the Department will put an end to it and say, ``Look, we are2669not going to spend money in replacing, ostensibly, the power2670generated by these dams with solar or otherwise.''2671    Can you--have you been brought current on this situation?2672    Secretary Wright. Absolutely, Representative. We are2673working that issue and have been working that issue for several2674weeks now.2675    I agree with you entirely that those are great projects2676that were built decades ago in our country, and generations2677have benefited from that hydropower, which you can ramp it up2678when we need more power and you can ramp it down when we don't2679need it. That is highly valuable power. And you can never2680replace something like that with wind or solar, because you2681don't know when they are going to be there and when they are2682not there. They are totally different things.2683    Like, we don't have a bag to store electricity in. The2684critical criterion of an electricity grid is that it meet2685demand at peak time.2686    Mr. Bentz. And that function as a gigantic storage device2687that--and those sets of dams up and down the Columbia River and2688the Snake Rivers is hugely important to intermittent power, is2689it not?2690    Secretary Wright. It is hugely important to our grid,2691absolutely. They can reduce the damage of intermittent power2692sources, but even without intermittent power sources you need2693to be able to have higher electricity at times of peak demand2694and less electricity at times where demand is low, and2695hydropower allows you to do that. They are tremendous2696resources.2697    Mr. Bentz. There is no doubt that we are engaged in an2698existential battle when it comes to artificial intelligence.2699And there has been a number of server farms owned by many2700moving into the Northwest. I think they are going to be a huge2701part of us ultimately winning that race.2702    But there seems to be a disconnect when it comes to the2703absolute need for additional electrical generation. I see that2704we have basically a flat production curve--flat--and China has2705one that is shooting straight up. What is your plan? What is2706the Department's plan to do--to catch up, if you will?2707    Secretary Wright. We need to pivot the direction we have2708been on in this country.2709    You know, again, during the last 4 years we spent tens of2710billions of dollars to do two things: to subsidize the2711installation of intermittent sources--peak demand in PJM, where2712we are right now, inauguration night at 4:00 a.m., wind was 22713percent of electricity, solar was 0. Together, between the two2714of them, 2 percent of peak demand. That is when it matters. If2715you are not there at peak demand, you are just a parasite on2716the grid because you just make the other sources turn up and2717down as you come and go.2718    So we are trying to reduce the barriers to investment in2719reliable, dispatchable sources such as hydropower. And we are2720doing everything I can together with this Congress through the2721Big Beautiful Bill to reduce the subsidies that put2722intermittent, unreliable sources on our grid. We pay people to2723put stuff on our grid that ultimately makes our grid more2724expensive. If you subsidize something, it better be cheaper or2725subsidize something and getting a more expensive product at the2726end.2727    Mr. Bentz. And could you----2728    Secretary Wright. That is a big loss.2729    Mr. Bentz. And could you also--it certainly is.2730    Can you also address the fact that, with intermittent2731power, you have to have a backup? Thus you double the cost,2732triple the cost because you can't just rely upon wind when the2733wind doesn't blow. So you have got to have that backup. So that2734is driving up the cost of that particular source of power, is2735it not?2736    Secretary Wright. Well, correct. And we are raising--we are2737inadvertently making all these other energy sources have to2738back them up. If you build a natural gas power plant, for2739example, and then the sun shines and you have got to turn it2740down, and then the sun goes behind a cloud and you have got to2741turn it up, that is a much less efficient way to run a power2742plant.2743    Our electricity markets have rewarded low-value2744electricity, and we have subsidized to put more of it on.2745Germany and Denmark and England have shown where this leads:2746deindustrialization.2747    Mr. Bentz. It certainly does. Thank you so much.2748    I yield back.2749    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has2750expired, and yields back. The Chair now recognizes the2751gentlelady from Washington's 8th district for 5 minutes for2752questions.2753    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2754    Before I even start, as I listen to the bashing of2755intermittent sources of energy it occurs to me that we could2756resolve all of those issues if we got sensible permitting2757reform done. And there is a bipartisan bill that I would love2758to see us work on together to do just that.2759    Thank you for being here today, Secretary Wright. Like many2760of my colleagues, I am very concerned about the staffing cuts2761that have taken place under your leadership. It seems to me2762that the rollout of these cuts, especially in Washington State,2763has not been strategic or tactical. They have been2764indiscriminate and arbitrary, and are often followed by an2765``Oops.'' And you know better than anyone that Department of2766Energy employees are some of the most educated, nimble,2767strategic Federal workers, and really have irreplaceable2768expertise.2769    So it doesn't look good, and it doesn't bode well for your2770reputation to kneecap such an important agency at a time when2771energy needs are skyrocketing and we are facing a climate2772crisis and need to decrease emissions.2773    So I would like to highlight the issues at the Bonneville2774Power Administration. I only have 5 minutes. You know what2775Bonneville does: It is a balancing authority that keeps the2776lights on in the Northwest, keeps electricity flowing. We have2777got engineers and operators who manage the grid 24/7 and the2778linemen who go out in the worst weather and repair that grid.2779And every single person there is necessary. They also do this2780at zero cost to taxpayers. This is all ratepayer-funded. And so2781to take a DOGE to that and fire people makes no sense for any2782explanation you might give.2783    So my first question is, I just want to know, were you2784aware that Bonneville was already encountering a workforce2785shortage before this year's staffing reductions?2786    Secretary Wright. Yes, I was aware of that.2787    Ms. Schrier. So if you were aware of that, and you were2788aware of the fact that it would not save taxpayer dollars, I--2789why did you do this? Why did you offer early retirements and2790then do it again and fire probationary employees, only to then2791realize--but you already knew that we needed those employees.2792Like, what was your thinking there?2793    Secretary Wright. First of all, for clarification, the2794headcount at Bonneville Power Administration--which is a2795fantastic agency, I met with them last week, and we are2796discussing exactly how to address their long-term problem of2797people--they were well understaffed at the start of this2798administration. Their headcount is not meaningfully different2799today from what it what it was when I arrived. And in fact,2800what I am working with them on right now is how we can grow the2801number of linemen at Bonneville Power to assure safer--safe2802delivery of reliable power there.2803    Ms. Schrier. So I also talk with Administrator Hairston on2804a regular basis. And, of course, one of the things they were2805talking about was raising salaries to compete with the private2806market. And the other is, of course, you know--I think you were2807just lucky that you can do this ``oops,'' people take the2808retirement, and then they actually choose to come back. We2809could have been in a much different situation, and private2810energy companies were pursuing these very skilled workers.2811    I just want to know: Can I have a commitment from you that2812you will freeze--that you will lift the hiring freeze, make2813sure we hire more, and work with Administrator Hairston to make2814sure that Bonneville is fully staffed?2815    Secretary Wright. Absolutely, we are working with the2816administration right there. I do think we need to hire some2817linemen at Bonneville Power Administration, and I will work to2818get that done.2819    Ms. Schrier. Just to be clear: We need linemen, we also2820need the next generation of engineers who will balance this.2821And so I really need a commitment that it will be linemen and2822others who will build and hold the expertise that we really2823depend on to keep the lights on at Bonneville.2824    Secretary Wright. Absolutely, we will work with Bonneville2825on that to navigate through these times and keep that agency2826staffed and delivering high-quality service. It is important.2827    Ms. Schrier. Thank you. I only have 37 seconds left, so I2828am going to mostly make a point here.2829    You were just talking with Congressman Bentz about2830hydropower and the benefits of being able to turn it up or down2831to meet demand. It turns out that even better than turning on2832and off turbines is to actually use excess energy to make2833hydrogen, because that is one of our energy sources in the2834future, and we need all of the above as energy needs are2835skyrocketing.2836    And so I would just like to emphasize that the uncertainty2837about grants and tax credits for hydrogen hubs around the2838country--and particularly my passion would be green hydrogen--2839is really imperiling the ability to put more energy sources on2840the grid and is putting a thumb on the scale for oil and gas.2841And I would object, as one of the hydrogen hubs, to that.2842    Thank you, and I will yield back.2843    Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the Chair2844now recognizes the gentleman from Texas's 12th district for 52845minutes for questions.2846    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.2847    Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being here today.2848Very interesting hearing.2849    I agree with Mr. Veasey that the men and women out in west2850Texas are a very important part not only to the people of2851Texas, people of the United States, but people around the world2852in supplying energy. And I want to stay in west Texas, but not2853go that far--west Texas, and talk about Abilene.2854    Abilene Christian University has one of the two permits2855from the NRC to build the next-generation reactor. The DOE2856committed in 2019 to provide the fuel and salt for the project,2857as it does for every existing university research reactor. Will2858the DOE support this advanced nuclear project by honoring that2859commitment?2860    Secretary Wright. Yes, that is our intention. And the2861Department is working with Abilene right now to figure out2862the--you know, it is a different type of fuel in a molten salt2863reactor design, how to accommodate that request. But I am quite2864proud and impressed by the work going on at the university, and2865we certainly want to support it.2866    Mr. Goldman. Can you give us some sort of, in your mind, a2867timeline for when we see where they are now to where they will2868be in 5 to 10 years, perhaps?2869    Secretary Wright. A timeline on where----2870    Mr. Goldman. Of where that reactor will be. Will it be2871online? Will it be working? Will it be--I mean, are they2872testing from now until a decade from now?2873    Where--in a perfect world, where would you like to see them2874in 5 years or 10 years?2875    Secretary Wright. Oh, in a perfect world--in a reasonable,2876regulatory regime, which is a huge part of our agenda--2877absolutely, that