Hearings to examine the President's proposed budget request for fiscal year 2026 for the Department of Energy.

1[Senate Hearing 119-122]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                       S. Hrg. 119-12256                     THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST7                       FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF8                      ENERGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 20269=======================================================================1011                                HEARING1213                               BEFORE THE1415                              COMMITTEE ON16                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES17                          UNITED STATES SENATE1819                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2021                             FIRST SESSION2223                               __________2425                             JUNE 18, 20252627                               __________2829[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3031                       Printed for the use of the32               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources3334        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov35                               __________3637                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE3861-238                     WASHINGTON : 202639=======================================================================4041               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES4243                        MIKE LEE, Utah, Chairman44JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico45JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon46STEVE DAINES, Montana                MARIA CANTWELL, Washington47TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii48DAVID McCORMICK, Pennsylvania        ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine49JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia      CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada50BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado51CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        ALEX PADILLA, California52LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona53JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota5455                  Wendy Baig, Majority Staff Director56            Patrick J. McCormick III, Majority Chief Counsel57                 Jasmine Hunt, Minority Staff Director58                 Sam E. Fowler, Minority Chief Counsel5960                            C O N T E N T S6162                              ----------6364                           OPENING STATEMENTS6566                                                                   Page67Lee, Hon. Mike, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Utah............     168Heinrich, Hon. Martin, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from69  New Mexico.....................................................     27071                                WITNESS7273 Wright, Hon. Christopher A., Secretary, U.S. Department of74  Energy.........................................................     47576          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED7778Alliance for Tribal Clean Energy:79    Statement for the Record.....................................   11680Blake, Robert:81    Letter for the Record........................................   12882Blake, Robert et al.:83    Letter for the Record........................................   13284Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine et al.:85    Letter addressed to Secretary Wright, dated June 17, 2025....   11286Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe:87    Letter for the Record........................................   12088Heinrich, Hon. Martin:89    Opening Statement............................................     290    Statement for the Record with accompanying letters from91      tribes and tribal organizations............................   11592Hickenlooper, Hon. John W.:93    Chart depicting Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable94      Energy funding levels since 2019...........................    4295Lee, Hon. Mike:96    Opening Statement............................................     197Navajo Nation:98    Letter for the Record........................................   12299Nez Perce Tribe et al.:100    Letter for the Record........................................   134101Oceti Sakowin Power Authority:102    Letter for the Record........................................   123103Scotts Valley Energy Corporation:104    Letter for the Record........................................   130105Van Dyke, Jeremy:106    Letter for the Record........................................   138107Wright, Hon. Christopher A.:108    Opening Statement............................................     4109    Written Testimony............................................     7110    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    47111112                     THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST113                       FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF114                      ENERGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026115116                              ----------117118                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2025119120                                       U.S. Senate,121                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,122                                                    Washington, DC.123    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in124Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee,125Chairman of the Committee, presiding.126127              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,128                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH129130    The Chairman. Good morning. The Committee will come to131order.132    We will hear today from Secretary Wright, the Secretary of133Energy, as we discuss the Fiscal Year 2026 budget for the U.S.134Department of Energy.135    Welcome, Mr. Secretary, and thank you for meeting with us136today.137    When we last saw you before the Committee, back in January,138you were then President Trump's nominee to lead the Department139of Energy. You are now five months into that role and you are140already delivering results. Congratulations on that. This141Committee has, since then, favorably reported ten additional142nominees, including James Danly, who is already serving as your143Deputy, and nine more who still await confirmation by the full144Senate. I encourage Senate leadership to move forward with145those well-qualified nominees, who again, have received our146favorable recommendation out of this Committee, to move them147forward promptly so that they can get in place and then help148you implement President Trump's America First agenda.149    The Department's budget in recent years has ballooned. We150have seen a dramatic expansion fueled by the misnamed Inflation151Reduction Act, which instead provided tens of billions of152dollars to fund green energy projects that make energy less153reliable and more expensive for the American people. Perhaps154the worst example of this--the Department of Energy's Loan155Programs Office. The IRA gave it over $300 billion in new156lending authority, far exceeding the traditional portfolio, and157the previous administration rushed to approve nearly $100158billion of those loans in just a few months, more than twice159what it had previously disbursed over the last 15 years. So I160want to commend you, Mr. Secretary, for taking strong action to161protect taxpayers' dollars, including by canceling nearly $4162billion in funding for worthless IRA projects that were rushed163out the door hastily, under the dark of night, between election164day and President Trump's inauguration.165    Under your leadership as Secretary of Energy, DOE is back166to approving LNG exports consistent with DOE precedent, with167nearly ten billion cubic feet per day's worth of export168applications, now green-lighted after the previous169administration's unlawful pause. Your Department is also170addressing, in meaningful ways, growing grid reliability171issues, crises caused by issuing numerous 202(c) orders to keep172baseload generation online during the most stressed months,173helping to avoid blackouts, and keeping energy prices stable174for Americans all across the country. All of this tends to set175the stage for a return to the Department of Energy's proper176role, that is, focusing on basic research and development in177energy and science that foster innovation, strengthen energy178independence, and reduce energy costs for the American people,179all while assuring greater reliability. I look forward to180hearing from you today, and in particular, hearing how you plan181to continue strengthening oversight, discipline, and182accountability within your Department, and how you will manage183programs like the Loan Programs Office, the science labs, and184new transmission initiatives in a way that will protect185taxpayers, strengthen our energy independence, and serve the186best interests of the American people.187    So again, welcome, Mr. Secretary, and I would now like to188recognize Senator Heinrich, the Ranking Member, for his opening189statement.190191          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,192                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO193194    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman Lee, and welcome,195Secretary Wright.196    Secretary Wright, we are here to discuss the FY26 budget197request, and while this is our first opportunity to ask you198questions since your confirmation, it's not your first time199defending this budget. Last week, you testified before the200Energy and Commerce Committee, and earlier in May, you appeared201before the House and Senate Energy and Water Development202Subcommittees. It is clear from those hearings that there seems203to be a noticeable disconnect between what you have stated204publicly and the actions taken under your leadership as205Secretary of the Department of Energy.206    At your nomination hearing in January, I asked you if the207executive branch has the authority, without Congress's208approval, to withhold or terminate funding for an activity209Congress approved in law. You said that you would ``follow the210laws and statutes of the United States of America.'' On May21130th, $3.7 billion in awards from the Office of Clean Energy212Demonstrations were canceled without notice or without213justification. Cancellation of these awards crosses into214impoundment territory and is certainly a breach of contract.215Actions like these will severely damage our country's ability216to lead in developing and commercializing next-generation217technologies while ceding ground to our competitors.218    Another way to undermine our leadership: demoralizing the219scientists and staff at DOE, the largest federal sponsor of220basic research in the physical sciences. I know you realize221this because on February 5th, you called DOE staff ``the222unbelievable humans that are in the room today, that are across223our national labs, in our cleanup facilities, in our offices224around the country.'' Less than a month later, however, 2,000225DOE employees, including hundreds of National Nuclear Security226Administration employees responsible for safeguarding the227nation's nuclear stockpile, were fired. That was unacceptable.228But only after heavy criticism did the Department partially229rescind the NNSA termination order and scramble to reinstate230these employees.231    In coming months, the Department is reportedly set to lose232thousands of additional employees to early buyouts. As my233colleague, Ranking Member Murray noted, taxpayers have spent234$70 million to pay people not to work at this point, but it235seems that you may be regretting that decision. The Washington236Post reported that across the government, officials are237rehiring federal workers who were forced out or encouraged to238resign. You know that this is no way to run a business or an239agency, and I believe that we have to do better. And just240yesterday, I heard from the national labs that this budget241would cut funding for the labs by $2.75 billion, or 11 percent,242compared to Fiscal Year 2024, an estimated loss of more than2437,700 jobs once fully implemented. Our nation's scientific and244energy leadership is on the line.245    And let's talk a little bit about energy dominance. In your246confirmation hearings, you said that you would be an247``unabashed steward for all sources of affordable, reliable,248and secure American energy and the infrastructure needed to249develop, deliver, and secure them.'' However, last week, before250the Energy and Commerce Committee, you said, ``I have never251been for all of the above. And if I said it at one point in252time, I misspoke. I am against energy sources that make the253energy system more expensive or less reliable.'' I wouldn't254call that misspeaking. That's a disconnect. If you truly were255against energy sources that make the energy system more256expensive or less reliable, I don't believe that you would be257propping up the uneconomic J.H. Campbell coal power plant in258Michigan to produce expensive and inefficient power. A new259report by Energy Innovation shows that the average megawatt of260power generated by U.S. coal plants is 28 percent more261expensive in 2024 compared to 2021. And that means that262families spent $6.2 billion more on electricity generated by263coal in 2024 than they would have just three years ago.264    As electricity demand continues to grow, we will not be265able to meet the energy needs of new data centers while keeping266household bills low if we prevent the growth of affordable267clean energy resources. We need a true all-of-the-above268strategy to adequately deliver our energy goals, and this269budget fails to deliver on that. During your time as Secretary,270you have also said that ten percent of Americans in the last 12271months have received a utility disconnection notice, and that272one of your goals was to shrink that number to zero by making273energy more abundant and affordable. That is a worthy mission.274And yet, this budget eliminates the Weatherization Assistance275Program, which saves households an average of $372 a year. You276have often said that artificial intelligence is the Manhattan277Project of our time. And yet, this budget proposes a 14 percent278cut to the Office of Science and a 57 percent cut to ARPA-E,279where our major AI R&D efforts are currently underway. We280cannot expect to maintain U.S. leadership in emerging281technologies if we shortchange the office's programs, and most282importantly, the people needed to do so.283    Lastly, I want to want to raise DOE's failure to respond in284a timely and substantive manner to congressional oversight285requests. I have sent four letters on topics ranging from staff286reductions to funding freezes and project cancellations. I have287received zero responses. That is unacceptable. You and I may288disagree on many things, but the need to ensure that Americans289have access to affordable domestic sources of energy and290support our research and energy leadership should be shared291goals. This budget proposal does not support those goals292adequately, nor do many of the current actions at the293Department, and I hope we see changes.294    Thank you.295    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.296    