[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                        OVERVIEW OF THE SCIENCE
                     AND ENERGY RESEARCH ENTERPRISE
                    OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 27, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-18

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
 
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
       
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
44-539PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
          

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
JERRY McNERNEY, California           PETE SESSIONS, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York                 DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                MIKE GARCIA, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
DON BEYER, Virginia                  YOUNG KIM, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAY OBERNOLTE, California
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DAN KILDEE, Michigan                 VACANCY
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
VACANCY
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              May 27, 2021

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................     7
    Written Statement............................................     8

Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................     9
    Written Statement............................................    10

                               Witnesses:

The Honorable Jennifer Granholm, Secretary of Energy, U.S. 
  Department of Energy
    Oral Statement...............................................    12
    Written Statement............................................    14

Discussion.......................................................    21

              Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

The Honorable Jennifer Granholm, Secretary of Energy, U.S. 
  Department of Energy...........................................    68

 
                        OVERVIEW OF THE SCIENCE
                     AND ENERGY RESEARCH ENTERPRISE
                    OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 27, 2021

                          House of Representatives,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

     The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 o'clock p.m., 
via Zoom, Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the 
Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. This meeting will 
come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to 
declare recess at any time, and before I deliver my opening 
remarks, I want to make note that today, the Committee is 
meeting virtually. I want to announce a couple of reminders to 
the Members about the conduct of the hearing.
     First, Members should keep their video feed on as long as 
they're present in the hearing. Members are responsible for 
their own microphones. Please also keep your microphones muted 
until you are speaking. Finally, if Members have documents they 
wish to submit to the record, please email them to the 
Committee Clerk, whose email address was circulated prior to 
the meeting.
     Good morning to everyone, and thank you, Madam Secretary, 
for appearing before us today. It is so great to see you. As 
you know, this Committee has jurisdiction over all of the 
Department of Energy's (DOE's) essential science and energy 
research and development (R&D) activities, their laboratories, 
and facilities. So, I very much look forward to working with 
you throughout this Congress.
     We are meeting today at a critical time in history. 
Unfortunately, climate change remains a growing threat across 
the world. Many of us have been firsthand and have seen 
firsthand the devastating effects it can have in our 
communities. We are going through some of that right now in my 
community with lots and lots of rain. Especially our front-line 
and disadvantaged communities are suffering. At the same time, 
this novel coronavirus has substantially disrupted the world as 
we knew it. And that includes much of the critical scientific 
research that we spend a lot of time on this Committee learning 
about and discussing.
     But with great challenges, great opportunities. We are 
currently in the midst of a budget season, and we are very 
eagerly awaiting release of President Biden's detailed budget 
request. I was pleased to see the preliminary request that 
included a 27 percent increase from the fiscal year 2021 levels 
for the Department of Energy's applied energy programs. This 
includes support for advanced nuclear technologies, electric 
vehicles (EVs), and hydrogen production, just to name a few. 
There are brighter days on the horizon.
     Members of this Committee are also currently working on a 
bipartisan reauthorization of the DOE Office of Science. I 
support the administration's goal of additional funding for the 
Office's critical efforts to improve our competitiveness and 
decarbonize our country. However, I would also urge the 
administration to consider the benefits of additional funding 
to support some of our Nation's most important science and 
energy research programs and facilities. The discretionary 
request for the Office of Science includes a $400 million 
increase to a total of $7.4 billion. While this is certainly 
appreciated, I believe that this level of growth is not 
sufficient for the current needs of the world-class user 
facilities, research programs, and national laboratories 
stewarded by the Office. So, I hope that we will do better when 
Congress acts on DOE's budget request later this year.
     Moving forward, the budget we are here today to provide an 
opportunity for our Members to ask questions pertaining to any 
and all of the science and energy research activities carried 
out by the Department. Constituents from Member districts on 
both sides of the aisle benefit greatly from these programs, 
and we believe it is our duty to ensure the responsible use of 
their tax dollars.
     I am proud to say, though, that a lot of thoughtful hard 
work and dedication, we were able to authorize many of these 
programs in a bipartisan fashion in the Energy Act of 2020, 
which was signed into law late last year. We look forward to 
working with you on the implementation of that new law, among 
many other areas of mutual interest.
     One last note to my colleagues. The Secretary will have to 
depart at 4 p.m., so I encourage you to keep your questions to 
5 minutes so that we can have ample opportunity to engage with 
all of our Members, and I will endeavor to do the same.
     So, with that, I would like to thank you again for being 
here, and I look forward to a productive session.
     [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Good morning everyone, and thank you, Madam Secretary, for 
appearing before us today. It is so great to see you. As you 
know, this Committee has jurisdiction over all of the 
Department of Energy's essential science and energy research 
and development activities, laboratories, and facilities. So I 
very much look forward to working with you throughout this 
Congress.
    We are meeting today at a critical time in history. 
Unfortunately, climate change remains a growing threat across 
the world. Many of us have seen first-hand the devastating 
effects it can have in our communities, especially our front-
line and disadvantaged communities. At the same time, this 
novel coronavirus has substantially disrupted the world as we 
knew it. And that includes much of the critical scientific 
research that we spend a lot of our time on this Committee 
learning about and discussing.
    But with great challenges come great opportunities. We are 
currently in the midst of budget season, and are very eagerly 
awaiting the release of President Biden's detailed budget 
request. I was pleased to see the preliminary request, which 
includes a 27% increase from the FY21 levels for the Department 
of Energy's applied energy programs. This includes support for 
advanced nuclear technologies, electric vehicles, and hydrogen 
production just to name a few. There are brighter days on the 
horizon.
    Members of this Committee are also currently working on a 
bipartisan reauthorization of the DOE Office of Science. I 
support the Administration's goal of additional funding for 
this Office's critical efforts to improve our competitiveness 
and decarbonize our country. However, I would also urge the 
Administration to consider the benefits of additional funding 
to support some of our nation's most important science and 
energy research programs and facilities. The discretionary 
request for the Office of Science includes a $400 million 
increase to a total of $7.4 billion. While this is certainly 
appreciated, I believe that this level of growth is not 
sufficient for the current needs of the world-class user 
facilities, research programs, and national laboratories 
stewarded by the Office. So I hope that we will do better when 
Congress acts on DOE's budget request later this year.
    Moving beyond the budget, we are here today to provide an 
opportunity for our Members to ask questions pertaining to any 
and all of the science and energy research activities carried 
out by the Department. Constituents from Member districts on 
both sides of the aisle benefit greatly from these programs, 
and we believe it is our duty to ensure the responsible use of 
their tax dollars. I am proud to say that through a lot of 
thoughtful hard work and dedication, we were able to authorize 
many of these programs in a bipartisan fashion in the Energy 
Act of 2020, which was signed into law late last year. We look 
forward to working with you on the implementation of that law, 
among many other areas of mutual interest.
    One last note to my colleagues--the Secretary will have to 
depart at 4 p.m. So I encourage you to keep your questions to 5 
minutes so that we all have ample opportunity to engage with 
the Secretary, and I will endeavor to do the same.
    With that, I would like to thank you again for being here, 
and I look forward to a productive discussion this morning.