should be selling electricity 5 years from2878now, and I sure hope it is.2879    Mr. Goldman. Me too. Mr. Veasey there talked about the2880workforce. So one of the potential roadblocks to building in2881nuclear energy is the workforce. How will the DOE budget2882request increase support for universities and technical and2883community colleges to train the next generation of nuclear2884scientists and skilled workers to be able to support the goal2885of the nuclear build-out?2886    Secretary Wright. Yes, that is a key thing. You know, we2887have had--as I say, nuclear hasn't been sexy for a few2888generations because we haven't done much with it. And we--it2889is--when I speak and go around, I want to get young people2890excited again and wanting to go into this industry. But the2891only way that will happen is if things are happening. If we are2892building reactors and they are selling power and businesses are2893growing, that is going to draw people into the industry.2894    And for us, for research funding and our efforts in the2895commercial space, if we can focus our dollars on things that2896make the American energy system better and that consumers want2897to buy, those are the businesses that will grow, that are not2898going to be blowing with the wind of government subsidies. We2899need sustainable industries that can grow because customers2900want to buy their products. That is what will bring people into2901that industry, and I--and that is what we need to have happen2902with nuclear.2903    We need--once we can build some reactors and get some2904efficiencies and drive costs down, I think this industry can2905really take off.2906    Mr. Goldman. And one of my colleagues across the aisle2907earlier was bragging about the Texas grid, and that--the wind2908and the solar especially, but those are subsidized, correct?2909    Secretary Wright. They are.2910    Mr. Goldman. And so--and our other entities on the grid,2911nuclear, natural gas, coal are not subsidized, is that correct?2912    Secretary Wright. That is correct.2913    Mr. Goldman. OK. So----2914    Secretary Wright. In fact, they are penalized.2915    Mr. Goldman. Right, thank you. So----2916    Secretary Wright. Forced to turn on and off all the time.2917    Mr. Goldman. Right. So to that point, we obviously need2918more power in Texas. There is no doubt about that.2919    What is your thought of how Texas goes about to create more2920power? Well, the power needs in the future for us.2921    Secretary Wright. Well, one of the houses in Texas--I am2922not sure if it was the House or the Senate--passed a bill. I do2923not believe it----2924    Mr. Goldman. It was the House. Well, it has passed them2925both, but yes--but go ahead.2926    Secretary Wright. Passed them both. And I think that that2927is a very--electricity is complicated. And again, as I was2928discussing before--because you got to balance supply and demand2929at all times. But I think that Texas proposal that, if you are2930going to bid into the electricity market and be treated like2931everybody else, you have got to be able to provide 24/7 power.2932    I always say to people, would you pay the same amount of2933money for an Uber that you didn't know when it was going to2934pick you up or where it was going to drop you off? That is just2935not the same product. We need to have people bidding into a2936marketplace that are both delivering the same product, which is293724/7 electricity, because that is the only thing customers will2938buy.2939    Mr. Goldman. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thanks for your2940time.2941    Mr. Chairman, I yield the rest of my time.2942    Secretary Wright. Thank you.2943    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields2944back. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas's 7th2945district for 5 minutes for questions.2946    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Chairman Latta. A lot of Texans2947in here today. Obviously, this is very important to our to our2948State and our constituents.2949    And so I thank you, Secretary Wright. I think this has been2950an important and useful hearing for all of us. And I have made2951a lot of notes and a lot of questions on a lot of things this2952morning. I hope we can get to all of them. I kind of think we2953can't, but let me start as I planned, which is letting you2954know, Mr. Secretary, that I represent Houston, the energy2955capital of the world, which is home to 11 percent of United2956States' energy jobs, and there are more than 4,700 energy-2957related firms, and where I understand you have many friends,2958Mr. Secretary.2959    Secretary Wright. The energy capital of the world. I agree2960with you 100 percent.2961    Mrs. Fletcher. It sure is, and my colleagues here are tired2962of hearing me say it, but it is important. And the issues that2963we are talking about today are really important to my2964constituents. And the number-one thing I am hearing from them,2965as well as from people in the business across the country, is2966the need to know the rules and regulations and the2967requirements, to be able to trust that long-term projects can2968move forward and that they can get the approvals they need.2969    And certainly, I agree with my colleagues who have said we2970have got to tackle permitting reform in this committee, in this2971Congress, and have good, bipartisan, durable permitting reform.2972That is a huge issue. They need permitting certainty. They need2973investment certainty. They need to be able to plan, as you well2974know from your experience. And before making these2975multibillion-dollar investments that Americans across the2976country are going to rely on, they need to be able to rely on2977the process itself.2978    And so I agree that the process can and should be and must2979be improved. But what we are seeing right now is really a2980destruction of the process across the board, a destruction of2981the legislative process, a destruction of the administrative2982process. And it is causing chaos that is going to continue for2983years to come.2984    And so, in response to a question from Mr. Latta earlier2985this morning, you said the administration is focused on2986bringing in private capital and that that is an important part2987of your work. But this environment is not conducive to2988investment for private capital. And we are seeing the2989rescission of government capital that has been greenlighted in2990the past to move some of these projects forward.2991    And they are not crazy ideas, and they are not firms you2992have never heard of. The announcements that my colleagues have2993already talked about from the demonstration programs have been2994cut. In my area there are grants to ExxonMobil and other2995household names that are doing this important research.2996    And so I think that this environment isn't conducive to2997that investment is the overwhelming and resounding message that2998is coming from my district. So I really want to share that with2999you, because I think working outside the legislative process3000isn't going to help solve some of the problems that are most on3001their minds. And so I think it is really important.3002    And one of the first notes I made when you were talking3003earlier this morning is that America doesn't back down from big3004challenges, right? I wrote that down too. To tackle big3005challenges we need big ideas, and that is where DOE comes in.3006That is where we are able to do the research at the labs and to3007do things to really scale some of these ideas. And we have seen3008it.3009    I know a couple years ago we spent a lot of time talking3010about carbon capture. Certainly, we know that that has been3011something that industries used, you know, for decades and3012decades doing EOR and other things, and that has great,3013promising ability to help us address the emissions challenges3014that we have. And yet, you know, we need to use the resources3015that we have at DOE to try to address some of these challenges.3016And so I hope that we won't see your budget cut some of the3017important and innovative research.3018    And I do have a specific question on research coming from3019the budget that I want to ask you, but it ties into something3020else you said earlier today. You mentioned the impact of Winter3021Storm Uri in Texas in 2021, and we really can't understate what3022a tragedy that was. I lived through it in my home in Houston,3023but not that far away from where I live a little boy froze to3024death in his bed when the heat went off. That is what we are3025talking about when we talk about the importance of these3026issues.3027    And from your testimony, it seems to me like you might not3028know that FERC found that 87 percent of the unplanned3029generation outages were because of fuel issues related to3030natural gas, not renewables. So I just want to make sure you3031know that I am happy to share that with your team. And I don't3032want to confuse you. I am the cochair of the Natural Gas Caucus3033here. I fully believe in the importance of that. But these3034issues are life-and-death issues for our constituents.3035    And so I want to note that your budget for fiscal year 20263036includes a 50 percent cut to the National--Natural Gas3037Infrastructure and Hydrogen Technologies program within the3038Office of Fossil Energy. And I want to know if that includes3039weatherization research and development. And because I have3040spent the whole 5 minutes talking, I am going to have to ask3041you to reply for the record with the answer of what those cuts3042are.3043    But this weatherization technology across the spectrum is3044just critically important, and so----3045    Mr. Latta. And the gentlelady's time has expired.3046    Mrs. Fletcher [continuing]. I hope you can answer that for3047me.3048    Thank you so much, Chairman Latta. I yield back.3049    Mr. Latta. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from3050North Dakota for 5 minutes for questions.3051    Mrs. Fedorchak. Well, good afternoon now, I think3052officially, Secretary Wright. So great to see you here. I still3053remember meeting with you in Bismarck, North Dakota, a couple3054of years ago and your very inspiring comments there. So great3055to have you out here in this role, and I really very much3056appreciate your work to both provide the right signals to the3057markets, to make sure that we are incentivizing things3058correctly, and to make sure that we are really trying to let3059the energy industry develop on its own without putting our3060fingers too heavily on the levers ourselves.3061    So thank you, and I want to support you in those efforts.3062    I want to talk a little bit about the reliability issues.3063Given that NERC's assessment today is that two-thirds of our3064systems in the U.S. don't have enough power to meet demand3065given certain circumstances today, and we are looking at3066retiring 115 gigawatts of baseload generation, and we are3067seeing significant demand increases--all of that looks like a3068huge train wreck to me and to many others.3069    So today I introduced a bill. It is called the Baseload3070Reliability Act, and it will give DOE, FERC tools--and the grid3071operators--tools to help slow down the retirements, at least in3072time for new baseload or dispatchable resources to be brought3073on that is kind of equal in nature in how it responds to the3074grid. So I want to invite your look at that and your support in3075that.3076    And one of the things that we need to do and be doing is3077actively tracking where those planned retirements are and how3078they might impact the grid. And I just wanted to ask, is that3079something that your office is already doing and working on?3080    Secretary Wright. It is, Representative, and thank you for3081not just your comments and question here, but for your3082leadership. You have been an outspoken person in what