Secretary Wright, you are now invited to give your opening297statement.298299           STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. WRIGHT,300              SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY301302    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member303Heinrich, and members of the Committee, it is an honor to304appear before you today as Secretary of Energy to discuss the305President's Fiscal Year 2026 budget request for the Department306of Energy.307    Under President Trump's leadership, our priorities for the308Department are clear: to achieve American energy dominance,309bolster our national security, meet our Cold War legacy cleanup310commitments, and unleash historic innovation, including AI, for311our nation and world. We are driven by a bedrock conviction312that an affordable, reliable, secure energy supply is the313foundation of a strong and prosperous nation. When America314leads in energy, we lead in prosperity, security, and human315flourishing. We are committed to advancing our critical316missions while cutting red tape, increasing efficiency, and317ensuring we are better stewards of taxpayer dollars. The318President's Fiscal Year 2026 budget will ensure taxpayer319resources are allocated appropriately and cost effectively. We320will invest DOE's resources in technologies and sources that321support affordable, reliable, and secure energy and provide a322return on investment for the American taxpayers.323    DOE has several tools at its disposal that can advance324these emerging energy technologies, and I thank the Committee325for their leadership in establishing a new energy dominance326financing program for DOE's Loan Programs Office as part of the327One Big Beautiful Bill. This will enable DOE to return to its328core mission of supporting projects that are most critical to329America's energy security while maintaining responsible330stewardship of taxpayer dollars, something DOE failed to do in331the previous administration. It is deeply concerning how many332billions of dollars were rushed out the door without proper due333diligence in the final days of the Biden administration.334    DOE is undertaking a thorough review of financial335assistance that identifies waste of taxpayer dollars, protects336America's national security, and advances President Trump's337commitment to unleash American energy dominance. As a result,338we recently announced the termination of 24 projects, totaling339over $3.7 billion in taxpayer-funded financial assistance.340These projects failed to meet the economic, national security,341or energy security standards necessary to sustain DOE's342investment, and the taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize343them. Instead, we are advancing a policy of energy addition,344fully leveraging affordable, reliable, and secure resources345that have powered our country for generations. The United346States is blessed with an abundance of coal, oil, and natural347gas, and our administration is committed to using them to meet348the growing energy needs of the American people. Every one of349these resources was unleashed through our world-changing power350of American innovation.351    Our national labs are the engine that drives research and352development to expand our energy dominance. We will prioritize353research that supports true technological breakthroughs and354maintains America's global competitiveness. America must play a355leading role in the commercialization of reliable, safe, and356secure nuclear energy, and we are taking steps to accelerate357innovation in this sector. DOE is working to advance the rapid358deployment of next-generation nuclear technology, including359small modular reactors. I am proud to report that we have360officially ended the previous administration's reckless pause361on LNG export permits and have returned to regular order for362reviewing and approving new permits. DOE will also work to363replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a national asset364that protects our security in times of crisis. And I want to365thank this Committee for prioritizing funding to refill the SPR366in the One Big Beautiful Bill.367    We are advancing President Trump's pledge to lower the cost368of living and expand choice by right-sizing DOE's approach to369home efficiency standards and regulations. Under the370President's direction, we have begun slashing more than 47371regulations as part of the largest deregulatory effort in372history. These actions are projected to save the American373people approximately $11 billion while restoring consumer374freedom and lowering costs.375    The responsible stewardship and modernization of the376nation's nuclear weapon systems is paramount for this377administration. DOE is focused on addressing critical upgrades378for the U.S. nuclear stockpile and maintaining our engine379powerhouses for submarines and aircraft carriers. Both tasks380will become even more crucial in the next few years. Our381nuclear innovation, as a nation, began with the Manhattan382Project, and the next Manhattan Project is clearly AI. DOE has383a significant role to play in driving AI innovation for384scientific discovery and national security. Our agency has385world-class high-performance computing capabilities, including386four of the world's top ten computers.387    Harnessing our energy potential to power global AI388leadership while meeting growing demand will be the challenge389of our time, but America does not back down from big challenges390or big builds. As Secretary of Energy, I am honored by the391responsibility to help meet the American people's growing392energy needs and lead the world in energy development. I393appreciate the opportunity to work with many of you on this394Committee to unlock America's full energy potential and drive395down costs for families with the One Big Beautiful Bill, and I396look forward to continuing to work together to achieve397President Trump's energy dominance agenda. Thank you for the398opportunity to testify before the Committee today.399    [The prepared statement of Secretary Wright follows:]400    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]401402    The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Wright. We will now403invite members of the Committee to ask you questions in five-404minute rounds. I will begin, and then we will have Senator405Heinrich after me, and then we will alternate between406Republicans and Democrats thereafter, in order of seniority,407subject to the early-bird rule adopted by the Committee.408    So I will begin now.409    Secretary Wright, the Energy Information Agency (EIA)410defines something known as the LCOE--the Levelized Cost of411Electricity--as ``the estimated revenue required to build and412operate a generator over a specified cost recovery period.''413Now, as I understand it, this LCOE calculation does not take414into account existing generation resources--stuff that's415already in place spinning out electrons, especially416dispatchable generation, which is retiring at an alarmingly417rapid pace. Additionally, wind and solar have been shown in418many instances to have a negative effect on the levelized cost419of dispatchable generation. This is because generation, like420gas, nuclear, and coal, among others, are forced to reduce421output while still having fixed operational costs that go along422with those enterprises, all to accommodate for electrons put423onto the grid by other sources, intermittent renewable424generation sources.425    I recently introduced a bill that would repeal all the IRA426subsidies for inferior generation, like wind and solar. Can you427elaborate on how tax incentives for those generating sources--428the intermittent sources--actually increase the levelized cost429of firm resources, thereby increasing costs for consumers at430the end of the day?431    Secretary Wright. Yes, Senator, thank you for the question.432It's an issue I am quite passionate about. I worked on solar433energy in graduate school many years ago and so, as I said in434my opening statement and have maintained ever since, I am for435all sources of affordable, reliable energy. I am not for all436sources of energy, period--only ones that contribute to437affordable, reliable, secure energy. The levelized cost of438ownership idea is decades-old, and it came out to compare439always-on dispatchable sources--the cost with which we build a440new nuclear plant, a new coal plant, or a new gas plant--441because they provide the same thing. They provide electricity442on demand. I compare--it was never intended, of course, for a443source that you don't know when it's going to be there and when444it's going to be gone. That's just a completely different445entity.446    When your child is born premature, and you place that child447in a life-saving incubator, it's not okay to say it's going to448turn on when the wind starts blowing or, well, it's on right449now, but when the sun goes down, it's probably going to be off450until the morning. There simply are no customers for451electricity that you may have it or you may not have it. I gave452it--imagine if you had a competitor for Uber that came out--453they are called ``no go.'' And it came out and said our454levelized cost per mile of transport is going to be ten percent455cheaper than Uber. Everybody should run to that, it's cheaper.456Now, we don't know when we are going to come pick you up and457when we do pick you up, we don't know where we are going to458drop you off, but our cost is ten percent cheaper. They are459just two entirely different things.460    And so, as you rightly pointed out, what matters is the461system cost, but if you have sources--and I can talk more about462the Texas electricity grid later, but peak demand is the actual463time that you usually get the lowest delivery from renewables.464So you have to have the other grid, the reliable grid, to465provide electricity at peak demand to keep everyone alive and466the incubator on. And then we have a whole second grid that467comes and goes with the weather. And, of course, to manage both468of those together, it's guaranteed, and data has shown it in469spades, to be more expensive and a less reliable grid. And470further, that no-go company that wouldn't fly, if we subsidized471it and helped them buy these vehicles and stand up a business,472with the business model that doesn't work, you just cascade a473problem. They are very unique subsidies, where we spend a474dollar of subsidy and it doesn't defray consumer cost. The475government spends a dollar of subsidy and consumers pay a476dollar extra for their electricity.477    The Chairman. Thank you. No, that's helpful. Very good478explanation.479    There is a residential solar company called Sunnova that480received $3 billion--a $3 billion loan guarantee from the481previous administration's Department of Energy that recently482filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. And now, Biden's Loan Programs483Office Director, Jigar Shah, was aware of accusations that484Sunnova defrauded seniors, selling solar to those who were ``on485their death beds.'' Despite this, Mr. Shah instructed DOE staff486to prioritize Sunnova's loan application after attending a487dinner hosted by a Sunnova Board Member. The Board Member's488spouse was the former chair of the DNC. The DOE Inspector489General determined that Shah's actions potentially violated the490ethical standards for executive branch employees.491    How can the American people be confident that the Loan492Programs Office inside the Department of Energy is acting in493their best interest when actions like those taken by Jigar Shah494have undermined the credibility of that same office?495    Secretary Wright. Huge undermining of the credibility,496Senator, huge undermining. And it's one of the reasons people497are mad at me for being slow and process-oriented, but it's in498response to things like that that we have created this program499review process where we have a team of cross-functional people500to evaluate every project of any meaningful scale. If it's a501few million dollars or more, and there are 500 such projects,502we are going to evaluate every one of them in a business-like,503professional manner, not a political manner, not a self-504interested manner, but a business-like manner. And so, yeah,505clearly, we need a very different culture at DOE and we are506working every day to build that.507    The Chairman. Wonderful. Thank you.508    Senator Heinrich.509    Senator Heinrich. Secretary, first-off, will you commit to510responding to the letters that I have sent your office?511    Secretary Wright. Senator, the most efficient512communication, of course, is to reach out and we can jump on513the phone at any time. I know we have done that a few times. I514am happy to do that much more. My schedule is very tough, and I515should respond, and will respond to your letters.516    Senator Heinrich. I'm sorry, I should not have to spend517time in these hearings on this. It's a simple communication518that I want something formally in writing on. I am not telling519you how to respond to it. I am just asking you to do what every520Secretary of Energy has always done and respond to my letters.521Democrats and Republicans alike.522    Secretary Wright. You bet. You will get a response.523    Senator Heinrich. I appreciate that.524    I want to go directly to the heart of some of what you525described in your Uber analogy. And first off, do you know what526the average price per kilowatt-hour that retail customers pay527across the country is according to EIA?528    Secretary Wright. Yes, it's about 14 cents.529    Senator Heinrich. I think it's 17.1 right now. I bring that530up because I pay substantially less than that. I am in a531utility in central New Mexico. Most people formally know it as532PNM, and I pay about 12 and change cents per kilowatt-hour. And533yet, their generation is largely clean, mostly renewable with534batteries. And they have been able to maintain that cost535profile of just over 12 cents per kilowatt-hour using536renewables and batteries. And I think you are absolutely537correct that we should be comparing apples to apples. But538today, with a little bit of storage, they are able to manage539the grid with low cost and reliability with renewables. So when540you paint a picture like they just turn off in the middle of541the night or when the wind doesn't blow, that's not my personal542experience. That's not how we are managing the grid today.543    Now, I want to talk a little bit about soaring power demand544because that's something that you and I both agree on. You said545that soaring U.S. power demand is a train wreck waiting to546happen and that it necessitates significant investments in547regulatory reforms. Doubling down on unaffordable energy will548not get us the energy that we need. The NextEra CEO has549recently pointed out that the cost per kilowatt to build a gas-550fired facility has gone up from $785 back in 2022 to $2,400551today. And he also stated that retirement of every coal plant552in America, if we stopped that, would only get us an extra 40553gigawatts. Natural gas generation, because there is a five- to554seven-year backlog on turbines now, will likely get us maybe 75555gigawatts by 2030. And so, I don't want to get into a back-and-556forth over different energy sources so much as just to557understand. Did DOE do a modeling process to determine the558specific impacts of this proposed budget on both supply--energy559supply--and cost?560    Secretary Wright. Absolutely. We have a team, in fact, that561develops a model of the grid that looks at the grid by regions.562And