     Chairwoman Johnson. I now recognize Mr. Lucas for his 
opening statement.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman, for hosting this 
hearing. Today, we welcome Secretary of Energy Jennifer 
Granholm to discuss the Department's priorities for fiscal year 
2022 and beyond. I'm looking forward to hearing how the 
Department will provide robust support for the high-priority 
research programs and infrastructure carried out by the 
Department.
     DOE is one of the Nation's largest Federal sponsor of 
basic research in the physical sciences, and is world leader in 
technology development and innovation. As such, it's critical 
to our work on the Science Committee to address two of the 
biggest challenges facing our country right now: climate change 
and global competitiveness.
     To address climate change and continue our economic 
growth, we must develop cleaner, more reliable energy sources. 
But we have to approach this in a way that doesn't raise energy 
prices and take away American jobs. We need to invest in 
research that produces next generation technologies, ensuring 
America is the leader in affordable energy production and 
global emissions reductions for years to come.
     At the same time, we face serious threats to our 
scientific leadership from the Chinese Communist Party. In 
order for the U.S. research enterprise to keep its position as 
the world's leader in innovation, we must make significant 
investments in R&D that provide a stable, sustainable path 
forward in key technology focus areas, and across the 
scientific disciplines. DOE is uniquely positioned in both of 
these challenges. It is our responsibility on the Science 
Committee to ensure that the Department has the authorities and 
the resources it needs to get the job done.
     Last Congress, we worked together to pass the Energy Act 
of 2020, the first comprehensive update of U.S. energy policy 
in over a decade. This bill includes more than a dozen bills 
from this Committee and focuses on diverse and competitive 
clean energy solutions driven by research across DOE's applied 
energy offices. It recognizes that the most effective way to 
improve energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gases, and 
maintain U.S. energy independence is through technological 
innovations, which we can support by investing in basic and 
early stage research.
     This afternoon, I look forward to hearing from the 
Secretary about DOE's plans to fully implement this 
legislation, to build on the successes of the Energy Act, and 
to ensure that DOE's essential contributions to the Federal 
research enterprise, we must work together to pass 
comprehensive DOE Office of Science legislation.
     Today, Chairwoman Johnson and I released the text of a 
bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Office of Science, increase 
our investment, and provide a roadmap for DOE's research and 
development work. This is the first comprehensive 
reauthorization of the Office of Science, and it could not 
possibly come at a better time. Working with the Energy 
Subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr. Weber, and Subcommittee 
Chairman, Mr. Bowman, we drafted a bill that will invest nearly 
$50 billion over 5 years, giving the Office of Science and our 
national labs the resources they need to continue to excel. We 
need cutting edge facilities for our Federal scientists and 
researchers with academic and industry to conduct big science, 
research that can't be done in individual labs and requires 
massive equipment that industry cannot provide, like advanced 
light sources and neutron sources. This Office of Science 
legislation which will be formally introduced tomorrow is the 
part of a two-pronged approach to build up America's research 
program, along with the NSF for the Future Act.
     Chairwoman Johnson and I have taken a deliberative 
approach to revitalizing American research. We are doing so 
within reauthorization bills which comprehensively fund the 
National Science Foundation and the Office of Science. Rather 
than throwing money at these agencies or pitting them against 
each other for funding, we are investing in the programs that 
work, creating new ones where needed. We are giving agencies 
the resources to sustainably scale up their work. The last 
thing we need is a massive, one-time injection of money that 
will dry up when the attention turns away from America's 
research needs.
     The NSF for the Future Act and this Office of Science 
reauthorization are both in line with the Securing America's 
Leadership and Technology Act, SALSTA, a bill I introduced to 
double the Office of Science funding over the next 10 years, 
invest in our national labs, and improve technology transfer, 
and protect American research from theft by foreign 
adversaries.
     I appreciate Chairwoman Johnson's commitment to our shared 
goal of strengthening our research enterprise. I look forward 
to working together to pass these bills into law. And I also 
want to thank the Secretary for her testimony today, and for 
outlining her plans to execute DOE's mission objectives in the 
upcoming fiscal year and beyond. I look forward to a productive 
discussion.
     Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