I used to3083call or call energy sobriety, just being thoughtful.3084    Look, there's no clean energy sources, there's no dirty3085energy sources. They just all have different trade-offs.3086    Mrs. Fedorchak. Right.3087    Secretary Wright. But you--but we produce energy for one3088reason, which is to better people's lives. So having a reliable3089grid that is as affordable as possible and that can grow so we3090can bring industry and more job opportunities to our States and3091communities is just critical for doing that.3092    And so, yes, it is a thing we are doing right now because3093we now are seeing significant demand growth signals. People3094want to build data centers. I have met with every one of the3095hyperscalers and a whole bunch of people that want to bring3096industrial factories and plants back to the United States. I3097think it is awesome. It is awesome for our country. It is3098awesome for blue collar workers. It is something I really want3099to see happen.3100    But that is their biggest worry. ``Hey, if we come here,3101how am I going to navigate through FERC or whatever to be able3102to build a power plant? How am I going to know I have reliable,3103affordable power going--it is going to take me, you know, $103104billion to build my plant. It is going to run for 40 years. I3105want to know what the--how I can get confidence in the energy3106thoughtfulness of the United States on that price.''3107    And so, when people want, you know, tens of gigawatts of3108more power and we are shutting down facilities with decades3109left on their lifetime, that doesn't look so thoughtful. So,3110yes, we have a team in our Office of Electricity that is3111looking at grid reserve margins across the different areas of3112the country. And we are looking at planned retirements, and3113then we are going to try to proactively engage with all of them3114of why is this asset retiring? Does it make sense? Is there a3115better plan here? And if it is retiring, what is going to3116replace it that is equally dispatchable and firm-reliable and3117won't add to the cost of the grid or increase--either increase3118the cost or reduce the reliability of the grid.3119    Mrs. Fedorchak. Good. My bill would make what you are doing3120into law and basically require it so that, before anybody could3121retire a unit in one of the regions that have an elevated3122reliability risk, they would have to prove that it is being3123replaced in advance by equally reliable power. And then, if it3124isn't, then it would give you and FERC tools to require that3125they run, and some financial support to help cover those costs3126so it doesn't fall on the ratepayers.3127    And I view this as being a--you know, this might be a 5-3128year thing. This might not be forever. But right now we are3129behind. So let's stop retiring. Let's make sure we are bringing3130new resources on as quickly as possible. And I stand with my3131colleagues across the aisle to work on permitting reform to3132bring things up as quickly as possible. But meanwhile, we need3133to keep what we have. That should not be a partisan statement.3134    Thank you for----3135    Secretary Wright. I----3136    Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you for your leadership there.3137    Oh my goodness, I am already out of time.3138    Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has----3139    Mrs. Fedorchak. I look forward to working with you.3140    Mr. Latta [continuing]. Expired, and yields back. The Chair3141now recognizes the gentlelady from New York's 14th district for31425 minutes for questions.3143    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Before3144I dive into my questions, I just wanted to clarify some of the3145exchanges that happened recently.3146    First and foremost, there was a kind of an insinuation that3147after confirming that solar and renewable energies receive3148public subsidy, there was a little bit in the exchange that3149folks may have insinuated or taken from it that fossil fuels do3150not receive public subsidy.3151    That is not what you are saying, right? Correct, Mr.3152Secretary?3153    Secretary Wright. Oh, nowhere near of the same magnitude.3154And it is very--there is controversy about how to count them. I3155would say no meaningful subsidies today for oil and gas in the3156United States.3157    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. I think you are right in that there3158is a disagreement in that, because I think what most people3159consider a subsidy is public use, public resources going to an3160industry or corporation. And in 2022 alone we are looking at 103161to 52 billion dollars in direct subsidies, anywhere between--3162again, depending on how you count it--1.5 to 7 trillion dollars3163globally in the fossil fuel industry receiving subsidy, in3164addition to tax breaks, in addition to also public lands.3165    I was the chair of the Energy and Mineral--ranking member3166of--the chair--Energy Mineral Resources Subcommittee on Natural3167Resources. And the public lands alone that we had leased for3168pennies on the dollar for oil companies to drill on, I think3169those would be considered subsidies, but there may be a3170difference of opinion there.3171    Additionally, the other thing that I wanted to clear up as3172well is this exchange previously on the immigrant workforce for3173many of the oil fields and the industry. You stated that there3174is a difference between ``illegal immigration'' and legal3175immigration, but what is your stance on the ending of legal3176status for immigrants in the United States who are here3177documented?3178    Secretary Wright. The devil is in the details, so I don't3179know enough about the issue you are raising to give a comment.3180I am very passionate about immigration and all that----3181    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK, yes.3182    Secretary Wright [continuing]. But I am not sure exactly3183the question you are asking.3184    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So there are hundreds of thousands of3185legally documented immigrants here, many that work in the3186energy sector that, you know, are here under different kinds of3187authorizations, one being temporary protected status that Mr.3188Veasey had raised. And the administration is ending this status3189that provides a path to work permits, legal work permits for3190huge sectors of the workforce in the United States. Are you3191supportive of ending these work authorizations?3192    Secretary Wright. Again, I am not actively working on3193immigration----3194    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK.3195    Secretary Wright [continuing]. Policy and all that. I don't3196think I have a thoughtful----3197    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Understood.3198    Secretary Wright [continuing]. Response to that.3199    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Understood. I will get back to my3200question line.3201    In a February interview with Bloomberg, when asked what oil3202prices you are targeting as Secretary, you stated, ``Lower is3203better.'' And I take it you stand by that statement, correct?3204    Secretary Wright. Yes. In general, lower is better because3205there's far more consumers than producers.3206    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And even if that means oil company stock3207prices falling?3208    Secretary Wright. I don't think American consumers should3209worry about the stock prices of oil and gas companies.3210    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Great.3211    Secretary Wright. You do need a healthy sector to actually3212produce, but that is what a market mechanism does.3213    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Right.3214    Secretary Wright. It is--the cure for high prices is high3215prices, and the cure for low prices is low prices.3216    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And I think we are in agreement there.3217    Given your statement on aiming for lower oil prices, what3218are your stances on the President's tariffs that are increasing3219costs of production?3220    Secretary Wright. There's lots of impacts, and there's lots3221of things that impact the cost of production. Most of what the3222President is doing is going to meaningfully lower the cost of3223production. But his agenda to try to reshore heavy industry3224manufacturing in the United States, I think it is good for the3225country in the long run.3226    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. I would like to reclaim my3227time.3228    You know, there are several--there is an industrywide3229consensus here. There has also been a survey in March of oil3230and gas companies by the Dallas Fed, which were littered about3231complaints around uncertainty. Companies in this survey3232commented on the rising costs for materials like steel, which3233was subject to a 25 percent tariff at the time and is now3234subject to a 50 percent tariff as of June 4. Steel is,3235obviously, a very important input in oil and gas production and3236energy production writ large.3237    Mr. Chair, I would like to seek unanimous consent to enter3238these complaints into the record.3239    And Secretary--3240    Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.3241    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]3242    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.3243    Secretary Wright, how does the President's tariffs plan and3244policy, particularly around steel, align with lowering costs3245for reducing uncertainty?3246    Mr. Latta. Well, if I could interject, the lady's time has3247expired. If you could answer that in writing, it would be3248appreciated.3249    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.3250    Secretary Wright. I will do that.3251    Or we can talk another time.3252    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Great.3253    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The lady's time has expired, and the3254Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina's 7th3255district for 5 minutes for questions.3256    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Secretary Wright.3257Thank you for your testimony today, for joining us.3258    I represent the 7th district of South Carolina. It was one3259of the fastest-growing regions in the country. From the beaches3260in Myrtle Beach to the industry hubs of Florence, we are seeing3261a surge in population, in investment. And of course, with that,3262Mr. Secretary, comes energy demand.3263    Our economy is being transformed by advanced manufacturing,3264high-tech data centers, and a world-class digital3265infrastructure. And thankfully, South Carolina is leading by3266example. Over half of our electricity is generated by nuclear3267energy, which is clean, reliable, stable, is resilient. We are3268home to facilities like the Robinson plant in the district,3269which represents enormous potential for large-scale nuclear3270reactor development. We have a skilled workforce--South3271Carolina always has in this industry--and we have institutional3272expertise.3273    What we need now, I think, and what we have had problems3274with in the past under prior administrations is we need a3275Federal partnership to match that ambition. I think we have3276heard on the Oversight Committee last year the delays with the3277DOE under Secretary Granholm, about how the problems that they3278were facing--and that they at least were envisioning ways that3279they could cut through the red tape and make sure that we could3280plug in nuclear power in an affordable way in this country.3281    As you are aware, South Carolina is a leader in that3282national--or the nuclear energy, certainly with the Robinson3283plant and several others. What specific actions would you like3284the committee to consider, whether it is new legislative3285authority