one of the comments you mentioned in your opening statement563was that we did issue a 202(c) order to keep a coal plant in564southwestern Michigan open because of small reserve margins in565MISO, and that plant was being retired without new capacity on566the MISO grid to back it up. We were criticized for that, and567two days later there was a blackout.568    Senator Heinrich. Did the State of Michigan agree with that569analysis? Did you consult with them?570    Secretary Wright. Well, we spoke to the grid operators, the571utility operator of that company, and had plenty of back-and-572forth dialogue on that. I think, in general, people realize573this was a good move for energy----574    Senator Heinrich. Let's go back to the modeling that was575done on this budget. Can you share that modeling with us?576    Secretary Wright. Sure.577    Senator Heinrich. Great.578    I mentioned in my opening remarks that the President's579budget would cut funding at our national labs by $2.75 billion.580At Sandia Labs in my home state, I am hearing from engineers,581pretty much every time I go home right now, that this will582significantly affect the Center for Integrated583Nanotechnologies, national user facilities, research equipment,584that it will limit fusion research on reactor environments and585advanced materials and jeopardize environmental monitoring,586potentially exposing DOE to fines under a consent agreement587with the New Mexico Environment Department. Did DOE do analysis588and ask the labs for their analysis on the impacts of this589budget on their ability to do their mission work?590    Secretary Wright. The budget has not been allocated down to591individual labs and all that, but all of the allocation of592funds and decisions of how it will be impacted will be done on593a lab-by-lab basis, but no, this budget, unfortunately, comes594from the tough world we are in today, where we, the American595taxpayers, pay a dollar of tax and the Federal Government596spends a dollar of thirty. It's just an unsustainable problem597we are on. I share a passion for the national labs, like you598do. My goal is to grow, not shrink the output of top quality599science at our labs. But do we need to be a little wiser and600get the political science, not the real science, out of labs?601Do we need to be a little bit more efficient in running labs?602We do. But are we going to gut the technology and science in603what we are doing in fusion and nanotechnology at the labs?604Absolutely, we are not.605    Senator Heinrich. Chairman, I am out of time for now, at606least until the next round.607    The Chairman. Senator Justice.608    Senator Justice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member609and all the folks that are on the Committee.610    I want to do just this--you know, we are so blessed to have611this man, it's off the chart. And I apologize--I apologize for612your service that you have absolutely dedicated to all of us in613every way and then you have to be grilled. You know, we want,614and we always would stand up--I would always stand up for, you615know, good answers--good answers. This man says over and over616and over, I am an energy guy. I understand this absolutely as617well as anybody in this room, I guarantee it--guaran-flat-tee618it. Now, with all that being said, he has said over and over,619what he is tasked with is affordable, reliable energy. That's620what we have got to have in this country today. And if we don't621have that, we are in real trouble.622    Now, we know, I know, I will promise you this, we can623volley back and forth, but absolutely, with all in me, I would624vouch for this man right here. That's all there is to it. He is625just that good. If you can't see his passion, you are not626looking. That's all there is to it. He is eat-up with passion.627He is stuck on ``on'' all the time. And absolutely, he has628knowledge off the chart. Chris, I appreciate you. I really do.629And I will fight a buzz saw for you any day. That's all there630is to it.631    I can tell you just this, that from an energy standpoint,632if we don't get our act together, a year from today, a year and633a half from today, we are hitting the fan. That's all there is634to it. We are absolutely on a plane and we are flying right at635the ground and we are going to hit the ground if we don't do636something. This man can lead us. He can lead us with knowledge637and his passion. He can lead us to where we don't hit the638ground. And with all that being said, we all know, we are going639to have a decision to make. How is it going to feel to make the640decision? You are going to make the decision either for homes641or really and truly for industry and jobs and AI and on and on642and on. You are not going to be able to do both unless you have643got a real leader of the band, and that's why I vouch for this644man with all in me.645    Now, I can go on and on and on, but there is a fella, his646name is Jim Billings. He ran a small seed corn company. They647asked Jim Billings a long time ago to write an absolute648critique of what he did because he was being bought out by a649bigger company. And basically, what Jim Billings did is, he650wrote 13 pages of the single space, and I have told you this651before. And then, he laid his pencil down and sat back and then652he decided to write and he wrote, ``see the right man in the653right job and they are motivated.'' And he put his pencil down654because that's what the President does. Our President655recognizes the energy situation. And the last thing I would say656is just this, tell me a time in history--tell me a time in657history that we have progressed without abundant, cheap, and658now clean energy. There is nothing about this man that wants to659damage our environment, our lands, our waters. He wants to lead660us. And I truly believe our President wants to do the same661thing.662    Mr. Chairman, I am done. Thank you so much.663    The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.664    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.665    Mr. Secretary, good to see you. We had a chance to say666hello earlier. I invited you again to the Tri Cities. You said667you think you are coming sometime soon--this summer or fall. So668we look forward to seeing you there and being with you.669    The Hanford budget and the Tri-Party Agreement--there have670been cuts to the Hanford office, they lost 94 people out of671their 308 Department of Energy workforce. These are managers.672There are various issues with the budget request. So how do you673plan to meet the Tri-Party Agreement with the budget and674workforce depletions?675    Secretary Wright. Yeah, a huge part of the effort at the676Department, the first few months, has been to right-size the677Department, which is to look at how do we do things today and678what is a more efficient way to do that? The Department head679count grew well over 20 percent over the last four years. And I680would say there is no evidence that it was more productive at681the end of those four years.682    So again, as a business man, except for during COVID, I683never laid anyone off in my entire career. So I don't take the684personnel decisions lightly. In fact, I take them very heavily.685    Senator Cantwell. I think a big moment is coming at686Hanford, so, you know, I wish I could--anyway, we will see each687other in the Tri-Cities, and we will go over it, but----688    Secretary Wright. Yes.689    Senator Cantwell [continuing]. For a long time, there were690lots of schemes about how we were going to clean up Hanford.691But guess what? Vitrification is on the move. So now there is692so much more the Federal Government can do in meeting the693budget to meet the Tri-Party Agreement because we are actually694on our way. So I guess, you know, we will talk about this in695more detail, but that's what is at stake here. The normal696funding is missing the opportunity to actually get this project697that has cost us so much over such a long period of time, where698we really need it to be. So that's the key point, but we will699go over those details.700    Do you support baseload hydropower online?701    Secretary Wright. Absolutely. Hydro has been a great702resource for this country.703    Senator Cantwell. Okay. So you think--you consider that704part of baseload power?705    We have--Senator Murkowski and I have a bill, basically706giving tax credits at very low cost just to help keep the707efficiency of the hydro system. As we look at all the708challenges we face with new power demands, making that system709as efficient as possible is really critical, and we consider710that baseload power. So I am just asking. Maybe you can look at711the Murkowski-Cantwell bill.712    Secretary Wright. Yeah, I would view it as baseload power713to the extent that we can repower and increase the yield from714existing hydro assets----715    Senator Cantwell. That's exactly what we are talking about.716    Secretary Wright. They are quite beneficial to our717electricity grid.718    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. They are beneficial in a lot719of ways, but definitely to the grid. So thank you for that.720    Do you support eliminating 45V? Maybe this was asked by my721colleague while I was gone, but 45V, the Hydrogen Production722Tax Credit, was proposed to be eliminated. Do you support that,723or where are you on the hydrogen tax credit?724    Secretary Wright. The government record in picking winners725and losers and subsidizing in energy is a very poor one. So my726default position is, the less government involvement on the727scales of energy sources, the better. I realize in the real728world, that's not possible. So we have got to get rid of--you729have got to prioritize which ones are the most offensive, and I730mentioned wind, solar, and battery certainly as technologies731that we have subsidized and they have led to more expensive732electricity. I would put them, maybe, as the most offensive.733    Hydrogen--it's tough with the math to see how, in the long734term, it becomes a meaningful commercial energy source.735    Senator Cantwell. But again, there are lots of chapters736here, and we could, again, talk about them.737    Secretary Wright. Yes.738    Senator Cantwell. But I actually think getting rid of the739tax credits that we have, some of the other ones, broadly, are740going to lead to an increased electricity cost. And so, can I741get you to tell me about the hydrogen hubs, whether you support742the hydrogen hubs and moving forward on this?743    Secretary Wright. So we have put together, as I am sure you744have heard, and we have published it on the website, you know,745this project review process. We have a cross-functional team746that evaluates every project. We are going through 500747projects.748    Senator Cantwell. But is that data cull a way to kill the749projects, or do you really believe in funding some?750    Secretary Wright. Oh, absolutely. We are funding plenty of751projects right now and we don't stop funding any project. We752are funding all of the existing projects right now, and when we753evaluate them, no, plenty of projects will pass. Plenty of754projects will pass. For other projects, we will say, hey, can755you modify it this way to make it much more beneficial? Some756projects will be modified and some projects will be ended.757    Senator Cantwell. What application are you most excited758about in the hydrogen hub area? What application? Fertilizer?759Jet fuel? Something else? What are you most excited about?760    Secretary Wright. Well, so, the highest-value use of761hydrogen, right? So it's expensive to produce but there are762high-value uses of hydrogen, like we produce it today763commercially because in refining it's very high-value in764fertilizers, materials, in chemistry. The problem is, what is765the cost to produce the hydrogen, and are there uses of it766where the value is above the cost?767    Senator Cantwell. Yes.768    Secretary Wright. I say energy is about two things. It's769just about people and math.770    Senator Cantwell. Well, we think, going back to the 45V--my771time is expired, but in looking at green hydro, which we have772in the Northwest, it drives down the cost and provides sources773for very hard-to-serve, hard-to-decarbonize big sectors of the774economy.775    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.776    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.777    The Chairman. Senator Hyde-Smith.778    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,779Mr. Secretary, for your willingness to serve, the tenacity you780serve with, and you bring so much to the table, and we are very781grateful for that, and you continue to do it every day, to just782impress us.783    I, too, want to invite you to my home State of Mississippi.784It's pretty hot right now, but the humidity today here, I785think, is matching it. But we have just positioned ourselves786for greater artificial intelligence, infrastructure growth, so787many things, like many states that you talk to, the members788here. We have attracted several significant investments, like789Amazon Web Services, the hyper-skilled data centers from many790major companies that we are excited about, but, of course, what791is crucial for supporting fast-growing AI is reliable energy792and affordable energy.793    The Mississippi Power Play initiative was recently unveiled794by our state leaders, and it is about increasing energy795production, but also ensuring that those things that follow--796the affordability of that, the reliability of that, and access797for all of these companies that are choosing to come to our798state. But we are uniquely positioned to use underground salt799caverns that offer energy storage to enhance the grid800reliability in high-peak seasons. We are fortunate to have801that, but moreover, the state established an artificial802intelligence regulation task force to guide the state as so803many new technologies come onboard, as the AI demand804proactively comes addressing all of these issues. The state has805really stepped up, and our state leadership is doing that with806the stakeholders' collaboration and the workforce training807that's going to take place for the programs to support all of808these initiatives. So we are really excited about this in809Mississippi.810    But you would see firsthand that we are working to shape811America's path forward in energy independence and AI dominance812and aligning perfectly with our national security, our economic813growth goals, and the potentials that are there. So I believe814your insight is going to greatly benefit this country, is going815to greatly benefit Mississippi in our efforts to strengthen816this, and I am honored that you are at the helm.817    In your testimony, you mentioned reorganizing the visions818within the Energy Department, including refocusing the Office819of Fossil Energy on its original mission of supporting fossil820energy production. Thank you. Will you discuss how the821Department plans to strengthen this mission and find innovative822ways to help achieve the President's goal of energy823independence through the reorganization of the Office of Fossil824Energy?825    Secretary Wright. Yes, thank you.826    So it's actually one of our smaller budgets, the Office of827Fossil Energy, even though it's over 80 percent of American828energy. When I was born it was sort of mid-80 percent. It's829mid-80 percent today. So it's the dominant source of energy in830the United States and the world, but it has been a commercial831success for a long time. It doesn't need a lot of involvement832from the Department, except for permitting, getting out of the833way, and