    Thank you Chairwoman for hosting this hearing. Today, we 
welcome Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm to discuss the 
Department's priorities for fiscal year 2022 and beyond. I'm 
looking forward to hearing how the Department will provide 
robust support for the high-priority research programs and 
infrastructure carried out by the Department.
    DOE is the nation's largest federal sponsor of basic 
research in the physical sciences and is a world leader in 
technology development and innovation. As such, it is critical 
to our work on the Science Committee to address two of the 
biggest challenges facing our country right now: climate change 
and global competitiveness.
    To address climate change and continue our economic growth, 
we must develop cleaner and more reliable energy sources. But 
we have to approach this in a way that doesn't raise energy 
prices and take away American jobs. We need to invest in 
research that produces next-generation technologies, ensuring 
America is the leader in affordable energy production and 
global emissions reduction for years to come.
    At the same time, we face serious threats to our scientific 
leadership from the Chinese Communist Party. In order for the 
U.S. research enterprise to keep its position as the world's 
leader in innovation, we must make significant investments in 
R&D that provide a stable and sustainable path forward in key 
technology focus areas and across the scientific disciplines.
    DOE is uniquely positioned to meet both of these 
challenges. It is our responsibility on the Science Committee 
to ensure the Department has the authorities and the resources 
it needs to get the job done.
    Last Congress, we worked together to pass the Energy Act of 
2020, the first comprehensive update of U.S. energy policy in 
over a decade. This bill includes more than a dozen bills from 
this Committee and focuses on diverse and competitive clean 
energy solutions driven by research across DOE's applied energy 
offices. It recognizes that the most effective way to improve 
energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gases, and maintain U.S. 
energy independence is through technological innovations, which 
we can support by investing in basic and early-stage research. 
This afternoon, I look forward to hearing from the Secretary 
about DOE's plans to fully implement this legislation.
    To build on the successes of the Energy Act, and to secure 
DOE's essential contributions to the federal research 
enterprise, we must work together to pass comprehensive DOE 
Office of Science legislation. Today, Chairwoman Johnson and I 
released the text of a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the 
Office of Science, increase our investment, and provide a 
roadmap for DOE's research and development work. This is the 
first comprehensive authorization of the Office of Science, and 
it could not come at a better time. Working with the Energy 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Randy Weber and Chairman Jamaal 
Bowman, we've drafted a bill that will invest nearly $50 
billion over 5 years, giving the Office of Science and our 
National Labs the resources they need to continue to excel.
    We need cutting-edge facilities for our federal scientists 
and researchers from academia and industry to conduct big 
science-research that can't be done in individual labs and 
requires massive equipment that industry cannot provide, like 
advanced light sources and neutron sources. This Office of 
Science legislation, which will be formally introduced 
tomorrow, is part of a two-pronged approach to buildup 
America's research program along with the NSF for the Future 
Act,
    Chairwoman Johnson and I have taken a deliberative approach 
to revitalizing American research. We're doing so within 
reauthorization bills, which comprehensively fund the National 
Science Foundation and the Office of Science. Rather than 
throwing money at these agencies or pitting them against each 
other for funding, we're investing in the programs that work 
and creating new ones where needed. We're giving the agencies 
the resources to sustainably scale-up their work. The last 
thing we need is a massive, one-time injection of money that 
will dry up when attention turns away from America's research 
needs.
    The NSF for the Future Act and this Office of Science 
reauthorization are both in line with the Securing American 
Leadership in Technology Act (SALSTA), a bill I introduced to 
double Office of Science funding over the next 10 years, invest 
in our national laboratories, improve technology transfer, and 
protect American research from theft by foreign adversaries I 
appreciate Chairwoman Johnson's commitment to our shared goal 
of strengthening our research enterprise and I look forward to 
working together to pass these bills into law.
    I want to thank Secretary Granholm for her testimony today, 
and for outlining her plans to execute DOE's mission objectives 
in the upcoming fiscal year and beyond. I look forward to a 
productive discussion. Thank you Chairwoman Johnson, I yield 
back the balance of my time.

     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas.
     If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 
point.
     At this time, I will now like to welcome our esteemed 
witness, who really needs little introduction, but I will give 
some.
     The Honorable Jennifer Granholm is the 16th United States 
Secretary of Energy. She served as the Governor of Michigan 
from 2003 to 2011, as well as Attorney General of Michigan from 
1998 to 2002, and was the first woman to serve in either role. 
After two terms of Governor, Ms. Granholm joined the faculty at 
the University of California at Berkeley as a distinguished 
professor of practice in the Goldman School of Public Policy, 
focusing on the intersection of law, clean energy, 
manufacturing, policy, and industry. She also served as an 
advisor to the Clean Energy Program at the Pew Charitable 
Trust.
     I look forward to working with Secretary Granholm to help 
build an equitable clean energy future, and so, thank you, 
Secretary, for joining us today. You will have 5 minutes for 
your spoken testimony, and your written testimony will be 
included in the record for the hearing. When you have completed 
your spoken testimony, we will begin questions and each Member 
will have 5 minutes to ask questions.
     You now can begin your testimony.

         TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JENNIFER GRANHOLM,

         SECRETARY OF ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

     Secretary Granholm. Great. Thank you so much, Chairwoman 
Johnson, and thank you to Ranking Member Frank Lucas, and to 
all of the Members of the House Committee on Science, Space, 
and Technology. It is a treat to be before you today, and it is 
a treat to be able to share the Biden Administration's vision 
and priorities for the Department of Energy.
     So, as the 16th, as was said, Secretary of Energy, it is 
my mission to carry out the basic science and national security 
efforts that have long been pivotal to the Department's work, 
and at the same time, driving forward the research and 
development deployment of cutting-edge clean energy 
technologies that are going to power our energy and economic 
security throughout the 21st century.
     We have made a lot of progress just in a few months' time, 
but we've also come to recognize how urgent some aspects of our 
work really are. And we can start on that score with, for 
example, the Colonial Pipeline issue.
     As you know, on May 7, the Colonial Pipeline company fell 
victim to a ransomware attack that forced them to shut down 
their largest fuel pipeline on the East Coast, and President 
Biden immediately launched an interagency whole of government 
response, which was coordinated by the Department of Energy. 
And I am proud that the quick efforts helped to move those fuel 
supplies to the impacted areas, and of course, supporting the 
company while they attempted to resume operations quickly and 
safely. But the incident really made clear that as these 
systems that Americans rely on in our daily lives grow 
increasingly interconnected, so too do the vulnerabilities in 
these systems and the potential for disruption.
     So, we have to take a wide view of the possible risks, and 
we have to engage every relevant part of the Federal Government 
to develop the safeguards and the best practices to keep the 
systems that touch that critical infrastructure a step ahead of 
our adversaries. So, I would welcome conversations with this 
Committee around the steps necessary to keep America's energy 
systems secure, and clearly, the Department of Energy has a key 
role to play.
     So, as you know, DOE has many core competencies. You all 
have been very busy passing bills and working in these quantum 
information sciences and advanced computing and artificial 
intelligence, you know, just to scratch the surface of all that 
we deploy at the Department, and of course, led by the 
unparalleled research capacity of our 17 national labs. It is 
not lost on us that the Members of this Committee have rightly 
pushed to authorize the Department to advance these 
specialties, along with propelling advanced manufacturing and 
so many other areas of applied science that we excel in. I 
really appreciate the Chairwoman's great support and remarks 
about the importance of investing in science, and I can just 
tell you in the short time that I have been leading the 
Department, I am in awe of the work that our scientists and our 
researchers are doing. So, we really thank you so much for 
recognizing the invaluable contributions they make to their 
fields, but also to the Nation.
     So, we hope to continue working in a collaborative, 
complementary manner with the full suite of federally supported 
scientific enterprises. The research and development work, 
though, would expand by orders of magnitude with the passage of 
the American Jobs Plan. As you know, it is a just a once in a 
generation investment that would supercharge these research and 
development efforts around clean energy, while creating 
millions of good paying jobs. It would really launch us to the 
forefront of clean energy innovation worldwide. It would ensure 
that American scientists are the ones making the major 
breakthroughs in cutting edge technologies like carbon capture 
and storage and hydrogen. It would--the American Jobs Plan 
would position American entrepreneurs to take these 
technologies to scale. It would give American workers the 
opportunity to build them in factories right here at home. The 
American Jobs Plan would also deliver essential upgrades to 
both the brick-and-mortar facilities, and the computing 
capabilities of our national labs, along with other research 
infrastructure across the country, and it would make the 
necessary investments in the industries of the future. It would 
also help us take major leaps over barriers to diversity in 
America's STEM (science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics) fields by making long overdue increases in support 
for historically Black colleges and universities, and other 
minority-serving institutions.
     So, I am so pleased to note that the President's proposed 
2022 discretionary funding request would put $46.2 billion 
behind all of these key priorities, along with our very 
essential work to strengthen the Department's nuclear security 
mission, and advance our environmental management programs.
     So, these are ambitious objectives, and yet, the global 
march of innovation makes it imperative that we achieve them. I 
am really humbled to lead the wealth of talent that we have in 
the Department of Energy as we work toward these ambitious 
goals, and I am confident that with your continuing 
partnership, we will be successful.
     So, thank you so much.
     [The prepared statement of Secretary Granholm follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairwoman Johnson. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary.
     At this point, we will begin our first round of questions, 
and the chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes.
     Madam Secretary, here on the Science Committee, we are 
planning to introduce a comprehensive bipartisan authorization 
bill for the Office of Science tomorrow. I was encouraged to 
see that the Office of Science was one of the few line items 
provided for the Department of Energy in the initial 
discretionary budget request. However, I am disappointed in the 
level of increase, as it is unlikely to be enough to support 
the current needs of these facilities, research programs, and 
the national laboratories stewarded by the office.
     Given the major construction activities currently being 
carried out by the Office of Science to build and upgrade its 
various world-class facilities, this level of support may well 
result in a cut to major research accounts, or it could lead to 
inadequate funding to keep the Office's construction activities 
on schedule and minimize their costs.
     Could you address how the administration arrived at 5.7 
percent increase in the Office of Science, especially in 
comparison to the major increases proposed for DOE's Applied 
Energy Programs and the National Science Foundation? Is this 
any indication of the lack of support or appreciation for the 
unique and significant role that the Office of Science plays in 
fostering U.S. competitiveness?
     Secretary Granholm. Not at all. I so appreciate your 
question.
     Obviously research and development is so critical to our 
competitiveness, and although I certainly share the sentiment 
that stronger funding for R&D would further support our 
competitiveness, I would note, as you did, that the Office of 
Science is receiving a $400 million increase from enacted 
levels, which would enable us to support all of the key areas 
that that office covers, from quantum technology to biology.