or regulatory streamlining, to ensure that the Loan3286Programs Office can fully support this next wave of nuclear3287development and deliver results for communities like mine in3288South Carolina?3289    Secretary Wright. Yes, great, great question.3290    The nuclear power industry has been hampered by, you know,3291a growing regulatory burden. I have used this example before,3292but if you brought Grand Central Station, the train station in3293midtown Manhattan, you know, to the NRC, it could not be3294permitted as a nuclear power plant because its radioactivity is3295too high. That is just naturally occurring radioactivity in the3296granite in the building.3297    So they use a thing called linear no-threshold. High-3298threshold radiation we know is very hazardous to human health,3299and then they extrapolate how hazardous, and they extrapolate3300that all the way down to zero to say that the tiniest amount of3301radiation, you know, is harmful. And so the thresholds below3302which you have to get are very hard to achieve and very3303expensive.3304    I lived in Colorado before I got my new job. There is a lot3305of extra radiation just living at high altitude, flying in an3306airplane. So to me, what we need is just reasonable regulation.3307Everybody wants to protect the environment and human health. My3308gosh, you know, we are a----3309    Mr. Fry. But specifically about the Loan Programs Office,3310how can that be synthesized? What can we examine with that from3311a congressional standpoint to make sure that that advancement3312occurs?3313    Secretary Wright. Sorry about that. On that, so we have put3314in a request. You know, we are concerned right now. We spend3315over $1.30 for every dollar we collect in taxes, so everything3316is very skinny right now. But we put in a $750 million credit3317subsidy request. If that got raised up and increased my lending3318authority for--to support nuclear projects, unquestionably that3319would be helpful.3320    The first nuclear plants that will be built won't be cheap,3321because the industry hasn't built much for 30 years, Vogtle3322aside. But we haven't built much for 30 years. And I can assure3323you it will be used responsibly behind credit-worthy equity3324investors. I think it a helpful tool to get----3325    Mr. Fry. Something like a VC Summer in Jenkinsville, South3326Carolina, potentially?3327    Secretary Wright. Yes.3328    Mr. Fry. That would be like a prime example of that?3329    Secretary Wright. Certainly. Absolutely. So I think--I am a3330believer that energy sources with time should stand on their3331own. But if you see an emerging thing like nuclear reemerging3332or geothermal just emerging, I think a Loan Programs Office for3333a finite time period there can be helpful to launch those3334emerging sources.3335    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that, Secretary. And looking ahead,3336how do you envision the Department supporting utilities and3337developers, investors trying to build out grid infrastructure3338that can handle the next generation of nuclear and data center3339load, particularly in rural areas? I think that is a big3340concern probably on both sides of the aisle, is a recognition3341that we need these things in rural communities.3342    Secretary Wright. Yes, and I did--we have heard permitting3343reform on both sides of the aisle. It is very important. We3344need to be able to build things in this country again, which is3345transmission lines or even just reconnecting transmission3346lines. We need to be able to build that infrastructure and----3347    Mr. Latta. And if I could----3348    Secretary Wright [continuing]. Connect plants where they3349are.3350    Mr. Latta [continuing]. Interject, the gentleman's time has3351expired. But if you would like to also answer that in written3352form, that would be great.3353    And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from3354Massachusetts' 4th district for 5 minutes for questions.3355    Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Mr. Chair.3356    Secretary, welcome. I appreciate your testimony today. You3357have spoken a lot about the power of markets to deliver energy3358dominance for the United States. I agree. I believe in markets.3359I think they work well, and they are the key for us to control3360our own energy destiny as a country.3361    Would you agree that one of the roles of government in3362making markets work better is to establish technology-neutral3363policy with clear, consistent, predictable regulation?3364    Secretary Wright. Yes. Clear, consistent regulation is very3365helpful for industry.3366    Mr. Auchincloss. And technology neutral?3367    Secretary Wright. That--it depends what you mean by that3368word.3369    Mr. Auchincloss. Well, the reason I ask is I represent3370Massachusetts, which had a number of projects in the works for3371offshore wind. And I understand a lot of my colleagues don't3372think offshore wind is going to work. I understand some3373investors don't think offshore wind is going to work.3374    Shouldn't markets be able to decide that for themselves?3375Like, if they are able to put steel in the water and deliver3376power reliably, why should the Federal Government cancel that?3377    Secretary Wright. I think it is a--I understand where you3378are coming from, Representative. It is a complicated question.3379And----3380    Mr. Auchincloss. Do you agree with what Secretary Burgum3381has done, where he has functionally issued a moratorium against3382offshore wind, including for States and developers that are3383willing to take on the risk and see if it can deliver?3384    Secretary Wright. The question is who is willing to take on3385the risk. The history of offshore wind, first in Europe and3386here, has been a train wreck. It has been higher electricity3387prices and less stable grids.3388    Mr. Auchincloss. Right. And State governments and private3389developers are well able to see the same track record that you3390are able to see. They are proposing to innovate and develop and3391take risks just like geothermal or nuclear. And I am not a3392technology expert for clean energy. I don't know if it is going3393to work. What I do know is I don't understand why one3394bureaucrat in Washington, DC, should be able to say yes or no,3395especially when you are pointing out, rightfully, that3396investors are not going to want to put billions of dollars down3397on the table over a decadal time span if a new administration3398comes in and rips up the contracts, right?3399    I mean, does this send a good signal to investors that they3400can put hundreds of millions of dollars down and it gets thrown3401out overnight?3402    Secretary Wright. It is a challenging issue of what the3403right thing to do with wind power. There is also a lot of3404public outrage just because the footprint, the physical3405footprint and the footprint of waters, is large. And so there3406is a growing movement of----3407    Mr. Auchincloss. Let's be candid.3408    Secretary Wright [continuing]. Rural people----3409    Mr. Auchincloss. The outrage is because there were offshore3410wind farms off the coast of Scotland and the President's golf3411course. That is why he is mad about it. And people who want to3412invest in new, clean energy sources should not have to worry3413about whether the next president does or does not like turbines3414off his golf course.3415    Let's talk about another issue, an issue where we may see3416more eye to eye, which is geothermal and nuclear. Strong3417supporter of both. I think they are critical. And you have3418already talked about the Loan Programs Office's really vital3419role in potentially both of them.3420    I was interested to hear the gentleman from South Carolina3421concerned about the LPO, because he voted, along with all the3422other Republicans in the reconciliation bill, to rescind nearly3423all of the LPO's unobligated credit subsidy.3424    Would you encourage the Senate and the House to restore the3425LPO's credit ability to issue loans as part of this3426reconciliation package?3427    Secretary Wright. I would.3428    Mr. Auchincloss. Great.3429    Secretary Wright. I think we have to be cautious and3430judicious with funds. And the Loan Programs Office, as I3431described, has a recent pretty poor track record. So I3432understand the reticence. But yes, I do think it is a helpful3433tool.3434    Mr. Auchincloss. Can you talk about the types of technology3435in nuclear and geothermal that you are most excited about? I am3436going to give you a minute here, because I know this is an area3437that you are excited about. Small modular? Are you are talking3438about large reactors?3439    And then geothermal, what are you seeing with the superhot3440rock geothermal like the microwave technology. Do you have any3441opinions on where are the most promising avenues of innovation?3442    Secretary Wright. Well, I think you mentioned several of3443them.3444    So yes, to me, energy should be about humans and math. So3445it is where the math works. So right now, using dry rock and3446sort of depth of shale wells, you know, 6 to 12,000 feet deep,3447that I think is rapidly becoming commercially viable to inject3448water, produce it out the other end, produce electricity.3449    Mr. Auchincloss. What about the millimeter technology, like3450from companies out of the plasma lab at MIT that are trying to3451go 7 to 10 miles deep?3452    Secretary Wright. Super exciting. So that is earlier stage.3453But yes, should we support research like that? A hundred3454percent. Could that be a big deal? Absolutely, it could be a3455big deal.3456    Mr. Auchincloss. Just to be clear: Those kind of3457technologies would rely on both the LPO and the tax credits3458that this reconciliation bill is threatening. I mean, we do3459need--for markets to bring innovation to bear across long-time3460cycles and a lot of uncertainty, you do need public dollars and3461regulation to derisk private capital, yes?3462    Secretary Wright. I have advocated in this legislation3463right now to have nuclear, geothermal, and fusion as three3464emerging sources to get tax credit treatment, you know, maybe3465through an end date. Like if you are under construction by34662031----3467    Mr. Auchincloss. And I appreciate that.3468    Secretary Wright. It has to have an end date, but I am with3469you.3470    Mr. Auchincloss. I understand it.3471    Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time----3472    Mr. Auchincloss. And you and I both know the reconciliation3473bill does not do that right now.3474    Mr. Latta [continuing]. Has expired, and----3475    Mr. Auchincloss. I yield back.3476    Mr. Latta [continuing]. Yields back, thank you very much.3477The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama's 6th3478district for 5 minutes for questions.3479    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.3480    Mr. Secretary, I want to talk with you about a couple of3481other issues that really impact energy, and that is our access3482to critical minerals and rare earth elements, and the ability3483to process and refine those. I think that it is very clear now3484it is not only a threat to our economy, but to our national3485security.3486    Can you address the power needs that we are going to have3487if we are able to ensure the processing and refineries for rare3488earth elements?3489    Secretary Wright. Yes, Representative. I think you have3490raised a key point.3491    Look, China has made a multidecade strategic decision to3492own the supply chain for rare earth elements and the magnets3493that are constructed from them, and they are in an amazing3494amount of devices across our economy and across the developed3495world's economies. And we are vulnerable right now. We should3496be able to do that in the United States, and it is a case where3497I think we need to figure out how to make that happen.3498    