issuing LNG permits so you can build infrastructure.834But we do have some money to invest in next-generation835technologies. So there is some research funding in fossil836energy.837    The part that was removed was, you know, several hundred838million dollars that was focused on reducing greenhouse gases.839I have written about climate change for 20 years, so it's a840very real thing, but funding things that, you know, take a ton841of carbon out of the atmosphere at a several-hundred-dollar842cost, and if you look at what's the benefit from reducing that843ton of carbon--that's this so-called social cost of carbon,844which is very hard to calculate--but the previous845administration went through torturous math of almost no846discount rate and assumed that agricultural productivity847declines, despite the 50-year upward trend, that people won't848get air conditioning as the planet gets a little warmer. They849did all sorts of just crazy--they use a climate scenario that850has been widely dismissed as completely implausible called851RCP8.5--and they stretched it up to $100 for the social cost of852a ton of carbon.853    So if that's the negative impact, should we spend $300 to854reduce a cost that maybe is $100? And that's a stretch. A more855credible estimate maybe is $10 or $20. And then, America is856only four percent of the global population. So should we spend857$300 to save a quarter? That's, you know, clearly that math858just doesn't add up. The Department will continue to support859technologies to maybe find better ways to reduce greenhouse gas860emissions. It is a real issue, but we should be credible about861it and not just throwing money out of it because it's expensive862and, you know, for a coal plant, for example, the dew863sequestration, basically, you lose a third of the power out of864the plant to inject the CO2 underground. So we are,865as you and I, when we first connected, we are about common866sense, things that make sense. If we can spend a dollar and get867$2 of benefit, we will do that every day and on Sundays too,868but we want to critically look at things. Is this making our869country better? Is this making our world better or not?870    Thank you, Senator.871    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you. Your approach is very872refreshing.873    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.874    The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.875    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,876Mr. Secretary for taking the time and for your public service877on this.878    I want to go into a little bit of the issues around climate879change again and the cost per carbon because I think they are880widely debated, a lot of criticism that the costs are not881significant. I have that liability that I actually studied this882stuff way back in--you know, I got my master's in earth and883environmental science, as we discussed, in 1979, when we called884it the greenhouse effect. But it is a little unnerving, as I885went through my geology years, all through the 80s, that much886of what was predicted then, that I was skeptical about, has887come true. And it's extreme weather, the droughts, specifically888in the western United States and southwestern United States889that were widely predicted back then.890    And we look at the costs there, so I think when we look at891the value of carbon, we have to begin assessing some of these892issues. In places in California and Florida, people can't get893home insurance, right? In Florida, from 2023 alone, there was a89490 percent increase in what people had to spend to get their895homes insured. Miami was 322 percent in 2024. Tampa, 213896percent. You look in California, and I am sure my associate, my897colleague here will go into this even more--only 31 percent by898one measure--only 31 percent of residents still have insurance.899They can't get insurance.900    So this is the result of either these extreme weather901events of rain, you know, these rivers in the sky, or it's902wildfires. In each case, how do you reconcile, if you begin903looking at those costs, the benefit that you get from904renewables and clean energy if eventually we are going to have905to address climate change? One way or another, if this is906continuing to grow at the level it is, we are going to have to907address it somehow.908    Secretary Wright. So Senator, I always appreciate your909thoughtful approach to all of these issues that interplay910between energy and climate change. And so, yes, many pieces911there. And as you and I have talked, the world has been912decarbonizing in the way we produce energy for about 200 years,913you know, going from wood, to coal, to oil, to natural gas.914Nuclear probably is going to be the biggest growing energy915source sometime in the future. Today, it's natural gas, but we916have moved down that lower carbon intensity-ladder, and I think917eventually we will get to, probably, a carbon-neutral energy918system, but yeah, it's likely generations from now. And so, we919have tried to accelerate that. You mentioned it, you know,920globally, the world has spent--it depends on how you count it--921somewhere between $3 and $10 trillion on wind, solar, and922batteries, and last year is the first year they passed three923percent of global primary energy. So it has been a very924expensive--it has been an energy resource maybe intended for925decarbonization----926    Senator Hickenlooper. We have made great investments in it.927We don't argue that. The world has made great investments and928we have seen the price come down dramatically.929    Secretary Wright. We have seen the price per unit of930electricity from them come down, but everywhere they have had931meaningful penetration they have led to more expensive932electricity.933    Senator Hickenlooper. Well, would you say, in Texas, you934look at their--so Texas has 80 percent more wind and solar than935any other state in the country. And yet, when you look at it,936they have among the very lowest costs of electricity to a home.937    Secretary Wright. They have the most expensive electricity938of the southern states. So it's kind of--Texas does have lower-939cost electricity, as do many states across the country, but not940because of wind and solar--I would say, in spite of wind and941solar. The alternative is Florida there that--both of them942dominantly run on natural gas, but Florida did not load its943natural gas grid with just massive amounts of wind and solar944that make the grid turn up and down all the time and drive up945prices. So Texas has done, you know, better than New York or946New England, for sure, but its electricity is affordable not947because, but in spite of wind and solar.948    But let's come back to your comments about insurance. These949are very real, very human issues. We do have trouble with950insurance markets. I would maintain this is the way markets are951regulated, the way they are controlled, and their restrictions952on freedom to compete, because, if you look at the losses from953extreme weather damages that are paid out by insurance--insured954losses from extreme weather damage--it has been on a multi-955decade downward trend--not an upward trend, but downward trend.956Over 20 percent decline over the last 30 years. Deaths from957extreme weather have declined over 98 percent. So extreme958weather is not actually exploding and growing as everyone says.959Drought is actually on a downward trend in the U.S. and960globally, so----961    Senator Hickenlooper. Well, we will take you down on the962Colorado River when you think that--we have got 10,000 years of963data on the Colorado River, and that's a drought that is not964slowing down. I am out of time, but I will come back for a965second round, I promise.966    Secretary Wright. Let's go down the Colorado River967together, my friend.968    Senator Hickenlooper. Well, absolutely, and I hope when you969are coming back to Colorado at some point, I want to go out to970NREL too, as well, but we will get to that in the second round.971    Secretary Wright. We would love to.972    The Chairman. Senator Padilla.973    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I know five974minutes go quick, so I am going to jump right into it. The975first couple of questions may seem off-topic, but there is a976point. Please humor me here.977    You are a science guy. Cybersecurity is a top concern for978the country. Should we be embracing policies to ensure people's979privacy or security or should we be trying to do both?980    Secretary Wright. Both.981    Senator Padilla. Thank you.982    We love our freedoms in America. Should we be pursuing983policy that ensures public safety or protects civil liberties984or should we strive to do both?985    Secretary Wright. Both.986    Senator Padilla. I suggest this because, for all the talk987that I am hearing about the need to prioritize affordable,988reliable energy, I agree, we also need to be advancing clean989energy for the sake of the grid, for the sake of environmental990protection, for the sake of public health. We don't have to991choose between the two. They are not mutually exclusive. We992should be striving to do both. That's my position. Do you agree993or disagree?994    Secretary Wright. I would agree.995    Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.996    Now, a couple things also to correct the record or to997comment on some of the statements you made at the outset where998you make suggestions that some of the funds released at the999tail-end of the Biden administration were rushed out at the1000last minute without appropriate due diligence and review. In my1001experience, our office has experienced that it came out at the1002tail-end of the Biden administration because of the due1003diligence and the review that took place. We had been anxious1004and pushing the administration for years to move on some of1005these projects. So I just wanted to note that different point1006of view.1007    Second, your comment about oil and gas resources in1008America, you seemed to have left out the potential and positive1009contributions of solar and wind and geothermal. You painted a1010picture of the intermittency being a challenge. I point to the1011experience and quantifiable progress made in California when1012they integrated battery storage into grid reliability and1013affordability.1014    So, that being said, let me jump back to the key topic of1015today's hearing. I will go back to several of the statements1016you made during your confirmation hearing--your confirmation1017hearing, your statements, Mr. Secretary. You said there were1018three priorities you had. The first was to unleash American1019energy at home and abroad to restore energy dominance. However,1020the budget request proposes a 74 percent reduction in the1021Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. It zeros out1022the Wind and Solar Energy Technologies Offices and it also1023zeros out the Office of Clean Energy Demonstration, which was1024authorized by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Solar was the1025fastest growing energy source in the world last year. So how1026does completely eliminating the Solar Energy Technologies1027Office advance America's leadership?1028    Secretary Wright. So solar wasn't close to the fastest1029growing energy source in the world last year--that's installed1030capacity, not energy produced, that data, and one year is a1031tricky data thing. Solar is growing fast. I have worked in1032solar. I am in favor of solar. And so, we have way over-1033invested resources in hoping wind and solar will, you know,1034will magically transform into something they are not, but solar1035will continue to grow, for sure. All I have advocated is we1036should subsidize it less.1037    Senator Padilla. I don't mean to be rude in cutting you1038off, but our data suggests otherwise, and we will certainly1039follow up with questions for the record and beyond.1040    Secretary Wright. Yes.1041    Senator Padilla. The second priority you identified in your1042confirmation hearing was that we must lead the world in1043innovation and technology breakthroughs. I counter that with1044your budget request, which includes a 14 percent cut to the1045Office of Science and a 57 percent cut to ARPA-E. Again, there1046seems to be a disconnect between what you say are priorities1047and your budget requests. It has already been raised that these1048reductions would also lead to staff reductions in national1049labs, which we have recognized, you are on the record, these1050are premier research institutions. When you came to California,1051you reaffirmed your commitment to the national labs and you1052said that they were important to maintain and secure a1053``competitive advantage and security.''1054    So unless I got that wrong, how do you expect the United1055States to lead the world when your budget proposal seeks to1056decimate our research and development capabilities?1057    Secretary Wright. It does hurt me to cut spending in1058science.1059    Senator Padilla. Then don't do it.1060    Secretary Wright. I share that passion with you.1061    Senator Padilla. Then don't do it.1062    Secretary Wright. I share that passion with you.1063    Senator Padilla. Then don't even propose it.1064    Lastly, and I know my time is nearly up--your third stated1065priority was to ``build things in America again and remove1066barriers to progress.'' However, in May, the Department of1067Energy announced the cancellation of 24 projects, totaling $3.71068billion in investments under the Industrial Demonstrations1069Program. Now, these funds were intended to support1070unprecedented innovation in the cement, glass, chemicals, and1071iron industries, at the core for the future growth of1072infrastructure in America. And it's not just because a billion1073of the public and private dollars are in California, and the1074thousands of jobs related, but how does canceling industrial1075grants that lead to more industrial jobs further the goal of1076building things in America again?1077    Secretary Wright. Because an evaluation showed that the1078projects at the end were not viable. There is no point in1079building a bridge to nowhere. If you make a factory, make a1080product 25 percent more expensive, but customers won't pay 251081percent, it clears----1082    Senator Padilla. Well, the projects that are being cut are1083more than just viable. I would argue they are critical, and we1084will be following up with you, and again, hope for responses,1085as Senator Heinrich has emphasized.1086    Thank you very much.1087    Thank you, Mr. Chair.1088    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.1089    The Chairman. Senator Daines.1090    Senator Daines. Secretary Wright, it's great to have you1091back here. Last week, the EPA announced they have started the1092process to roll back President Biden's anti-energy rules,1093including MATS and Clean Power Plan 2.0. The Biden1094administration specifically targeted Colstrip there in Montana1095with these rules with the express intention of closing it down1096for good. Mr. Secretary, as you know, this would have been1097devastating for Montana jobs, devastating for grid reliability1098and energy production in the region at a time when we need more1099energy. It is vital we continue to expand energy production,1100not shut it down or replace it. That means building more1101projects while ensuring coal plants like Colstrip continue to1102produce baseload power--reliable, affordable power.1103    My question, Secretary Wright, is, as EPA and other1104agencies work to rescind and rewrite rules, will you weigh-in1105to ensure that grid