     But I also want to say, this is the--this represents the 
single-largest budget, if it were enacted, at DOE, so there is 
no reason to think that this is anything but huge. Plus, 
billions will be added to the labs and the Office of Science 
through the American Jobs Plan, assuming that Congress passes 
it.
     So, believe me. This administration is all in on funding 
scientific research. We recognize that we need to up our game 
in the basic sciences and research and development, and that 
those investments are needed and that the administration is 
deeply committed to the national labs and the Office of 
Science, and so that's why the American Jobs Plan is so big and 
robust on funding research and development.
     So, we are very excited about that and to work with you, 
and so grateful for your expression of support for the Office 
of Science.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Well, thank you.
     How will you keep the Office of Science's major 
construction activities, including our commitment to the ITER 
(International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) 
International Fusion Project, on track with this level of 
funding?
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah. The ITER Project, as you know, 
is a very important priority for the Office of Science, and 
certainly important for this administration. They are committed 
to the ITER Project, and I can assure you that the U.S. 
contributions to the ITER Project are being effectively and 
efficiently managed by the Office of Fusion Energy Science and 
by the U.S. ITER Project Office with its associated national 
laboratories, including Oak Ridge National Lab and Princeton, 
and the Savannah River National Lab.
     So, the goal, of course, with this project is to 
demonstrate the feasibility of fusion as a large-scale and 
carbon-free source of energy. It is the holy grail, and I am 
super eager to see the project succeed.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Well thank you. One last question.
     Will you be able to support these projects at levels that 
the Department has previously estimated would be necessary to 
minimize their total costs? Or would these cost estimates need 
to be increased as a result?
     Secretary Granholm. No, I can assure you that the 
Department is committed to bringing resources to bear on 
these--this project and other projects. It is a priority for 
you. It is a priority for Members of the Committee, and I look 
forward to working with you on it.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
     I now recognize Mr. Lucas for 5 minutes.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair.
     The United States has vast global geothermal resources. If 
harnessed correctly, these resources have the capacity to 
provide clean, renewable, secure load-based power, not just for 
Oklahoma, but for Americans across the country. This is why 
last Congress I introduced the Advanced Geothermal Research and 
Development Act, which I'm pleased to see was incorporated in 
the Energy Act of 2020. This Congress, I am closely following 
the Department's progress in carrying out the activities 
authorized in my bill.
     Secretary, can you please provide us with a brief 
description on the update on the Department's continued 
implementation of these provisions on geothermal.
     Secretary Granholm. You bet. You bet, thank you, Ranking 
Member Lucas. I really appreciate the question, and all of the 
great work that this Committee did really in a bipartisan way, 
which we hope can be replicated this year to get that Energy 
Act of 2020 passed.
     You know, the--many of the pieces we are already working 
on, for example, on the geothermal side like the Forge 
Initiative, which I know you are very supportive of, enhanced 
geothermal systems represents the largest opportunity for 
geothermal power production in the U.S., and the 2019 DOE--I 
think they had a geovision report that suggested that those are 
the enhanced geothermal systems, if they're used to their 
maximum potential, could provide up to 8-1/2 percent of all 
power generation in the U.S. by 2050. I feel like geothermal is 
an underused resource. I am a big believer in it. I have met 
several times with our own geothermal office to make sure that 
we can accelerate this.
     You know, we could say on the storage side of things, too, 
because the Energy Act was so bullish on storage, as it should 
have been. I mean, DOE has continued to support the Energy 
Storage Grant Challenge as well, which is obviously a 
comprehensive program that cuts across all of our offices. And 
because that Energy Act of 2020 was a great authorization for a 
lot of programs and a lot of that Energy Act, it has informed 
the American Jobs Plan. So, if we can get the appropriations 
attached to the great projects that were identified there, we 
can really take off.
     So, thank you for your leadership.
     Mr. Lucas. Absolutely, Secretary.
     And along with that, the President's proposed an advanced 
research project agency focused on climate called ARPA-C 
(Advanced Research Projects Agency--Climate). So far, we have 
limited information on ARPA-C, but it sounds a lot like DOE's 
ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy) program. As 
longtime supporters of ARPA-E, Chairwoman Johnson and I 
successfully reformed and reauthorized the program last year.
     So, Secretary, I have got a series of short questions 
about the ARPA-C proposal that hopefully can get me a set of 
brief answers.
     First, do you support the creation of ARPA-C?
     Secretary Granholm. Yes, I do.
     Mr. Lucas. Second, what role will DOE play in its 
management? Do you know that yet?
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, well, we want to work with you 
all on it, but we expect that ARPA-C and ARPA-E will work 
together. We don't want them to duplicate, which is a question 
I can understand that people might have. ARPA-C could invest in 
different kinds of research, critical research areas that are 
beyond the purely energy-focused work of ARPA-E, to look at, 
for example, non-energy related emissions reduction 
technologies, or an entire area of climate-related work, like 
the work of making our society more resilient, for example, to 
the effects of climate change that are already occurring.
     So, we expect that they would work together, hand in 
glove. They could be working maybe under the same umbrella, but 
I like the expansion of the notion of energy and climate under 
an umbrella that would fall within the Department of Energy.
     Mr. Lucas. So, in the time I have left, let's visit for a 
little bit about how you will balance implementing the ARPA-E 
provisions authorized in the Energy Act while supporting the 
establishment of ARPA-C? As you can see, ARPA-E has tremendous 
support in its present form on this Committee. Tell me about 
how you balance those two things as you implement them with the 
stuff authorized under the Act?
     Secretary Granholm. I mean, as you know, ARPA-E really is 
focused on energy, and they have--we would expect that they 
would work together, as I say, hand in glove, but they would 
have distinct areas of focus purely on energy. One on non-
energy-related climate work. And you know, it could be that 
they are in the same office. It could be sort of the same--you 
know, an expanded umbrella, but we want to work with you on 
what that looks like, especially in light of all the climate 
challenges that we have seen in communities across the 
country----
     Mr. Lucas. Absolutely.
     Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Related to----
     Mr. Lucas. Madam Secretary, I would agree. And success in 
developing new forms of clean, consistent energy will address 
many of those other issues.
     So, I have faith in the market economy. We just need to 
provide the resources to the economy to respond.
     With that, I yield back, Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
     We'll now go to staff support to begin our question 
periods.
     Staff. Ms. Bonamici is recognized.
     Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much to Chairwoman Johnson and 
Ranking Member Lucas, and thank you, Secretary Granholm. I 
truly appreciate your strong commitment to transitioning to a 
clean energy economy, creating good paying, high quality union 
jobs, and promoting energy justice to support front line 
communities.
     And as we work to mitigate the climate crisis and 
transition to 100 percent clean energy economy, we cannot 
ignore our oceans.
     So, last year, this Committee worked in a bipartisan, 
bicameral manner to pass the comprehensive energy package we've 
been talking about, including my bipartisan Water Power 
Research and Development Act to strengthen the efforts at DOE's 
Water Power Technologies Office.
     So, in Oregon, we are at the forefront of marine energy. 
In large part because of the sustained support from the 
Department of Energy, Oregon State University recently received 
the first of its kind lease and license to build and operate 
the Nation's first wave energy test facility, PacWave, which I 
invite you to visit.
     The project, which is located off the coast of Newport, 
Oregon, will provide wave energy developers with resources to 
harness the power of waves, tides, currents, and transmit 
energy back to the electrical grid. Marine energy has 
tremendous potential as one of the last untapped clean energy 
sources, and Federal investment can truly help unlock it.
     So, I have two questions and I'm going to ask them both 
now, and then give you the balance to answer.
     So, Secretary Granholm, what steps has the Department 
taken to implement the marine energy provisions in the Energy 
Act of 2020, and is there an opportunity in the American Jobs 
Plan to scale that up? And then the second question deals with 
historically, we've had Federal investments that have focused 
on the conceptual and early research stages, leaving valuable 
projects to face a commercialization or valley of death. In the 
coming months, I am going to be reintroducing my Regional Clean 
Energy Innovation Act to establish a network of regional energy 
innovation and development institutes to address this issue, 
and I look forward to working with you on this.
     So, the second question is what steps can the Department 
of Energy take to connect regional governments with academia, 
businesses, and clean energy stakeholders to help post research 
innovations in clean energy thrive on a regional scale, and 
meet market needs?
     Secretary Granholm. I love these questions, so thank you 
for that.
     I mean, the full range of--on the first one on water power 
technologies, you know, the Department of Energy puts a lot of 
effort into, and I want to thank you for your leadership and 
support on marine energy in particular, including the 
provisions you included in the energy package. I want to 
especially congratulate Oregon State for the progress they've 
made on bringing this world class marine energy test facility 
to fruition, like PacWave.
     You know, you'll see support for the Water Power 
Technologies Office in the budget, and getting appropriations, 
of course, is the key to the first step in acting on that. I 
would love to work with you on how to pursue these 
opportunities. We are very bullish on marine energy, whether it 
is offshore wind or wave energy. Research still has to go on. 
We want to commercialize those technologies, which leads to the 
second question that you had regarding commercialization and 
regional innovation.
     You know, local partnerships and--I mean, I just say this 
as a former Governor, too, that these regional partnerships 
with business and industry are so important, because that's 
where progress happens on clean energy, and it's how we can 
make sure that the economic benefits of our research and 
development--the new businesses, the new jobs benefit local 
communities. So, we do a ton of this kind of work across our 
applied energy offices. We're going to figure out how we can 
ramp up regional place-based strategies to make sure we're 
taking the opportunity to help different regions and 
communities take on the specific challenges, and take advantage 
of their unique opportunities, and that includes making sure 
that--I would say, I must plug the disadvantaged communities 
who have experienced disproportionately impacts of pollution 
for far too long, and that they see the benefits of clean 
energy. And it also includes making sure that coal communities 
and other communities that have been left behind, I'll say, by 
the transition and the clean energy economy do not remain left 
behind. The American Jobs Plan has as part of it some 
community-based grants, State-based grants to encourage and 
foster these kinds of technologies and the jobs that go with 
them, and so, there's a whole new window that could open up on 
these kind of place-based economic development strategies if 
the American Jobs Plan is passed.
     Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary. And as 
we know, the regional approach is so important because the 
needs are different in various regions, and the resources are 
different. So, I really appreciate your commitment.
     Thank you so much, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
     Staff. Mr. Babin is next.
     Seeing no Mr. Babin, Mr. Waltz is next. OK. Mr.----
     Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Excuse me, Madam 
Chairman. I'm having some technical difficulties there. Can you 
hear me OK?
     Staff. Yes, we can hear you.
     Mr. Waltz. Madam Secretary, thank you so much for joining 
us today.
     Your opening statement, you mentioned your coordinating 
role for the Colonial Pipeline engagements, and I would imagine 
in that role that you directly engaged with the private sector, 
and particularly with the Colonial executives. Is that the 
case, as part of your remit?
     Secretary Granholm. Yes.
     Mr. Waltz. And so, in that, did Colonial inform you or 
inform your office of their intent to pay a ransom?
     Secretary Granholm. They did not. They did not. The FBI 
(Federal Bureau of Investigation) had been in contact with 
them. We did not discuss that with them, nor did they tell us. 
Of course, if they had, we would have said do not pay ransom. 
But they didn't--we didn't--that wasn't part of our charge with 
them.
     Mr. Waltz. So, that's what I want to get to, you know, you 
have an international affairs office which does great work. 
Part of its objective is enhancing energy security by 
countering malign influence. So, it's your department's stated 
policy that our infrastructure, in particular, our pipeline 
managers, should not pay ransom as part of ransomware attacks 
or any other type of attack, is that correct?
     Secretary Granholm. That's correct.
     Mr. Waltz. That's reassuring to hear.
     With the recorded ransom payment or with the ransom 
payment, one thing that I think a lot of people are struggling 
with is we have this incredible attack by Russian-backed 
hackers, many of which moonlight for Russian security services. 