I will be next month at a mine in Wyoming. That will be the3499first rare earth element mine opened in this country in 703500years. But a mine is not enough.3501    Mr. Palmer. Right.3502    Secretary Wright. We need that processing and refining done3503in this country, and it is an urgent effort to assure a better3504domestic supply of critical minerals that are important to our3505economy and our national security.3506    Mr. Palmer. There is basically two types of rare earth3507elements. You have got the heavy elements that require even3508more refining technology, and it is a very power-demand3509industry. In order to meet that, we are obviously going to have3510to build out our generation capabilities. You and I have had3511this discussion before about how we have shuttered almost 3003512coal or hydrocarbon power generation facilities. The3513transmission lines are still there.3514    One of the things that I am looking at, and I would like3515for you to comment on it, is looking particularly in some of3516the more remote areas using small modular reactors--which my3517Democratic colleagues, I think, are on board with--to match the3518generation capacity of the SMRs to the capacity of the3519transmission lines, but also look at those as possible sites3520for a processing or refining facility. Any thoughts about that?3521    Secretary Wright. I think it is a great idea, as well. You3522are right. These refining facilities, just like data centers,3523are energy intensive, and they are only going to be here if3524they have affordable, reliable energy. And small modular3525reactors and different nuclear technologies are fantastic3526candidates to do just that.3527    Mr. Palmer. Well, the other thing about it, too, is that3528when you create this additional demand for power, it is--you3529start pricing out residential and other business and3530commercial. And we want to do this in a way that it doesn't3531raise prices. So we have got to be really smart, really3532strategic about building out our power generation so that we3533not only can address what I think is clearly an economic and3534national security issue in our reliance on China for refined3535critical minerals and rare earth elements, but also at the same3536time not do harm to the economy, not do harm to middle-class3537Americans.3538    So, again, you and I have kind of talked about this a3539little bit. You take an all-of-the-above approach, but to do3540this we cannot do it with renewables. You have got to have a3541reliable baseload. And when you have the--on the same power3542generation facility residential, commercial, and then these3543heavy industries, you have got to have a consistent baseload3544that is also able to meet these peak demands. Is that accurate?3545    Secretary Wright. That is accurate. I agree very much,3546Representative.3547    And I think you make another critical point, not just that3548we need to keep the cost down but to keep Americans on side3549with the reindustrialization of this country. If they see3550factories and data centers come, and all they are--paying their3551bills becomes more expensive, they are not going to support3552what we are doing. But if it brings jobs and economic3553opportunity and doesn't drive up the price of electricity, we3554start an American renaissance of manufacturing.3555    Mr. Palmer. I have only been here 10 years in Congress, but3556I have worked for 2 international engineering companies, I ran3557a think tank for almost 25 years, so I have kind of followed3558people who fill your position as Secretary of Energy. And I3559have never in my experience experienced someone like you and3560your whole philosophy. And I would like for you to comment on3561that.3562    You put out this publication on bettering human lives, and3563your whole perspective about energy policy is focused on3564bettering human lives. Could you just comment on that?3565    And after he finishes, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.3566    Secretary Wright. Yes, I say only two things matter with3567energy: humans and math.3568    Mr. Latta. Ten seconds, thank you.3569    Secretary Wright. Right? We only produce energy for one3570reason: to make our lives better. It shouldn't be political. We3571shouldn't give it stupid names like ``clean'' or ``renewable''3572or ``dirty.'' These are just marketing terms. We should be3573serious about energy because we want to better human lives.3574    Mr. Palmer. Thank you for the job you are doing.3575    I yield back.3576    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. The gentleman yields back, and3577the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's 15th3578district for 5 minutes for questions.3579    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr.3580Secretary, for being here today.3581    Last August, President Trump promised to cut energy prices3582in half within a year, but it looks like he is going to fall3583far short of that goal. According to the latest forecast by3584your agency, national electricity rates are going to increase3585this year by 5 percent, which would outpace predicted3586inflation. Now we are faced with a proposed budget that will3587raise the prices of electricity and natural gas for everyday3588Americans.3589    The Senate is considering a reconciliation bill that would3590kill clean energy tax credits that were created in the Bush3591administration. By definition, this will make energy more3592expensive. Some Senate Republicans acknowledge these changes3593would ``translate into immediate utility bill increases,3594placing additional strain on hard-working Americans.'' Multiple3595studies have shown this would increase energy bills by as much3596as $400 a year for an average household.3597    So, Mr. Secretary, please tell me: What is your agency's3598plan to protect consumers from increases on their energy bills?3599    Secretary Wright. We need to do everything we can to3600unleash more energy production in the United States and reduce3601regulatory burdens. I think we have accomplished a lot in 1203602days, but the energy system is large and complicated. And can3603you turn this ship on a dime in 120 days? No. But I think this3604administration and the President's actions have done a lot to3605change the trajectory on the energy prices going forward. Most3606energy prices, actually, that consumers see actually are lower3607today than they were a year ago, and they are lower today than3608they were at inauguration.3609    Your comment that by getting rid of subsidies by definition3610will make energy more expensive in this rare case is actually3611untrue. The subsidies on wind and solar, which have cost the3612Government over $100 billion, have actually led to not only3613that cost, they have made electricity bills more expensive. So3614they are the worst subsidies in that they actually make the3615product more expensive at the end.3616    Mr. Mullin. We will disagree with that assertion, sir.3617Amidst rising costs, your agency, along with Health and Human3618Services, has proposed to completely eliminate programs that3619help families with their bills. Specifically, I am referring to3620the Weatherization Assistance Program, which lowers costs for3621consumers, and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program,3622known as LIHEAP. I am sure you are familiar with that. It helps3623households afford their utility bills.3624    Seven million Americans rely on these programs, helping3625families not to have to choose between putting food on the3626table and paying their electricity bill. Last year in my3627district, over 1,600 households used LIHEAP or Weatherization3628Assistance Programs, all of which--almost all of which--were3629elderly, disabled, or those with young children. So please tell3630me why you want to eliminate those programs.3631    Secretary Wright. I am very passionate, like you are,3632Representative, about energy costs. I want to do everything in3633our power to lower the cost of energy for low-income families,3634which is number one, which is why the policies over the last 43635years and broadly over the last 20 years that have made it3636harder to produce energy in this country and have forced onto3637our grid intermittent, unreliable sources that necessarily make3638the grid more expensive to operate--I have said they have not3639only been economic wrong, I view them as immoral.3640    In your State of California, you had similar electricity3641prices to California 15 years ago. Today they are twice, and3642you have the highest adjusted poverty rate in the Nation in the3643State of California. And the core of that is making electricity3644expensive, and pushing jobs out of the State, and impoverishing3645low-income people.3646    I am with you. We should go the opposite direction, not3647that direction.3648    Mr. Mullin. During your Senate confirmation hearing just 43649months ago, you stated, ``I have studied and followed the data3650and the evolution of climate change for at least 20 years now.3651It is a global issue. It is a real issue. It is a challenging3652issue. And the solution to climate change is to evolve our3653energy system.'' I couldn't agree more, Mr. Secretary.3654    So despite that clear assertion, your proposed budget3655request rolls back billions from innovation initiatives and3656from clean energy programs, the very efforts that are central3657to evolving our energy system--including those with California3658leadership, by the way, thank you for that.3659    Do you believe your energy agency has a role in cutting3660emissions and protecting Americans from the impacts of climate3661change?3662    Secretary Wright. The way to cut emissions, as I said then3663and as I say now, is to move to new energy technologies,3664natural gas displacing coal as the largest source of3665electricity in the United States. Coal is still by far the3666biggest globally, but gas is second and growing fast. Nuclear3667is the reliable, dispatchable energy source we have that has--3668there is no such thing as zero, but has lower greenhouse gas3669emissions. Geothermal is another one.3670    But again, to try to follow the model of California or3671Germany or England, if you make electricity expensive you just3672impoverish people, and industry just leaves that State. It is3673not part of fighting climate change, it is just part of3674impoverishing people and relocating industry to lower-cost3675energy places. That is not the path for climate change, in my3676opinion.3677    Mr. Latta. And the gentleman's time has expired, and yields3678back, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from3679Colorado's 8th district for 5 minutes for questions.3680    Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and, of3681course, thank you, Secretary Wright. So good to see a fellow3682Coloradan here, not the least of which being--I am going to try3683to squeeze in four questions, so I don't have to lay out for3684you the situation in Colorado. So straight to the first3685question.3686    We know that in the part of the State that I represent we3687have got a lot of oil and gas workers drilling. Can you talk3688about how the Department, your Department, can work with that3689existing workforce to increase projects that are happening3690around geothermal and that baseload generation from geothermal3691power?3692    Secretary Wright. Yes, and great to see you, Congressman3693Evans. I appreciate your service.3694    Yes, the next-generation geothermal that is coming along3695right now, we used to call it hot dry rock. Now they call it3696enhanced geothermal systems. It uses oil and gas technology,3697uses shale well technology to drill into dry rocks that don't3698have any hydrocarbons in them but are just hot, and inject3699once--you know, drill and frack wells, inject water into it,3700flow it through the rock, and produce them out of other wells.3701    So it is very