reliability, energy affordability, and1106baseload power are top-of-mind for rules that are affecting1107power generation?1108    Secretary Wright. Absolutely, yes, Senator. I am passionate1109about that, and in fact, I testified in Congress multiple times1110before I got my new job on just that issue that when1111regulations pursue a narrow agenda and they don't consider the1112broader impacts of what they are doing, they can be destructive1113on our country and on our people. And yeah, I am very1114passionate about those topics.1115    Senator Daines. Secretary Wright, thank you. And I will1116tell you, thank you. We truly have a subject matter expert on1117energy in yourself and your experience as a scientist, as a1118leader, and somebody who is not an ideologue, who is very1119pragmatic in trying to solve these important challenges facing1120our country as it relates to energy and the constraints we face1121today.1122    Last week, Senator Hoeven and I, along with our colleagues1123from the Montana and North Dakota delegations, sent you a1124letter expressing our strong support for DOE's efforts to1125advance American energy dominance, particularly through the1126approval of the North Plains Connector interregional1127transmission project. As you know, the Department's GRIP1128Program awarded a $700 million grant to the Montana Department1129of Commerce for this critical project. When completed, this1130North Plains Connector would extend a 420-mile high-voltage1131transmission line capable of carrying up to 525 kilovolts of1132electricity between eastern Montana and western North Dakota.1133Right now, Montana exports the majority of its electricity,1134including from Colstrip--we go west to states like Oregon and1135Washington. This project would have the potential to diversify1136Montana's generation assets, unlocking billions in private1137investment, and enhance our nation's energy security by1138connecting eastern and western electric grids.1139    My question, Secretary Wright: to keep this critical1140project on track to meet its 2032 operational target, will you1141commit to supporting advancement of the North Plains Connector1142GRIP award to ensure that we can move this forward?1143    Secretary Wright. So Senator, thanks for that impassioned1144layout of that project. I am quite familiar with the project. I1145have met with the developers of the project as well. Of course,1146it's very, very logical connecting two separate grids together1147to allow flows back and forth. It's a very encouraging project.1148We are committed to following this project review process where1149a crew of people evaluate--not political, not biased for this1150or that--just look at the math, look at the numbers, and is1151this thing viable and beneficial for America? You know, yes,1152no, or it's adjustable. It's modifiable.1153    So we haven't finished that on that project yet, but I1154think you make a strong case for the project, and1155interconnections between grids is certainly something the1156United States needs more of.1157    Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.1158    My last questions and points here are regarding the small1159refinery exemption. Last week, the EPA released their renewable1160fuel obligations, which will put significant pressure on1161Montana's small refineries. Unfortunately, the Biden1162administration never issued small refinery exemptions and the1163refineries in Montana suffered. DOE plays an important role in1164consulting with EPA over small refinery exemptions, and it's1165important that your voice is heard as EPA makes their1166decisions.1167    Secretary Wright, I would ask if you are willing to work1168with Administrator Zeldin to ensure that our Montana refineries1169with the small refinery exemption have the resources they need1170to continue operating?1171    Secretary Wright. Yes, indeed, Senator. I said this1172earlier, but I think government involvement in energy has a bad1173historical track record. You raise another example where, you1174know, what maybe sounded like a reasonable idea became a blunt1175tool that says thou must do this. There are all different1176refineries in all different settings and all different access1177to feedstocks, and that rule is not well-suited to the problem1178you have got. And there are ways to address the problem, and as1179you just said, the last administration chose not to address1180those problems, but yeah, I think this administration is very1181practical and wants to look at what trade-off package makes the1182most sense.1183    So I hear you, and yes, I am engaged and will continue to1184be engaged with EPA on this dialogue.1185    Senator Daines. Secretary Wright, thank you.1186    Secretary Wright. Thank you for raising it.1187    The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto.1188    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1189    Secretary Wright, welcome, thank you for being here.1190    Do you support an all-of-the-above approach to tackle1191growing electricity demand?1192    Secretary Wright. I have always said in the past that I1193don't support all of the above because that's political--I will1194support your thing if you support my thing. I think energy is1195the infrastructure for life and humanity. And to me, energy is1196about two things--it's about people--humans--and math. And so,1197I support every----1198    Senator Cortez Masto. Humans and math--so let me ask you1199this.1200    Secretary Wright. Yes.1201    Senator Cortez Masto. Because we are in agreement on1202geothermal, and I have to thank Senator Murkowski and Senator1203Coons. Yesterday, we had a great conversation about geothermal,1204and it is in your fiscal year budget, which is fantastic. You1205know why it's fantastic? Because we have a lot of geothermal in1206Nevada. But there's not a lot of geothermal in the rest of the1207country. It's in a lot of the West. It's in Alaska. Not1208necessarily in the rest of the country. And I believe that an1209all-of-the-above energy approach is necessary for the states to1210decide what their energy portfolio will be, based on their1211geology, geography, and what they have abundance of. It's not1212political, but it gives the states that choice. And one choice1213we have in Nevada, along with geothermal, is solar.1214    And so, my question for you is, in the Fiscal Year budget,1215why did you zero-out funds for solar energy and renewable grid1216integration, which is necessary for many states who are already1217investing in it and necessary for their energy portfolio?1218    Secretary Wright. So the EERE Office had a huge reduction1219in its budget but it didn't go away. And things like OCED and1220GRIP got folded into EERE. So these things aren't going away,1221but there is a dramatic reduction in focus. By far, the biggest1222energy expenditure line is----1223    Senator Cortez Masto. Why solar?1224    Secretary Wright. What?1225    Senator Cortez Masto. Why solar?1226    Secretary Wright. Just because of the relative over-1227investment in it. We spent four times as much in EERE than in1228hydrocarbons in the last administration, and one provides three1229percent of American energy and one provides 80-plus percent of1230American----1231    Senator Cortez Masto. I don't have much time. I am going to1232jump to the next one. But oil and gas have had subsidies for1233decades and they will continue to have subsidies for decades.1234So I don't understand the political decisions this1235administration has made, because I think that's the politics1236that's happening here. You are favoring one type of energy over1237another. But let me jump to my next question because I1238appreciate you being here. So thank you.1239    On May 23, President Trump invoked the Defense Production1240Act by issuing a waiver for critical minerals. I support it. We1241need to have critical minerals here. We need to have energy1242independence. Critical minerals are key for that. But one week1243later, DOE canceled 24 projects, including one in Nevada that1244is using innovative solutions to create the country's only all-1245domestic source of alumina. Now, I assume you are aware that1246the U.S. is import-reliant on alumina, as we produce less than1247one-sixth of the aluminum we consume. And I am sure you are1248also aware that China currently dominates global production,1249accounting for roughly 60 percent of the global alumina supply1250chain. So please explain to me how you are making a decision1251when you identify critical minerals that are necessary, but at1252the same time, you are taking away the essential funding for1253this country to be independent when it comes to these critical1254minerals. Why? Why did you cancel those 24 projects, including1255that one in Nevada?1256    Secretary Wright. So thanks for the passion on that. I am1257pro solar and pro critical minerals as well. So it really just1258comes down to the devil is in the details. We review every1259project. We are going through over 500 of them, just to say, is1260this project, at the end of the day, going to lead to a1261positive outcome?1262    Senator Cortez Masto. But what legal precedent did you and1263the Department utilize to roll back congressionally approved1264funds for this enacted program and those 24 programs? They were1265already enacted. Congress approved them. They were already1266approved by the last administration. So what legal authority1267did you have to come back and terminate those?1268    Secretary Wright. All of the contracts--just like in1269business--all of the contracts have cancellation clauses, and1270we are in dialogue with every one of those parties. Some of1271these projects can be fixed to make them more viable. And a lot1272of these projects will be----1273    Senator Cortez Masto. So is this one that you will be1274looking at, that critical mineral for alumina, which we need in1275this country to be energy independent? Are you willing to look1276at that project and renew it?1277    Secretary Wright. Willing to look at all of them. We are in1278dialogues today with eight of the projects that were1279preliminarily canceled that----1280    Senator Cortez Masto. So can I get a commitment that you1281will look at the Nevada projects as well that you defunded,1282because they are critical mineral mining and extraction, and1283the production that we need to bring back to the state. Will1284you work with me for those Nevada projects?1285    Secretary Wright. Absolutely. We will look at those1286projects.1287    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.1288    Secretary Wright. And absolutely, we want to bring back1289mining to this country.1290    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.1291    The Chairman. Senator Murkowski.1292    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1293    Mr. Secretary, welcome, and thank you for coming to Alaska1294a couple weeks ago. The time that you spent there, along with1295Secretary Burgum, Administrator Zeldin--I really, deeply1296appreciate it. I know you had the opportunity to go up north1297and get a little fresh air, but really have a chance to engage1298with so many that are doing amazing things in the energy space.1299And I really appreciated the comments that you had made at the1300Sunday roundtable, if you will. You had an observation about1301energy in Alaska that I thought was really telling. You noted1302that there are the big things--the big things where we are able1303to take our energy assets for export to help our friends and1304allies. That second tier, which is that energy that is going to1305allow us, as Alaskans, to have more affordable, accessible1306energy for our own use, and then a recognition that in certain1307parts of the state, things just look different. And I think the1308words that you used were something like, you know, energy or1309power generation is going to look different in different1310places, and a recognition that when it comes to some of the1311smaller-scale things, we just have to allow ourselves to have1312some flexibility and some creativity. So I loved the way you1313had captured that and I just thank you for that.1314    First question, super-easy. Are we going to build an Alaska1315LNG pipeline?1316    Secretary Wright. Yes.1317    Senator Murkowski. Okay, there we go--innovation. I could1318really delve into the gas line, but I am going to move on to1319some of the other things that relate to the budget. I had an1320opportunity on that Sunday to visit with seven or so of the1321national lab directors. It was great conversation. I really1322appreciated it. And we talked about some of the contributions1323that we are seeing out of our national labs. NREL,1324specifically, has been working with our Cold Climate Housing1325Center, just some great innovative technologies. So just a1326direct question to you on the assets, the resources that we are1327directing to sustain our national labs' ability to really1328coordinate directly with communities, the ability to offer1329technical assistance. Are you good with the budget and where1330you are and in a recognition that there is so much value to be1331had from the work of our national labs?1332    Secretary Wright. Oh, I love the national labs. They have1333delivered tremendous value to us throughout their history and1334they will in the future as well. And I am actually very open to1335expanding the lab budget back a little bit from where the1336current proposal is. I have been voicing that. AI is moving1337very fast right now. Quantum computing is about to arrive. And1338fusion energy, a thing I worked on in my youth, is going to1339come to pass. And this is a time, I think, to lean in as much1340as we can on these large scientific efforts. And so, I am keen,1341actually, to grow the budget for our national labs in those key1342areas of AI----1343    Senator Murkowski. Well, I will look forward to working1344with you on that. I think the contributions that we get are so1345important. And as you say, things are just moving at breakneck1346speed, so how we keep up with all of this--one of the concerns1347that I heard, in addition to budget, was also the impact that1348they have seen with some of the reductions in force and just,1349you know, the people that are doing really extraordinary things1350that may move on may not be the easiest to replace. So know1351that I am just very, very cognizant of that.1352    I want to ask a question about the Tribal Energy Loan1353Guarantee Program. As you know, I am Chairman of the Senate1354Committee on Indian Affairs. The budget is proposing a1355significant reduction in the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee1356Program. I know this is not just for me--my colleague here from1357North Dakota, there is so much potential, I think we recognize,1358on tribal lands still remaining undeveloped. I guess I would1359ask for your thoughts on how we can be doing better. If you1360don't think it's within the construct of the Tribal Energy Loan1361Guarantee, how is it that we can be more helpful working in1362partnership to address some of the exorbitantly high energy1363prices that we see in our tribal lands?1364    Secretary Wright. Thank you for your passion on this issue.1365I share it, as you know.1366    Senator Murkowski. Yes.1367    Secretary Wright. So in the history of the tribal thing, I1368think it has made one loan. That is it----1369    Senator Murkowski. It has been very disappointing.1370    Secretary Wright. So it's like, hey, we have, you know, a1371whole office and it has got one thing to loan. So I would say1372that's like a re-org, but it is not a pulling back. I would1373love to do more projects in