You know, they don't have the same distinctions that we have. A 
ransom is paid, and really little else is done in response to 
that attack, particularly to established deterrents. And then 
just a short time later, we lift all sanctions on Russia's 
pipeline.
     What level of engagement did you have--what type of 
engagement do you have with our European allies on the lifting 
of sanctions on Nord Stream?
     Secretary Granholm. I did not, but I know obviously others 
in the Federal ecosystem did, and of course, the two were not 
related, given that these were actors of Russia. But there is 
no indication that they were directed by--at least, we don't 
have any information on that now. I'm not saying it's not true, 
but I know it's a subject that--I've learned that it's a 
subject that the President is----
     Mr. Waltz. You know, I think there's an established 
pattern that if Putin wanted to stop these attacks----
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, no doubt.
     Mr. Waltz [continuing]. He certainly could.
     Secretary Granholm. And he should.
     Mr. Waltz. What did the United States get in response, or 
what did we get in return for the lifting of these sanctions?
     Secretary Granholm. I wasn't--again, I wasn't part of 
that--those discussions with respect to the sanctions. So, 
you'd have to direct that to the Department of State.
     Mr. Waltz. So, the Department of Energy, the Department of 
International Affairs with the ENR Bureau, the Energy Bureau, 
State Department, is there not coordination with the Energy 
Department when it comes to engaging our European partners and 
the pipeline?
     Secretary Granholm. Generally, yes, and we obviously 
oppose the pipeline. And I'll say from the Department of 
Energy, one of the reasons that in addition to the geopolitical 
issues relative to Russia, one of the reasons why I think that 
pipeline is very dangerous is because it is carrying the 
dirtiest form of natural gas on earth----
     Mr. Waltz. That's right.
     Secretary Granholm [continuing]. With no security on 
methane emissions, et cetera. So, I think for a variety of 
reasons, it is a problem.
     Mr. Waltz. No, that's absolutely right. So, it's actually 
encouraging, from a climate standpoint, which obviously you 
mentioned extensively in your opening statement, this is worse 
for the climate, for a climate agenda, because it does carry--
--
     Secretary Granholm. Not just for a climate agenda.
     Mr. Waltz [continuing]. Some of the dirtiest--so, the 
Department of Energy opposed the lifting of the sanctions, so 
the President made that decision over the Department of 
Energy's objections?
     Secretary Granholm. Well again, I was not in the 
discussion over those particular sanctions, and I know 
obviously the administration has opposed the continued 
expansion of Nord Stream 2, and there may have been other 
considerations that went into it. You know, arguably this issue 
about sanctioning a pipeline should have come much earlier in 
the construction of it, because it is at the very tail end now, 
and we ought to--it's a good lesson for going forward. We ought 
to have stopped it before it was built, essentially, rather 
than after it has been built.
     Mr. Waltz. Well, I certainly agree, but I think just 
lifting the sanctions for little in response, for nothing in 
response, which is actually countervailing to a climate agenda 
that will move dirtier oil and make our EU partners more 
dependent on Russia. From a geopolitical standpoint, from a 
climate standpoint, I think it was an incredibly bad decision, 
and I find it more disturbing that your department wasn't a key 
part of it.
     But I'll have some further questions for the record. Thank 
you, Madam Secretary, and Madam Chairman, I yield my time.
     Staff. Mr. Bera is recognized.
     Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
     You know, Madam Secretary, one of the most ambitious parts 
of the President's American Jobs Plan and infrastructure plan 
is this transition from gas-powered vehicles to electric 
vehicles, and the infrastructure that, you know, will take 
place to build EV charging stations and help folks transition. 
You already--obviously in your home State of Michigan, you're 
seeing a lot of that. The automakers started to make those 
plans to go to all electric vehicles.
     Can you expand on DOE's role in helping make this 
transition, plan out what that infrastructure looks like, where 
these charging stations will be, et cetera?
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah. We----
     Mr. Bera. How we also address equity in there as well.
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, this is a great question.
     Obviously, you know, if the private sector was going to 
step up and do this on its own, that would have already begun. 
But unfortunately, we have gaps. We have gaps on highways where 
people don't--wouldn't charge up as much, and we have gaps 
inside of communities that have been left behind.
     So, we have--our labs have started the process of doing a 
map for the United States about where the necessary charging is 
going to have to step in to fill that gap, the federally funded 
necessary charging to fill that gap, so that all parts of the 
country, all pockets of America have access to electrification. 
And we all know that, you know, there's a chicken and egg issue 
of people are uncomfortable buying an electric vehicle because 
they feel like they may want to take a longer trip and not have 
the ability to charge up. That's going to prevent them from 
choosing an electric vehicle. So, we have to address that very 
important infrastructure issue, which of course, is addressed 
in the American Jobs Plan through the President's commitment of 
500,000 charging stations across the country in areas where 
it's sparse and in areas where the private sector has not 
stepped up, particularly in low-income communities.
     So, it's that, and incentivizing them--the purchase of 
electric vehicles at the point of sale, and making sure we've 
done the research necessary to keep the continuous improvement 
of the electrification of the vehicle, which includes the 
research being done at our national labs on the battery.
     Mr. Bera. And so, that all is very encouraging. And 
obviously, the battery side, I think from a technology and 
economic perspective, we want to maintain that innovation edge 
over other competitor nations in terms of battery technology 
and battery production.
     If I were to play off a question--or an answer you gave to 
one of Ms. Bonamici's questions. I understand the human 
reaction, you know, in places like the Rio Grande Valley in 
Texas or in West Virginia as we transition off of older 
energies and fossil fuels, and some of the anxiety about job 
loss, et cetera.
     How is DOE thinking about--you know, we think about 
strategic investments and, you know, helping some of these 
communities leave some of the older fossil fuel jobs or coal 
mining jobs, but also then thinking about the job training to 
help transition communities to, you know, better paying jobs 
and jobs of the future.
     Secretary Granholm. This is my favorite question, because 
I think that there's so much promise in these clean energy 
jobs. They're not just one-off jobs. These are careers and jobs 
that can go to communities like you have described that have 
been left behind. So, you know, if you're in coal country or if 
you're in an oil and gas area, you know, you've got workers who 