much the same kind of training and work base3702as people working in oil and gas in Colorado. In fact, the same3703companies are--not only could, but they are interested in3704developing that next-generation geothermal resources.3705    Colorado has these resources in place. There is a 400-3706megawatt project under development in neighboring Utah. But can3707that also happen in Colorado? Absolutely. And if that activity3708starts to go, is there a workforce that is excited and willing3709to go into that? Absolutely. Will a number of those come from3710the oil and gas industry? I am sure they will.3711    Mr. Evans. Great. Great to hear that. Next question. You3712know, unfortunately, we know that there is an epidemic of3713premature retiring baseload-generating stations. Colorado alone3714accounts for 10 percent of the baseload power in the Nation3715that is forecast to come offline this year. And so, while we3716know we need to reverse that trend, we also know that there are3717certain bottlenecks and regulatory barriers to being able to3718get the dispatchable baseload power that we need.3719    So for the present moment, can you speak to the importance3720of variable power--wind and solar--coupled with battery to meet3721the energy demands of the present moment?3722    Secretary Wright. Yes. So, look, solar has made tremendous3723technical progress, you know, in the last 10 years, and I think3724continues to do it. So if--for example, if you are an island3725energy grid and you are getting your power from diesel, and you3726could supplement that with solar, you can burn less diesel, you3727can drive down your electricity costs, in domestic United3728States, where we can pull from all different energy sources.3729    Solar has applications in some areas and below a certain3730penetration level. But until you can get multiple days of3731energy stored, it is going to be a supplemental energy source.3732    But in summertime, where peak demand is near the end of the3733day, if you have solar panels there and you have a few hours of3734battery storage, you can move that late-afternoon electricity3735into the peak demand time before people go to bed. So it can3736play a role, and without subsidies you will get wiser decisions3737about where does it make sense and where does it not make3738sense.3739    So nothing in what I have said to get rid of these3740subsidies says get rid of the technology. Solar is going to be3741around, it is going to be around for the long run. And I think3742it continues to grow. But even in an optimistic scenario, it3743doesn't likely ever get to 10 percent of global energy. Not3744just electricity, it is just one slice of energy. But I think3745solar has a future, and any technology with a future can3746survive and should survive without subsidies. You know, 253747years maybe is enough.3748    Mr. Evans. Thank you. And then, let's see, we got 1 minute3749and 4 seconds left.3750    So the United States hasn't tested a new reactor design in3751close to 50 years, nuclear reactor design. President Trump3752recently expressed a desire to see a test by July 4, 2026. What3753can Congress do to provide you and the Department with the3754resources needed to expedite the testing of a reactor for3755commercial use by 2026?3756    Secretary Wright. Yes, so our goal there is at the Idaho3757National Laboratory--which is our sort of commercial nuclear3758lab in Idaho--they have got a lot of land there and a3759tremendous amount of just fantastic scientists, so--and there3760are commercial businesses that have new reactor designs coming3761up. We want to get them into our test containment vessel and3762run them.3763    So I think what--building nuclear as more of a bipartisan3764issue in this Congress has been helpful. Look, to really3765unleash nuclear going forward, the NRC has got to become more3766efficient and more sensible in regulations. We have got to3767get--if you approved your reactor design and it is a small3768modular reactor, you are going to build the same reactor. You3769can't have to start from new every time. We just got to3770evaluate the new site location.3771    So commonsense permitting reform at NRC is helpful, and3772that is certainly under the jurisdiction of this Congress. But3773we are working it at the administration level, as well. I have3774got some optimism there, Representative Evans. But yes, it is3775going to take us all working together.3776    Mr. Latta. And the gentleman's time has expired and yields3777back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from3778California's 25th district for 5 minutes for questions.3779    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.3780    Secretary Wright, it is nice to meet you. I represent3781California's 25th district. It is the southeast corner of3782California, an area with one of the Nation's most promising3783opportunities for battery manufacturing and critical mineral3784development. It also produces the most renewable energy on3785Federal land than any district in the United States. So we have3786an abundance of solar power, wind, and geothermal energy.3787    And I know you are here to discuss the budget, but to3788highlight what this budget means for my district and for our3789Nation's energy future and security, I need to tell you about3790the real impacts of these budgets for the people in my district3791and our Nation's potential, because it determines whether their3792families can breathe clean air, whether young people find good3793jobs at home, and whether rural and low-income communities are3794included in this energy future or left behind.3795    You see, critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, nickel,3796and rare earth elements power our phones, cars, and electric3797grids, yet we are far too dependent on foreign adversaries,3798especially China, for their supply and processing, and3799including for batteries. This dependance isn't just an economic3800vulnerability, it is a national security threat that demands a3801bold domestic solution. And that solution, Mr. Secretary, is3802right here in Lithium Valley, domestically located in Imperial3803County within my district.3804    We sit on the world's fifth-largest lithium deposit3805accessible through a closed-loop system while we produce3806geothermal energy because it is carbon free, and it basically3807takes the geothermal brine and extracts the lithium out of3808there, and all these other critical minerals as well.3809    We have so much lithium that I want to put it into3810perspective. The lithium reserves in Lithium Valley alone can3811supply enough battery-grade lithium to power over 3 million3812electric vehicles, significantly reducing our dependance on3813foreign supply chain while driving domestic manufacturing and3814good jobs. And I know some people are averse to electric3815vehicles, but we have enough lithium to produce the batteries3816that we are going to need for AI and the future industries and3817technology that we need.3818    But here is the challenge: Sometimes, you know, they are3819located in areas where we need more development. Imperial3820County is one of the most underserved and economically3821disadvantaged regions in the country. It is an area hungry for3822jobs, hungry for infrastructure and investments. There's been a3823lot of investments already to develop workforce development3824with local community colleges, a lot of investments to pave the3825roads and fix the bridges in order for us to anticipate the3826mass production of this lithium.3827    So I want to ask you, you know, how will the DOE help3828ensure that critical minerals funding reaches these rural and3829underresourced regions like Imperial County, and that companies3830in Lithium Valley have the tools, workforce, and certainty3831needed to grow and deliver on this national priority?3832    Secretary Wright. Yes, I appreciate very much your comments3833and questions. And yes, affordable, reliable power should be3834for everyone, particularly--rural communities face great3835challenges in this area because you can't bring3836industrialization without affordable energy there.3837    I am quite excited about the opportunity with lithium in3838the brine and hot brines to get energy out of it, to get3839critical minerals out of it. I share your passion and3840excitement for that and would absolutely love to see a3841development go forward with that. That is certainly one of the3842things that is--will be evaluated at the Department of Energy.3843But there's a lot of positive ingredients going on for what you3844have got going on in that community.3845    Mr. Ruiz. Well, I know that company Energy Source is3846currently negotiating one of the loans with the Department of3847Energy, and I encourage that process to come to completion so3848that we have the capacity of mass producing lithium within3849months, less than a year. And that is something that we really3850need.3851    I have sent you a couple letters, so--I am inviting you to3852the district. So I am going to take the opportunity here face3853to face, eye to eye, and ask you if you would commit to come3854into the district, see firsthand what the progress has been3855made in this arena. Your predecessor has done that, and I would3856love for you to come by. And you will see that there is a lot3857of bipartisan support for this development.3858    Secretary Wright. I would love to as well. I think it is an3859exciting area of potential development, and I am interested to3860go with you to tour that. A schedule I can't commit to right3861now, but I will go out there with you.3862    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.3863    Secretary Wright. And I think it is worthwhile.3864    I should say one last thing about electric vehicles. I--or,3865I think, anyone in this administration--don't oppose electric3866vehicles. They are neat, and they are dominantly bought by3867wealthy people. We are just opposed to American taxpayers3868subsidizing wealthy people to buy electric vehicles. We are not3869against electric vehicles. And they are like solar. They are3870going to continue to grow too.3871    Mr. Latta. If I could interject, the gentleman's time has3872expired, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York's387323rd district for 5 minutes for questions.3874    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.3875    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today and answering3876our questions.3877    As a Member from New York State, I have seen firsthand how3878States like mine with overly aggressive, rush-to-green policies3879worked hand in hand with the Biden-era Department of Energy to3880advance their radical agenda, jeopardizing affordability,3881reliability, and price for ordinary Americans in the process.3882    So looking at the Department's State energy offices, Mr.3883Secretary, what action is the Department taking or planning to3884take to reset the direction of the DOE's State energy office3885funding to ensure that it better supports affordability,3886reliability, and technological neutrality?3887    Secretary Wright. Congressman, I will have to get back to3888you on that, on the State energy offices. I have not been--I3889have been directly involved with talking to numerous Governors3890about energy policy, but not directly through the State energy3891offices. I wish I was more informed on that.3892    Mr. Langworthy. OK, great. And we will follow up with you3893on that.3894    And has DOE considered creating a funding category3895specifically for States seeking to expand dispatchable energy,3896modernize their grid baseload capacity, or preserve3897affordability rather than aggressively pursuing climate3898benchmarks?3899    Secretary Wright. Well, our view on funding has not been so3900much State by State as project by project. But yes, as you3901said, projects that are going to deliver affordable energy and3902drive