tribal areas and remote areas. So I1374wouldn't read, you know, an office that's not doing anything1375being folded into something else as a change in commitment or1376change in interest in that area. In fact, some of the best1377meetings I had in Alaska were from some of your colleagues up1378there that are working on energy in remote Alaskan villages.1379And as you know so well, it's just so different, right? If you1380are--I critique wind and solar and their impact on the larger1381scale here. They are competing against natural gas that on an1382oil barrel equivalent price is $20--$20 a barrel energy cost1383for pipeline natural gas. In Alaska, they are competing with1384$10-plus diesel, which is $400--20 times more expensive base1385energy. If you can put solar or wind or micro-hydro on a grid1386there, you can shrink your diesel cost and extend the time1387between refueling and shipping.1388    So yes, as you and I have both said so many times, there1389are different energy answers in different settings at all1390times. I am not a--I am a--people and math, people and math.1391And one of the problems I think we have made the least progress1392on is affordable energy in remote communities.1393    Senator Murkowski. We have great work to do together, and I1394look forward to exploring more with you on that.1395    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1396    The Chairman. Senator Wyden.1397    Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.1398    Mr. Secretary, good to have a chance to talk with you this1399morning when you came up to the office. We discussed the clean1400energy tax incentives law that I wrote in the Finance1401Committee. As you know, it is technology-neutral--no mandates,1402voluntary incentives. Now, I understand that there was some1403discussion earlier. I had to be somewhere else. But there was1404some discussion earlier about renewables, and renewables in1405Florida, and matters like that. I wanted to run by you1406something that the CEO for the utility in Florida, actually the1407utility that covers Mar-a-Lago, said the other day, and get1408your reaction because maybe it can help us make some progress1409here. The CEO said, ``I am a CEO who has gas plant holdings. I1410believe deeply in natural gas. I also believe because we have1411such a need for energy now,'' and we have to deal with AI and1412many of the concerns that we are talking about, and he said,1413``I need electrons from any place on the planet where I can get1414them. I just need electrons.'' And that certainly woke1415everybody up. That kind of drives it home. And people said,1416well, what about renewables? And he said, ``I have got to have1417electrons from the renewables sector. It is urgent. I won't be1418able to meet the growth and the AI needs.''1419    So why can't we just say we got this economic emergency and1420we are going to get the electrons from everywhere? I know about1421the comments you and others have made about intermittent uses1422and the like. That's why we have batteries to help with that.1423But the more important issue is, when a gas executive who says1424he believes in gas, not somebody who is walking away--he says1425he believes in gas, but that the problem is so serious today,1426in terms of having energy, he wants to get his electrons from1427anywhere he can get them. Why can't we get renewables to him?1428    Secretary Wright. Well, I have had the same dialogue with1429the same CEO. He is the biggest renewable developer in the1430world and runs a big business, but to me, it's about people and1431it's about math. So we can--nobody is proposing to stop solar1432power, right? The idea is it has been subsidized for a quarter1433of a century, and it should compete on its own, and it will.1434Solar will continue to grow. It'll continue to get built.1435That's happening right now.1436    Senator Wyden. Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, it's getting1437short shrift in the central climate change law of our time.1438Until I wrote this law, we had never, in 50 years, done1439anything on cap and trade or pricing or anything that anybody,1440whether they were left or right, had agreed on. And now, solar1441is getting short shrift. We are hearing about it from companies1442who really feel that it is being left out at a time when we1443ought to be saying this is something--that's why I put1444technological neutrality as my lodestar. I wanted to make sure1445that everybody could play. That it would be voluntary, we would1446have incentives and the like, and solar is getting short shrift1447now.1448    Now, maybe you can do something here as we try to wrap up1449what we are working on in the reconciliation bill. But I would1450really urge you in the strongest possible way to pursue an1451approach that I am the author of, and I like the idea that a1452gas executive is saying, I am for gas. I am for it. When I was1453Chairman of the Committee, my first hearing, because I thought1454it was relevant to the debate, was on natural gas. But right1455now, we have got to have renewables, and the best way to get1456them and satisfy that electron need is that way. Can you help?1457    Secretary Wright. Well, what I would like--the bigger the1458government's involvement has been in energy, and you can look1459at Germany or Denmark or the UK, if you want to see people ten1460years ahead of us. When the government goes into energy and1461subsidizes certain kinds of energy, you get a lot more of that.1462And the net result has been expenditures of money on the1463subsidies and a less reliable, more expensive system. And that1464doesn't--nobody wins from that. The only people that win are1465the people collecting the subsidies, the businessmen who get1466paid to develop stuff----1467    Senator Wyden. My time is going expire. But the fact is,1468this is written so that everybody can be part of a marketplace.1469It doesn't give a preference to somebody. It says technological1470neutrality. I hope you will think it over.1471    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1472    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.1473    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.1474    Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very1475much, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate you being here.1476    Over the last few years, I believe Congress irresponsibly1477saddled you, your Department, with 71 new programs overseeing1478hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, and I think the1479situation is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse. And it left1480the Department--your Department now--without a clear direction.1481So can you talk a little bit about how you are getting the1482Department of Energy back in a focused direction with regard to1483your overall mission?1484    Secretary Wright. Yeah, I would say the simplest thing is1485treating it like a business, yeah. We're not--I have been1486writing on energy for 20 years. I never infused it with1487politics. You know, to me, energy is about humans and math,1488right? Energy is to better people's lives and expand their1489opportunities of how they can do things, and the way to do that1490just comes down to what is the lowest system cost to deliver1491whatever that form of energy is in a reliable, secure way and1492reduce the environmental impacts of it, of course, as well. And1493the track record of markets in that has been quite good, but1494the government getting in and through our Department, shoveling1495out more than $100 billion, most of it rushed between election1496day and inauguration.1497    I mentioned before the numbers on LPO. That's loans. Our1498Department also gives out financial assistance. It's like1499grants. They give financial assistance to businesses. This is1500IRA and IIJA money. Those laws passed in 2022. In the full year15012023, a little over $8 billion of assistance grants were given1502out in the full year of 2023, and $26 billion after election1503day and before inauguration. And so, what we have done is,1504created, and maybe frustratingly slow to some people, but we1505haven't been lazy--we have put together a committee of cross-1506functional people that are going to evaluate every project, you1507know, on is it technically viable, is the engineering done, is1508it financially viable. At the end of the day, is it going to be1509a bridge to nowhere, or is it going to be a business where1510customers are going to pay for the product and it's going to go1511on.1512    And the projects that we have evaluated have passed and1513they are continuing to fund. For some projects, we have engaged1514with the other party and we have modified them, so it's a1515positive for the American taxpayers. And a lot of projects have1516not passed because they are just--we are just paying someone to1517build something more expensive than people are willing to buy1518today, and nobody wins from that. And I want to restore1519confidence in our Department again, you know? We are1520professionals that are here to work for the American people,1521not for our own interest, not for any politically favored, you1522know, technology here or there. We just want to make the1523American energy system better, but that means people and1524process and accountability.1525    Senator Barrasso. You know, Congress has made key1526investments in nuclear innovation, and you are an expert in the1527area. These investments include the Nuclear Fuel Security Act1528to strengthen our fuel supply chain and the Advanced Reactor1529Demonstration Program to move advanced reactors forward. Can1530you speak about those plans in the program?1531    Secretary Wright. Yeah, there are lots of them. In fact, I1532have a new one today. We will announce today a new solicitation1533that we would like to get three new small modular reactors1534critical, meaning producing power by July 4 of next year, at1535the Idaho National Lab in our containment facility that can1536sort of speed up ideas that are ready to go. Let's get them on1537the ground and test them and prove them because look, the1538Americans invented the nuclear power industry. We came out and1539built 100-plus plants rapidly. Then we created an NRC and1540stopped. And we haven't done much for 30 or 40 years. You and I1541and many others really want to get that nuclear ball rolling1542again.1543    We are working with companies to get domestic fuel1544enrichment going in the United States again, another just1545critical problem. Congress rightfully passed a bill saying we1546shouldn't be importing Russian uranium. Well, I don't want to1547import Russian uranium either, but we have got to get it from1548somewhere. We have got to enrich uranium in the United States1549by American companies and ramp that up.1550    Those are the kinds of things we are working on, but there1551is a bunch of great innovative companies with a lot of private1552capital behind them. It's private capital that's going to drive1553this, but we are going to help in every way we can.1554    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.1555    And finally, we were together when the President signed his1556coal executive orders. You know, the last administration was1557flat-out anti-coal in every way they could be. They wouldn't1558support the projects that we needed, even the ones that1559resulted in diminished emissions. They just were against1560everything. I thought it was shortsighted, and left our1561valuable resource underutilized. What's the Department doing in1562terms of restarting coal research, whether novel combustion,1563carbon capture, coal products made from newly mined coal as a1564result of the President signing the executive orders?1565    Secretary Wright. So a number of different efforts there.1566One, I will just state the facts--coal has been the largest1567source of global electricity for a hundred years. It will be1568when I die as well. There is a reason coal is the biggest1569provider of global electricity, but I will be in your great1570state on July 11th for the opening of a new coal mine that's1571combined with rare earth element mining right there. And that,1572to me, is incredibly exciting. And maybe the biggest thing I1573have been involved in with coal right now is that we need all1574this extra power everyone is talking about for AI and we need1575to win the AI race. The first thing is to stop digging the1576hole. So we have got to stop closing all these coal plants with1577tons of useful life left in them.1578    Senator Barrasso. I look forward to being with you on July157911th in Wyoming.1580    Thanks, Mr. Secretary.1581    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.1582    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1583    The Chairman. Senator King.1584    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1585    Mr. Secretary, good to see you again, thank you.1586    I want to talk about the grid because we all know that1587there is going to be a tremendous expansion of demand for1588electricity over the next 10, 20, 30 years, and that's going to1589require significant attention to the grid. And the Grid1590Resilience and Innovation Partnership Program was created under1591the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill. My concern is that there1592are a significant number of programs under that that have1593received approval, but are now being reviewed by your office.1594My first question is, can you assure me that that review is1595professional and engineering-based and not political?1596    Secretary Wright. Absolutely, it is. We are evaluating the1597engineering, the science, the finance, and just the viability1598of the projects. It is just a business review. Unfortunately,1599it wasn't done before when grants were given, but I would say1600in the GRIP Program, there are a lot of very good projects1601there, but we are just trying to be careful and thoughtful.1602    Senator King. Well, you know, one that I am particularly1603interested in is the largest grid-scale battery project that is1604being manufactured in West Virginia, but is scheduled to be1605located in a small town in Maine that would make a huge1606difference and I hope--what is your timeline on this review?1607    Secretary Wright. It's--we stood up this process a few1608weeks ago. Now, we are going to get, probably--trying to think1609of a number here--but at least 20 of these a week out and done,1610but Senator, you raised that again. I am very interested in1611that technology as well. And my Chief of Staff is here with me,1612and we will make sure that in the next, you know, few weeks at1613most----1614    Senator King. Good.1615    Secretary Wright [continuing]. We will get onto that1616project.1617    Senator King. Well, because batteries are part of the1618solution--not the whole solution--but development of that1619technology, which was described to this Committee something1620like two or three years ago, is very promising. So I hope we1621can move forward on that.1622    Secretary Wright. Yes.1623    Senator King. Following up on the same area--the Grid1624Deployment Office--again, looking at the demands on the grid,1625the problem is, the budget proposes a 75 percent cut in the1626Grid Deployment Office. I don't understand how this is a place1627to cut where this is obviously an increasing demand and1628pressure on the system.1629    Secretary Wright. It is, but I would look at it more as1630part of a reorganization of the Department. You know, the1631central thing there is the Office of Electricity and CESER--the1632cybersecurity thing--they are sort of the two core offices1633around that. There were a lot of other smaller offices set1634around, but I would look at the whole complex. So the Office of1635Electricity is all about the grid. So the Grid Deployment1636Office was, you know, it's got grid in the name, but it's1637really just a sub-office.1638    Senator King. Well, as long at the resources going to1639strengthening the grid are not diminished. If you are talking1640about diminishing some other programs, that's one thing, but1641again, one of the things I have noticed just in my career in1642energy is, it used to be that the principal part of your1643electric bill was the cost of energy. Now, in many places,1644transmission distribution is 50 percent or more. And that's1645only going to increase unless we start to think about new1646technologies, what are called GETs, which I am sure you are1647familiar with--grid enhancing technologies--so that we're not1648simply rebuilding massive facilities that could be obviated by1649new technologies.1650    Secretary Wright. Well, I agree so much, Senator. You know,1651ten years ago, I am like, we just got to build more1652transmission lines. We have got to build our infrastructure. It1653turns out, it's so hard to get approval to build anything. But1654as you just said----1655    Senator King. You can reconductor.1656    Secretary Wright. Exactly. We can reconductor. We can do1657dynamic land rating, even with our existing things. There is so1658much upside in the grid and there, I think, we just have to1659find some practical solutions and get local regulators to1660implement these things, but I agree with you, a lot of upside1661in being smarter about the grid.1662    Senator King. My other concern with the budget is ARPA-E.1663Research is one of the things the Federal Government can do,1664particularly basic research that doesn't necessarily lead1665immediately to commercialization. If it led immediately to1666commercialization, the private sector would be doing it. This1667is where the government can fill in a gap in the market. I am a1668big supporter of the market, but the market doesn't factor in1669all these elements.1670    Why are we cutting ARPA-E by more than half?1671    Secretary Wright. That's a great question. And look, I1672share an interest in basic science, the national labs, nuclear1673physics. There is a lot of stuff. If the government doesn't do1674it, then no one will do it.1675    Senator King. And you, of all people, know that fracking1676came out of support by the Department of Energy.1677    Secretary Wright. And so, yes, there are discussions about1678ARPA-E--what is the right thing to do? I know in the previous1679Trump administration it was zeroed out entirely. Rest assured,1680we want to keep ARPA-E. We will keep ARPA-E, and it will be at1681a reasonable level, but you know, it had grown fast and wild,1682and it backed a number of great projects, and maybe a lot of1683more politically motivated, not technically motivated projects.1684So it's going to be sizable and meaningful.1685    Senator King. Given the demand that we are going to have1686for energy, it seems to me that research in new technologies is1687going to be critical to meeting that demand. And I hope that1688you will maintain the level of support that's required by the1689demand, if you will.1690    Secretary Wright. I agree with your point entirely.1691    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr.1692Chairman.1693    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.1694    The Chairman. Senator Hoeven.1695    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1696    Secretary, good to see you again, appreciate all your good1697work. Hope you are enjoying it. Great to have you in the slot.1698    I am going to start on a shared experience, and it actually1699relates to something that Senator King just mentioned, and1700that's the Bakken and the shale, and we actually shared that1701experience during the period we went through, you know, in say,1702the 2000-2010 era where we cracked the code in the Bakken and1703the shale play. I was in the Governor's office and worked on1704policy to help create a good environment so that entrepreneurs1705like you and the companies you created could get that done. You1706did. Great. And obviously, producing an incredible amount of1707oil down in the Permian and the Ranking Member's State of New1708Mexico, and obviously Texas and Louisiana, but in our state, we1709produced over five billion barrels out of the Bakken as a1710result of that. A lot of energy we don't have to get from1711foreign sources and adversaries, right?1712    Secretary Wright. Yes.1713    Senator Hoeven. But we need to put--essentially now, we1714need to do it again. We need to crack the code again. Now we1715need to develop the carbon CO2 floods that are going1716to bring out probably an equal amount or more, given that we1717are only getting, what, less than ten percent of the oil out of1718the Bakken shale and the other shale plays. We now need to1719develop these floods. We have used hot water and other things,1720but really the CO2 will be much more effective. And1721we can put a whole other life on this energy production--1722domestic, high-quality, highest quality oil right here at home.1723    Talk to me about how we are going to get that done. How are1724we going to crack that code again?1725    Secretary Wright. Yeah, great question. So there is1726research, you know, in private industry on this and there is1727research at the Department of Energy. And in fact, the guy I1728picked to lead the Fossil Energy Office, which will be renamed1729the Hydrocarbon Office--I really don't like some of the names1730we've got in the Department--but in any case, he's a technology1731guy. And his big focus is just what you said--what's next? He's1732a young guy from North Dakota, actually.1733    Senator Hoeven. Oh, he has got to be sharp then.1734    [Laughter.]1735    Secretary Wright. He is a high-tech guy who wants to look1736at what technology is five, ten, 20 years out on the road. And1737you are right that the single biggest target of that next1738generation is enhanced oil recovery out of shales. We can get1739ten percent out with the technologies we have got today. How do1740we get more?1741    And I think you are right that it's likely that the most1742viable ways to do it will be some kind of miscible gas that is1743injected underground. CO2 is certainly a great1744candidate for that.1745    Senator Hoeven. There are others----1746    Secretary Wright. Right, could be methane or--but 1001747percent. And your research center that you have got in North1748Dakota with some great technical people there has been a leader1749in that effort, and I suspect will be growing leaders in that1750effort.1751    One of the things, if I could ask one thing for the whole1752Senate is, please help confirm my people. You know, I have got1753ten people that have gone through your Committee that are1754sitting there and I don't have them in the office. I don't have1755them on the team because of some procedural thing. They have1756already been vetted. They have already got bipartisan votes1757among this Committee. I would desperately need some more people1758in the office to help me, including on this one.1759    Senator Hoeven. Glad you made that pitch, very important.1760We are all aware of that and we all do what we can to help make1761that happen. I appreciate that.1762    We talked a little bit about critical minerals. We have a1763very interesting project going on in North Dakota right now1764with Talon Metals. They are affiliated with Rio Tinto and some1765other big mining companies and that kind of thing. But1766essentially, they are mining nickel ore out of Minnesota, which1767has very rich ore deposits--from northern Minnesota bringing it1768over to North Dakota. And they are actually setting up a1769processing facility at what was the Westmoreland Coal Mine,1770which is a coal mine that shut down--reopening the mine, but1771for critical mineral development. They will process the nickel1772and then that will actually go to like Tesla and other places1773that need the nickel for batteries so that they aren't buying1774that from foreign countries. And then, the tailings will be1775mixed with coal ash to produce building materials.1776    Talk to me about how we do more of that. You mentioned the1777project in Wyoming, but this is a project in North Dakota. Same1778thing, where we are now going to get critical minerals here at1779home, and the key is to do it in a commercially viable way.1780That's what we have got to--this stuff works when we make it1781commercially viable. We can do all of it. The question is, can1782we make it commercially viable, right?1783    Secretary Wright. So Senator, one of the things I am1784excited about, this time we are right now in our country's1785history, like we built big things and we innovated and we built1786giant things and then we became a country where it was easy to1787stop things and hard to do things. And we just killed the1788mining industry. It just shrunk to a few existing mines. No one1789has built a new mine in this country in forever. But I think we1790have a different attitude today in America, that we use these1791materials, they come out of mines--shouldn't they come out of1792our mines? Because not only do we have the materials here, but1793we can drive innovation to do smarter mining and better mining.1794But since it has all been out of sight, out of mind overseas,1795the amount of people that study and think about mining in our1796country has shrunk so small and it's up to you and I and1797everyone in this room to make mining and materials processing1798sexy again.1799    But I believe we will because it's now national security.1800We have seen the national security downside of this, but yes,1801we need to get going on this stuff, and I think what could1802happen in the next decade is thrilling.1803    Senator Hoeven. I love that. We are going to make mining1804sexy again. That's a great way to put it. And we are looking1805forward to getting out to the Energy Environmental Research1806Center, which you mentioned earlier.1807    Secretary Wright. Yes.1808    Senator Hoeven. And again, thanks for all your great work,1809appreciate it.1810    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.1811    Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Mr. Chair.1812    The Chairman. Thank you.1813    Senator Cotton.1814    Senator Cotton. Secretary, welcome.1815    The demand for lithium has substantially increased in1816recent years, but the United States is currently only1817responsible for about one percent of lithium mining and less1818than five percent of advanced lithium chemical processing1819capacity globally--that despite lithium being necessary in a1820wide range of uses, to include critical military capabilities.1821In September of last year, the Department of Energy selected1822Standard Lithium and Equinor for a $225 million grant to1823develop the lithium reserves in South Arkansas in the Smackover1824Formation, where Geological Survey has found between 15 million1825and 19 million tons of lithium. I know that this grant was1826announced before your tenure, and it is under review now. When1827can Arkansans expect an answer on when the grant will be1828approved?1829    Secretary Wright. I think all the sizable projects will be1830done this summer. You know, we are in middle of June now, so by1831the end of August, for sure, maybe much sooner than that. And1832Senator, it is frustrating, I am sure, for people on the other1833side, you know, this--we continue to fund existing projects,1834but given the track record of what happened when we walked in1835the door, which is pretty alarming, and the more I have dug1836into it, the more alarming it is. You probably heard me say1837before, you know, $90 billion, you know, lent after election1838day and before inauguration--over double the previous 15 years,1839$25 billion of that in the last two days.1840    So in any case, there is a lot of crazy stuff, like a piece1841of paper--there was a project that got funded for $2.5 million,1842and then, right at the end of the administration, with a sheet1843that said justification for increase, there was nothing on it,1844its funding went from a little over $2 million to over $2001845million. So we want to be careful with the American taxpayer1846monies, with monies you have allocated, that these projects are1847responsible and credible and thoughtful and they are going to1848lead to some good results. You talk about a very exciting one,1849this--it's hard to build mines in America. Heck, we can get1850lithium out of brine, so you know, out of boreholes in salt. So1851very exciting, very keen. We will be on that and let's be1852talking about it.1853    Senator Cotton. Yes.1854    Secretary Wright. But we will sort that out this summer.1855    Senator Cotton. And we understand that there were a lot of1856inappropriate actions in the lame-duck period up to, as you1857say, the very last day--projects being funded that, frankly,1858never should have been funded. But obviously, I think this is1859one of the critical projects that should be funded, lithium1860being so vital for almost every walk of modern life and now1861being one of those things that's in dispute with trade1862negotiations with China.1863    I want to turn to another topic we have discussed in the1864past, Mr. Secretary, and that's security at our national labs.1865I have introduced legislation with Chairman Lee and some of my1866other colleagues that would ban foreign scientists from1867adversarial countries like Russia and China and Iran. You, I1868know, are conducting a review of security policies at our 171869national labs. When do you expect the review to be completed?1870    Secretary Wright. It is an ongoing process, and every time1871I see the lab directors--I saw half of them in Alaska, I saw1872all of them a week ago. I have been to half of the labs now and1873I will get to the other half. So it's a real topic and it's a1874balance. It is a balance. Do we want, you know, Chinese1875nationals in our weapons research or in our critical economic1876new breakthrough stuff? No, we don't. But we have, of course,1877projects--I have approved three Chinese foreign nationals to1878work on stuff because they have very unique expertise. It's not1879sensitive stuff. And if we don't use, you know, a specific1880person, there were hundreds of potentials. So we have shrunk1881that down dramatically small because you raise a very real1882concern. I have stressed it to the lab directors. I think they1883get it, too. So we have like a matrix approach and we are1884trying to balance--not stopping scientific research--but erring1885on the side of caution that these are national jewels and1886national gems, and clearly these countries of concern have1887clearly shown zero scruples to steal everything we have.1888    Senator Cotton. And speaking of caution, have you1889identified any urgent vulnerabilities that have needed to be1890patched before your review is complete?1891    Secretary Wright. We have----1892    Senator Cotton. You know, let me stop you. If you would1893like to respond to me through other channels, that's fine.1894    Secretary Wright. Yeah, let's--I will just say it's a real1895issue. It's a real issue.1896    Senator Cotton. Are there any Iranian scientists in any of1897our labs as of right now?1898    Secretary Wright. Not that I am aware of.1899    Senator Cotton. Okay, I hope your lab directors hear that.1900    All right, I will yield back the rest of my time. Thank1901you.1902    The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Cotton.1903    