down energy costs and grow energy supplies, those are the3903kind of projects we are looking to support. And things on the3904other side that are ultimately going to make energy more3905expensive or less reliable, we are--you know, the math on them3906doesn't pencil out as well. So less of the money is going to go3907in that direction.3908    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I would like to3909end my time here focused on President Trump's Executive order3910signed April 8, titled, ``Protecting American Energy from State3911Overreach.'' How is the Department interpreting this Executive3912order?3913    And has the Department taken any steps to identify State-3914level energy mandates or regulations that may be inconsistent3915with the Federal interest in energy affordability and3916reliability?3917    Secretary Wright. We are looking at that, both through our3918legal team--and I should maybe not--I don't have too much to3919elaborate on that right there.3920    But in your State, your great State of New York, I should3921say, is an area I and others in our Department have focused on3922because it affects--the actions of New York have impacted not3923just New York and New Yorkers, but all of New England. So the3924two natural gas pipelines, the Constitution pipeline and the3925NESE pipeline, would have lowered the cost of electricity in3926New York State, lowered the cost of heating, home heating, in3927New York State, improved air quality by converting a lot of3928legacy-fuel-oil-burning heating systems in people's houses to3929natural gas, and brought more natural gas through your State3930into New England so they could also lower their electricity3931prices, their home heating costs, and their ability to build3932industry.3933    So to your point, it is sort of a poster child of State3934actions that hurt the residents of your own State and of3935neighboring States. And to go that--take that one step further,3936the tremendous Marcellus Shale that has changed not just U.S.3937but world energy circumstances, it goes under the State of New3938York as well. Western and central New York--3939    Mr. Langworthy. I represent the Marcellus Shale in my3940district. And, you know, they have truly stolen a generational3941opportunity that could have transformed our economy, could have3942lowered our home heating costs, and provided plentiful natural3943gas throughout the northeastern States. And as one of the only3944northeastern members on this committee, I think this is an3945important platform to have that conversation.3946    And I really appreciate you bringing that up because, you3947know, we have a war on natural gas, unfortunately, in New York3948and many other New England, you know, area States. And it is3949taking our economies in the wrong direction.3950    Secretary Wright. I think your leadership here is so3951important. You represent that district. And to give--you said a3952war on natural gas in your State. Well, what is New York's3953biggest source of electricity by far and away? Natural gas.3954    Mr. Langworthy. Gas.3955    Secretary Wright. And they passed a law saying you can't3956heat your home with natural gas, you have to heat it with3957electricity, which means instead of burning 1 unit of gas, you3958have got to burn 2\1/2\ units of gas at the power plant and3959then transport it via transmission lines and make home heating39603 times as expensive and burn twice as much gas to do it. That3961is not a war on natural gas, which is what New York relies on.3962That is just a war on common sense and a war on your citizens.3963    Mr. Langworthy. Common sense is missing in the State of New3964York. I would love to work with you on finding a plan and3965finding any Federal interest where we can try to repower our3966shuttered coal power plants in the western end of our State3967into, you know, clean natural gas plants, and put some real3968power on the grid, instead of taking power off at all times.3969    So I really thank you for being with us, Secretary.3970    Secretary Wright. I look forward to working with you,3971Congressman.3972    Mr. Langworthy. All right, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.3973    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired, and3974yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from3975Louisiana's 2nd district for 5 minutes for questions.3976    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank3977you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I represent Louisiana,3978which has served as America's gas station for the past century,3979drilling, refining, and shipping oil and gas worldwide.3980    Just like our innovation, it is traditional energy3981resources--has become an economic boon for America. Investments3982and other forms of energy could transform Louisiana's economy.3983We must do so, and I think you will agree--because you have3984said comments to this effect--that we should do it in a way3985that we protect communities, that we recognize our number-one3986commodity are healthy communities, healthy people, making sure3987that they have access to clean water and clean air. So I3988appreciate your agreeing in that regard.3989    Louisiana has the existing infrastructure and skilled3990energy workforce to be a leader in the 21st century energy. Our3991expertise can be leveraged to develop emerging energy sectors3992like offshore wind and hydrogen. Port Fourchon, our deepwater3993port in coastal Lafourche Parish, is ideal for building,3994deploying, and maintaining offshore wind projects.3995Additionally, abundant natural resources and pipeline access3996across Louisiana can support large-scale hydrogen production3997and distribution.3998    However, the Trump administration's actions has halted new3999offshore wind leases and permitted--permitting and approvals4000for existing projects. These decisions have cast uncertainty4001over hundreds of megawatts of planned offshore wind capacity.4002Meanwhile, according to a recent Bloomberg report, the current4003vision of the Republican reconciliation bill will severely4004limit the amount of renewable energy capacity the U.S. adds4005over the next decade, when solar and storage capacity would4006drop by 10 percent by 2035. The impact of wind power would be4007most severe, with new capacity shrinking by 35 percent and no4008offshore wind additions in 2028.4009    Secretary Wright, in your confirmation hearings you4010committed to an all-of-the-above energy strategy--and I applaud4011that--to include both conventional forms of energy as well as4012renewable energy. But you have appeared before the House4013Committee last month and said, ``I have never been for all of4014the above myself.''4015    So which is it, sir? Can we count on you to be for all of4016the above?4017    We know that this is important. We know what we have to do4018as Americans. We cannot do the same old thing expecting a4019different result. Our world is changing. Our climate is4020changing. Wouldn't you agree that we have to do better than4021what we have done?4022    Secretary Wright. Well, I have been about improvement and4023innovation in energy my whole life. As a 17-year-old kid I went4024to college to work on fusion energy. I worked on solar energy4025in graduate school and geothermal right after. I only got to4026oil and gas a little bit later.4027    So Congressman, I appreciate your passion on these issues,4028but I have never been for all of the above. And if I said it at4029one point in time, I misspoke. I have always been--tried to4030always be very careful in my words, that energy is too4031important to mean everything, just do it all. My thing about4032energy----4033    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Are you against solar?4034    Secretary Wright. What?4035    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Are you against wind? Are you4036against wind?4037    Secretary Wright. I am against energy sources that make the4038energy system more expensive or less reliable. Solar has4039applications in many different energy systems around the world.4040Heck, there is probably even a few places where wind itself4041would be a positive for an energy system.4042    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. So these arev--these are all the4043above. These are----4044    Secretary Wright. In----4045    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. We are talking about--and we may4046have to do them in size and scale, but I think you will agree4047that we can't afford to leave meaningful opportunities on the4048table if we want to maximize healthy outcomes for communities4049while making sure that we remain a robust energy producer.4050    Secretary Wright. You come from a great energy-producing4051State, and I share your passion for more energy. But mostly4052what we have done with the subsidies through the Federal4053Government for wind and solar has mostly been negative. We have4054incentivized rich people and rich companies to build energy4055things that have----4056    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I don't want to cut you off, sir,4057because there is so much that we have to say. I just want to--4058--4059    Secretary Wright. All right, you go.4060    Mr. Carter of Louisiana [continuing]. Get a few things in4061real quickly.4062    The State of Louisiana Hubs for Energy Resilience Operation4063Hero Project won a $250 million Federal award. There are4064programs like this that are so important for our communities.4065Projects for Together New Orleans, these communities will serve4066the residents for cooling-off places. Their grants have been4067suspended. Can I get you to commit to at least revisiting them4068with me to see if there is a way to revive them and bring them4069in the mainstream?4070    These programs matter to the people in my district, and4071they are ones that have been tested, they have gone through the4072appropriation process in a bipartisan way and survived.4073    Secretary Wright. Let's look into that together. I am not4074sure exactly what you are referring to, but let's look into4075that.4076    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And Mr. Chairman, if I could have407710 seconds, I will just say--4078    Mr. Latta. Well, the gentleman's time has expired. Votes4079are going to be called in 10 minutes, and we have--4080    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I just want to correct one record4081on Louisiana blackouts.4082    Mr. Latta. But if you could submit that----4083    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I will submit it in writing.4084    There were some comments that were made about blackouts in4085Louisiana. I just want to correct the record----4086    Mr. Latta. Thank you.4087    Mr. Carter of Louisiana [continuing]. That they may not4088have been told--4089    Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired.4090    Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.4091    Mr. Latta [continuing]. And the Chair now recognizes the4092gentleman from Pennsylvania, the vice chair of the full4093committee, for 5 minutes for questions.4094    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,4095Secretary Wright, for appearing here today.4096    Right now the United States is in the pole position when it4097comes to advancing artificial intelligence. But just as in any4098race, competitors, and specifically China, is right behind us.4099By the end of the decade, the data centers necessary for this4100AI could consume almost 10 percent of all electricity in the4101United States.4102    In Pennsylvania we have that necessary natural gas that you4103just mentioned to meet the increased demand and beat China in4104the AI race. If America wants to remain in the lead, it will4105require an all-of-government approach to follow through on4106President Trump's Executive orders and restore American