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.1904    The Chairman. Okay, we have now completed round one. There1905is interest in doing a round two. We do need to be out of here1906by about noon. So what I am going to propose is that we try to1907keep, in the second round, let's try to keep them shorter.1908    Senator Heinrich, why don't we go to you next and try, each1909of us doing a round two, try to keep it to a question or two so1910we can make sure we are finished by noon, if that's all right?1911Thank you.1912    Senator Heinrich. Secretary, in New Mexico, we have a1913couple of geothermal projects, and I appreciate your enthusiasm1914for advanced geothermal, also a grid reliability project. They1915have both been in the Loan Programs Office pipeline for a very1916long time, and over the course of the last six months, the1917back-and-forth communication has gone away. And so, I would1918just ask you if you would commit to sort of making sure that1919your Loan Programs Office reengages with those two projects.1920    Secretary Wright. Yes, yes indeed, Senator.1921    Senator Heinrich. Thank you.1922    I want to ask you a little bit more about this review board1923process because you described it as a business review, as1924professional, not political, but your own attorneys briefed my1925staff yesterday and said that there were political appointees1926on those review boards. Is that the case or is that not the1927case?1928    Secretary Wright. Well, it is absolutely the case.1929    Senator Heinrich. So my understanding is that in previous1930administrations these kinds of reviews have been done by career1931staff. If it's a business review, why do we have political1932appointees on these review boards?1933    Secretary Wright. Oh, it's a hybrid of the two. I am pretty1934confident it was that way before. I don't think the careers1935would have shoveled out $25 billion in the last two days before1936inauguration. That's----1937    Senator Heinrich. For example, in the Loan Programs Office,1938there were no politicals on the review board. The final sign-1939off comes from a political appointee, but prior to that, the1940actual review committee did not have politicals. So I am1941wondering, if we want to do this in a professional way, why are1942we putting politicals on these review boards? Why not save that1943for the final process and let the professionals do their job?1944    Secretary Wright. Senator, I am highly confident the1945decision-making process now is vastly more professional and1946vastly less political than it was in the previous1947administration.1948    Senator Heinrich. How am I supposed to evaluate that if1949there weren't politicals on these review boards before, and1950now, we have politicals in the review boards? So why should I1951believe that to be the case if there is--why not let the1952professionals in your Department--and you have some of the best1953in the entire world--do their job, and then you can make a1954political decision?1955    Secretary Wright. Because the political appointees that are1956in it are people I chose, they are business leaders, they are1957entrepreneurs, they are on the political team we brought in,1958but their job is to evaluate the math, the financial1959statements, go back and forth with questions. They are playing1960a business role, and if you look at--and we should have a1961lunch. We should have a lunch, and you should see how we do1962things today, and I can show you how things were done before.1963The change in professionalism, and not political--professional1964business evaluation--is dramatic.1965    Senator Heinrich. I am going to wrap up my questions here,1966and I look forward to having lunch with you. I do want to point1967out, I made a mistake earlier. I cited my cost of retail1968electricity incorrectly. It was not 12 cents per kilowatt-hour,1969it was 10.8, and that is with 35 percent solar, 15 percent1970wind, 15 percent battery storage, and only five percent coal,197123 percent gas. So----1972    Secretary Wright. Are those capacity or produced energy1973numbers?1974    Senator Heinrich. Those are capacity numbers.1975    Secretary Wright. Yes.1976    Senator Heinrich. Yes, that my utility provided to me when1977I asked. That's the retail price for an individual at their1978home. So if they are able to do that at 10.8 cents a kilowatt-1979hour, or even 11 or 12, well below the national average,1980something's not adding up here.1981    Secretary Wright. New Mexico has done a good job.1982Absolutely.1983    The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.1984    Senator Hickenlooper. That's so clever to say New Mexico1985has done a good job. What Senator won't bask in that reflected1986glory?1987    Let me turn to something that I think Senator King has1988already talked about a little bit, but I think that I look at1989energy efficiency--as a former Governor and a former mayor, we1990knew that the cheapest energy we could find was the energy that1991we didn't have to use. So when you look at, whether it's home1992insulation or all these different ways of trying to find more1993efficient ways of using the energy we already have and saving1994it, most of the studies show that it's two to three times1995cheaper than when you are talking about natural gas or wind or1996solar or anything. It's cheaper to get it through efficiencies.1997Some of the energy efficiency experts estimate that at1998somewhere between two and five cents per kilowatt-hour.1999    [Displayed chart follows:]2000    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1238.00820012002    Senator Hickenlooper. I think that we look at the parts of2003your enterprise that really work on this and we see their2004budgets being dramatically cut. We have a----2005    Secretary Wright. It's right over your head, I can----2006    Senator Hickenlooper. Well, I couldn't see it. But anyway,2007you look at what the--this is Energy Efficiency and Renewable2008Energy, which, of course, since NREL, the National Renewable2009Energy Laboratory is involved in a bunch of this work and is in2010my home turf--I can almost, on a really clear day, if I get up2011on the third floor, I can almost see them. That's a dramatic2012cut. I mean, and you can go even back to pre-Biden levels,2013that's a dramatic cut, and am I wrong that this is leading to2014some of the most cost-effective ways of addressing our climate,2015or our energy costs?2016    Secretary Wright. So I think you are right, Senator, that2017energy efficiency is a huge opportunity, and of course, it's2018pursued in all different ways, just government expenditure from2019one department, I don't think is a great----2020    Senator Hickenlooper. It would have to be a well-run2021department, so I am assuming that it's not just from one2022department, it would be a department that is now using better2023systems and doing things more correct, more properly.2024    Secretary Wright. We are, you know, we have gone from, you2025know, ten computer systems down to one, so yes we are doing2026everything we can to run the department more like a business2027and refocus it a little bit as well. But I think less2028expenditure in a department that has got efficiency in its name2029does not mean a walking away from efficiency, but I think the2030biggest drivers of efficiencies, like most things, have been2031market forces, right? People find ways to do efficiencies, as2032you and I do in our lives and all that. And I have been quite2033critical and quite concerned about, like, the regulatory2034example for the DOE, you know. If we just keep regulating, you2035know, you could only buy the super-efficient Cadillac, well,2036other people can't afford the Cadillac. So different people2037evaluate trade-offs differently. So I am always skeptical of2038fitting a one-size-fits-all answer onto our whole population.2039    Senator Hickenlooper. But that's the whole point of doing--2040the research they are doing is looking at a variety of ways to2041achieve this goal that pretty much everybody agrees is2042dramatically less expensive than having to go out and create2043new energy.2044    Secretary Wright. Efforts in energy efficiency at the2045Department and at NREL or whatever aren't going away.2046    Senator Hickenlooper. Got you. Okay. Well, hopefully they2047will get added expense.2048    Just one more quick question. The intermittent--and I2049understand some of the legitimate concerns about intermittent2050energy--but at a certain point, when you have places where you2051can get baseload secure and effective, that way if the wind or2052the solar doesn't have batteries, I mean, ultimately, I think2053the question is whether you can get solar and wind with2054batteries to be cost-effective with coal or natural gas, which2055I think you can, certainly if you look at the direction of2056funding. But even forgetting that, if your baseload is--if you2057have got backup, already redundant energy for your baseload so2058that, let's say you only have 30 percent wind and 25 percent2059solar, if you have a cloudy day or you have a windless day, you2060still have someplace you can, you know, turn on natural gas-2061powered plants or whatever. That really takes away a lot of the2062stridency, you know, that these intermittent sources of energy2063are somehow failed.2064    Secretary Wright. Well, but it adds to the system cost.2065Like the biggest demand in PJM, the grid we are all in right2066here, 65 million people. Peak demand was the night after2067inauguration. At that time, 44 percent of the electricity came2068from gas, 22 percent from coal, 22 percent from nuclear, six2069percent from hydro, four percent from oil, two percent from2070wind, zero percent from solar. So you needed, if we had zero2071wind and solar, we needed exactly the same grid, and then we2072add wind and solar on top. So there is just no way that is ever2073going to be cheaper.2074    Senator Hickenlooper. All right, well those are the two2075things we will discuss on our lunch.2076    Secretary Wright. Yes.2077    Senator Hickenlooper. In terms of both the issues around2078climate change because I think there is a lot to discuss there.2079    Senator King. Can I come to that lunch, Senator?2080    Senator Hickenlooper. If you are polite.2081    Senator King. I will pay.2082    Senator Hickenlooper. Oh, he will pay. All right, if it's2083okay with you.2084    Senator Heinrich. It's getting bigger and bigger.2085    Secretary Wright. I look forward to that lunch.2086    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you.2087    The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, accelerating the deployment of2088new nuclear energy is something that I think you agree is2089critical to the U.S. achieving global energy dominance and2090meeting our needs, our energy demands, our national security2091needs, particularly with the rise of artificial intelligence2092and the emerging AI race that is surrounding that. The2093Department of Energy has existing authority under the Atomic2094Energy Act, as you know, to authorize nuclear facilities,2095including reactors, and it appears poised to be able to2096maximize the use of that authority pursuant to President2097Trump's recent executive orders. Can you discuss with us the2098Department's authority to authorize nuclear projects, including2099reactors and fuel cycle facilities, and just describe for us2100how the Department may use that authority to speed up the2101development and the deployment of new nuclear energy and2102whether Congress ought to consider any legislative changes2103beyond that to help expand that authority?2104    Secretary Wright. Yes, Senator, I think we can see from the2105historical record just what happened to our nuclear industry2106over the last 20 or 30 years--almost impossible to permit2107anything, deathly slow, which means expensive. Uncertainty2108scares capital away. So we are going to try to use all the2109resources of the Department. I mentioned these test reactors.2110We want, 12 months from now, to have reactors that are2111critical, meaning they are turned on and running in the Idaho2112National Lab. These are reactors that have been talked about2113for 15 years. Some of them can be built quickly and ready to2114go, and we want to use that authority because our fear is, the2115old way it worked, five years from now we would still be2116talking about that soon we are going to have SMRs.2117    So we are going to use that authority. One of the limits on2118our authority--we have also put out requests for people to2119build data centers or energy production on government lands,2120and we are going to see that happen. Right now, if they are2121authorized through the DOE, they can run a reactor, but you2122can't sell electricity from it. So we can run for a test or for2123other purposes, but there is a limit there. Of course,2124together, hopefully we can get the NRC to be focused on safety2125and environmental protection in a reasonable fashion and not in2126the obstructionist, way over-the-top approach it has been in.2127    Grand Central Station in New York City, a train station,2128you know, hundreds of thousands of people walk through every2129day--you could not permit that as a nuclear power plant today2130because the radiation is too high. Using linear, no-threshold2131math--if a lot is bad, well then, a very little is still a2132little bit bad--makes it so that it just has become impractical2133to build cost-competitive nuclear plants. China builds a2134nuclear plant for a third of the cost we do in a fourth of the2135time. We want to protect our people. We want safety. We want to2136do all the right things, but we have got to be smarter about2137how we do that or nuclear will forever be on the edge of2138``going to happen.'' We need to make it happen. It's just a2139great energy source that can help the world.2140    The Chairman. Yes, it is, indeed, and there is something of2141a difference I think between, on the one hand, a slow2142regulatory process that is advancing the ball and making things2143safer, then, at some point, one might reach the point of2144diminishing marginal returns with regard to how long it takes.2145And it sounds like you agree that the system within the NRC2146isn't necessarily calibrated in order to maximize that.2147    Secretary Wright. Yes, and I have got to say, I think a lot2148of the presidential actions, executive orders that are2149messaging and changing some regulations and stuff in the One2150Big Beautiful Bill are aimed at how do we unleash American2151energy, how do we get less regulation, more ability to permit2152stuff and to move ahead with stuff and spend less money on2153industrial subsidies that have been unhelpful to our2154electricity and unhelpful to our grid, and it's just dollars we2155don't have.2156    The Chairman. Yes.2157    Okay. That concludes today's hearing. I want to thank my2158colleagues for being here, for participating. I want to thank2159you, Secretary Wright, for being here and answering our2160questions.2161    The deadline for submitting questions for the record will2162be 6:00 p.m. tomorrow, Thursday, June 19th. Senators also have2163until 6:00 p.m. next Wednesday, June 25th, to add statements2164for the record for today's hearing.2165    Thanks again, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony. The2166Committee stands adjourned.2167    [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]21682169                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED21702171                              ----------21722173[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]21742175                                 [all]