energy4107dominance.4108    Secretary Wright, your Department--you know this--will play4109a critical role in this work. One of the challenges that you4110will have to navigate is to balance between new energy demand4111for data centers and maintaining reliability for the electric4112grid. Recently, the DOE issued an emergency section 202(c)4113order requiring the operation of two legacy generation units in4114the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania past their planned4115retirements, citing--dutifully noted, as well--concern with4116resource adequacy and reliability.4117    Federal policy from the Biden administration that4118disincentivizes the development of new, dispatchable energy4119generation made your actions ultimately necessary. Now, with4120the Trump administration and your leadership, we need to4121expedite these long-delayed reliability measures. How can the4122DOE collaborate with State governments and authorities to4123ensure timely development and connection of new baseload power4124so that the legacy systems can be taken offline as planned?4125    Secretary Wright. Yes, that is a great question and4126comments, Congressman. And in fact, just last week I spent an4127hour or so with some developers trying to do a very large4128project in your State that would take a legacy coal plant,4129convert it to natural gas, expand the size of it far beyond4130where it was, colocate data centers there, and that is exactly4131what we want to see happen in this country.4132    And as you said, winning the AI race isn't a nice to have,4133it is a have to have. This is a national security issue if4134China gets ahead of us in AI.4135    And so what we are trying to do is get lists--and it is not4136just the Energy Department, it is the Federal Government--we4137are trying to get lists of what are the roadblocks for you to4138get this permit or to do that, what are your problems? And let4139us dig into the Government and find out how we can address4140those issues.4141    But it is about permitting. It is about moving some of the4142regulatory morass out of the way. Ultimately, we are going to4143have to fix the Clean Power Plan 2.0 that requires this carbon4144sequestration, you know, 10 years out into the future. Like,4145that is just not going to happen. But if that law is in there,4146it is a huge disincentive to build new power infrastructure.4147    So there's many things that need to be done. But you are4148right. Pennsylvania, you know, tremendous legacy as a coal4149mining State. Now it has got the greatest natural gas field in4150the world under your State. I think with commonsense4151government, the future of Pennsylvania could be very, very4152bright.4153    Mr. Joyce. Well, thank you. And I think that your ability4154to recognize that will allow those data centers to continue to4155be developed in previous--to your point--in previous settings4156that were coal-powered plants moving on.4157    Part of ensuring a reliable power grid is creating an4158inviting and predictable environment for new infrastructure4159investment. While it is imperative that we ensure Federal4160dollars are only being used for a worthwhile process, the4161review of many of the grants and loans made by the last4162administration was truly a lengthy one. Even projects that4163align with Trump's administration goals to unleash American4164energy can be left in an unsteady environment as the reviews4165continue to unfold. This dynamic can have a cooling effect on4166the desperately needed investment in generation, in4167infrastructure, and in innovation.4168    How can the DOE help provide more confidence to4169stakeholders who need to make time-sensitive investment4170decisions while working through the investigation of waste,4171fraud, and abuse?4172    Mr. Latta. Mr. Secretary, if you could, do that in 254173seconds.4174    Secretary Wright. Very fair question, Representative, and4175we are moving as fast as we can. We have got a process in4176place. We have a team in place. We are getting through, you4177know, maybe a dozen or more projects a week, maybe more than a4178dozen projects a week. And so, by the end of this summer or4179middle of this summer, we are going to have clarity on most of4180the big projects. I want to do it as fast as I can, but given4181that track record I got to do it responsibly. But I hear your4182concern, and let's stay in touch.4183    Mr. Joyce. Thank you again for your leadership in this.4184    I yield back.4185    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the4186Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan's 6th4187district for 5 minutes for questions.4188    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.4189    And Mr. Secretary, welcome. We haven't had a chance to4190really meet. I am from Michigan, and I am a car girl. I care4191deeply about the domestic auto industry. It has been my whole4192life.4193    But since the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law,4194Michigan has led the clean energy manufacturing boom. We have4195seen over $40 billion in the private investment and more than419625,000 new jobs created, with projections for up to 167,0004197clean energy jobs over the next decade. And it is happening4198right now in retooled EV plants, battery factories, and in4199rural and underserved communities across my State.4200    But 6 months into this administration, we have already seen4201$14.2 billion in investments stalled or canceled in Michigan,4202jeopardizing over 2,600 jobs. This is troubling to me, but I--4203these spendings aren't--these investments aren't just about4204public spending. They have unlocked historic private capital.4205    Repealing the Clean Energy Tax Credits risks nearly $404206billion in Michigan investment alone. And meanwhile, China is4207watching, and they are more than willing and ready to seize the4208market share we are giving up. And I am glad to hear you say4209you like EVs, and I don't want to ban the internal combustion4210engine. I think we need both. I am seasoned, not old enough to4211remember the 1970s, when the Japanese beat us. We weren't ready4212with small cars when gasoline prices went up.4213    Well, here is a reality now: The global market wants EVs.4214That is a reality. And China is subsidizing the manufacturing4215of electric vehicles, they are manipulating their currency,4216they are using slave labor. And EVs have to be part of our4217product mix.4218    Is forfeiting this market share to the Chinese Communist4219Party a smart manufacturing strategy? Do we have data that says4220canceling these investments helps America's competitiveness?4221And have we looked at how many jobs this is going to cost us?4222    Secretary Wright. So, Representative, I love your passion,4223and I want to see Michigan reindustrialize again. It has got4224such a proud, beautiful history, and I truly believe it has a4225proud, beautiful future, as well.4226    Mrs. Dingell. We have to make--you and I got to work4227together to make sure we put the world on wheels, and we are4228going to keep the world on mobility. No other country can beat4229us.4230    Secretary Wright. I love it, and I agree. I agree. You said4231a lot of things I agree with 100 percent.4232    Number one, EVs and internal combustion, we want them both.4233Consumers are going to decide. Electric vehicles are growing,4234and they are exciting, and they are going to keep growing, and4235that is awesome. And Americans should be the best builders of4236electric vehicles there are, period. And I want that4237wholeheartedly.4238    China, as you said, illegally subsidizes their4239marketplaces. They are doing it to try to undermine your State4240and your industry. There is no question they are doing that.4241    And the United States, I think a lot through tariffs, is4242going to stop these Chinese things that are not built in the4243same setting. You even mentioned slave labor. Literally, that4244is true.4245    Mrs. Dingell. I know.4246    Secretary Wright. So yes, we have got to reenergize,4247redrive, readvance American industry, and there's many ways to4248do that. I am in line with a lot of those, which is regulatory4249environment, bring capital--in fact, the trip we did to the4250Middle East, everyone thought we were over there talking about4251oil prices. We pretty much never talked about oil prices. We4252talked about, literally, the trillions of dollars that these4253countries are developing by developing their energy resources4254that they want to invest in the United States.4255    And what do they want to invest in? They want to invest in4256energy infrastructure in the United States and manufacturing4257and industrialization of the United States.4258    There is a ton of private capital that wants to come to our4259country and do the mission you just passionately went on about.4260So I will tell you, this administration and myself personally4261are probably way more aligned with you than you think we are.4262    Mrs. Dingell. Well, we are out of time, and I know my chair4263is going to--we have 45 seconds. I want to invite you to come4264to Michigan. I want to work with you on EVs. We have to stop4265giving them a bad name, because we can't compete in the global4266marketplace if people don't know that we here in America are4267going to build those vehicles and outbuild China.4268    But they are competing with us. Communist China wants to4269destroy our auto industry, and you and I have to work together4270to make sure that doesn't happen.4271    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will yield back.4272    Mr. Latta. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair4273recognizes the ranking member, I believe, for a couple of4274documents be put into the record.4275    Ms. Castor. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to4276ask unanimous consent to submit to the record.4277    The first is an article from the New York Times from June42784. The Secretary said in general he supports--he thinks low4279prices are better. This is a great summary: Electricity prices4280are surging, the GOP mega-bill could push them higher. I4281recommend that to you.4282    And then----4283    Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.4284    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]4285    Ms. Castor. And then the reference to Florida's low4286electricity rates, just--this is--I also recommend for your4287reading. This is--right now, just over the past couple of4288months, they have asked for the largest rate hike request in4289U.S. history up in the panhandle, and we continue to grapple4290with higher rates. So I will recommend that to you.4291    Mr. Latta. And without objection, so ordered.4292    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]4293    Ms. Castor. And I thank the Secretary for his appearance4294here today.4295    I yield back.4296    Secretary Wright. Thank you for those materials.4297    Mr. Latta. And seeing no other Members wishing to be4298recognized to ask questions today, Mr. Secretary, we appreciate4299you appearing before us today.4300    Members have additional--may have additional questions for4301you. I will remind Members that they have 10 business days to4302submit additional questions for the record, and I ask that you4303be able to submit responses within 10 business days upon4304response--or receipt of those questions.4305    I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the4306documents included on the staff hearing documents list.4307    And without objection, that is so ordered.4308    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]4309    And without objection, the subcommittee will stand4310adjourned.4311    [Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]4312    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]4313    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]43144315                            [all]