know how to do that work. Well, why not have them transition to 
be able to be mining, for example, for geothermal or laying the 
pipes for CO2 for carbon capture and sequestration, 
or attaching that CCUS (carbon capture, utilization, and 
sequestration) technology onto power plants, or laying pipes 
for hydrogen? I mean, the American Jobs Plan has got these 25 
demonstration projects in hydrogen and CCUS. Those in the kinds 
of communities we're talking about could be utter game 
changers, could help those communities see themselves 
empowering the future of America, insofar as they have seen 
themselves as powering the past. And we don't want them to feel 
like they have been left behind, so that's why strategically 
investing these kind of demonstration projects on a place-based 
strategy manner--the President created an intergovernmental 
working group on coal and power plant communities. In that 
intergovernmental report, there were 27 communities that were 
identified that were at greatest risk, the coal and power plant 
communities. Those communities could be the places that 
actually take us to the next level, not just in the United 
States, but globally with the technology that we could deploy, 
take to scale, work on research, develop. It's really exciting 
if that act is passed for those communities to be part of the 
future, and not viewed as or feeling like they're just part of 
the past of America's energy.
     Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you for that answer.
     Madam Chairwoman, I'll yield back.
     Staff. Mr. Gonzalez is recognized.
     Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Secretary, for your time and attention today, and your 
testimony. The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly justified the 
importance of American innovation. It's impossible, almost, to 
imagine us getting through this if we hadn't innovated in 
testing therapeutics, and of course, the vaccine development. I 
think, similarly, it's hard, or I would argue impossible, to 
imagine addressing energy and environmental challenges without 
further innovation in energy storage, nuclear, carbon capture. 
I'm pleased to see you mention those technologies. And 
innovation's always been a core strength of our country. In our 
geopolitical competition with China, Russia, and Iran, we have 
to stay advanced and ahead of the game.
     I want to focus specifically on nuclear for a second, if 
we could. I've been pleased to read some of your comments 
regarding commercial nuclear energy here in the U.S., 
particularly the importance of maintaining our existing fleet, 
which I think is critically important, in the face of looming 
shutdowns, oftentimes driven by backwards politics. But I want 
to get your thoughts on our progress with advanced nuclear 
reactors and fuel specifically. Last month I sent a letter to 
you alongside a bipartisan group of lawmakers in support of the 
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program and Advanced Nuclear 
Fuel Availability Program. What actions are you and the agency 
taking to ensure these programs are fully implemented, and what 
role do you anticipate advanced nuclear will play as we 
transition away from more carbon intensive energy sources?
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah. It's going to play an important 
role, and I want--I would love for people on both sides of the 
aisle to appreciate the fact that 55 percent of our clean 
energy now comes from nuclear, and America has the most 
rigorous and thoughtful safety regime. It's not a question of 
safety. Most people--for many people it's a question of waste, 
and we can talk about that as well, but I think nuclear energy 
can and must play an important role in helping the U.S. meet 
its clean energy goals. We pursue, at the DOE, both 
demonstration and early stage research and development efforts 
for multiple nuclear technologies based on where those 
technologies are in their development, and how they are 
developing relative to the field's needs. For instance, DOE's 
Advanced Reactor Program supports the development of multiple 
initiatives and innovative U.S.-based design for the small--
SMR, small modular reactors. This technology, I think, has the 
potential to provide, you know, clean, safe, cost-competitive 
energy generations options for both domestic and international 
markets. We're already seeing promising results with the work 
of NuScale, which is the first small modular reactor developer 
to obtain the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) approval 
of its final safety evaluation report. So hopefully that 
NuScale reactor will be on track to be the first full NRC 
certified reactor mid to late this year.
     Mr. Gonzalez. Yeah. I want to stay on the NRC for a 
second. As I talk to a lot of companies who are developing 
advanced reactors, one of the top criticisms I hear is how ill 
equipped the NRC is to evaluate and approve them, and they 
almost feel like they're trying to get to no, as opposed to 
trying to find ways to get to yes. How's the agency engaging 
with the NRC to alleviate these concerns and streamline the 
deployment of advanced reactors?
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, it's--this is a great question. 
I have heard this as well, and am looking into it. We are well 
aware, and, if you like, I can get back to you on the specific 
steps that we are taking, but I appreciate you raising it. We 
want the NRC, as all of our commissions and committees, to be 
effective, and nimble, and efficient, and we want to make sure 
that we support the NRC in getting there.
     Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. And then, final question on 
nuclear, you mentioned waste as one of the objections that is 
constantly brought up. How do you respond to that? I'd be 
curious for your thoughts on it.
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah. I mean, as a nation, we have got 
to figure out the waste issue. We have got to figure out where 
it is going to be. Yucca is not an option, Yucca Mountain, so 
the question is what's next? You're aware, I'm sure, that the 
Blue Ribbon Commission suggested a consent-based siting process 
for interim storage, and we at the Department are going to 
launch a request for information about, and start that 
conversation with communities. You have to do this in 
partnership with communities in a thoughtful way, with 
sensitivity, and we want to begin those discussions, because we 
want to find a location that is safe, and secure, and accepted. 
And it may mean that we have to, and that we should, compensate 
communities who decide to raise their hand to do that. So that 
process we're going to start.
     Ultimately, though, of course, you want to develop--you 
want to have nuclear in a way that doesn't generate that kind 
of waste, which gets back to the ITER question, the question of 
fusion, and perhaps exploration, research-wise, of what you can 
do with existing waste. All of that is within the purview of 
DOE, and all are things we're pursuing.
     Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. I look forward to working 
together on this, and I yield back.
     Secretary Granholm. Great.
     Staff. Ms. Stevens is recognized.
     Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you. Secretary Granholm, how 
wonderful to see some Michigan energy, and have some Michigan 
energy, on the Committee today. And, you know, I have some 
remarkable memories, going back a long time, with you, 
particularly when we were working on the U.S. Auto Rescue. And 
for those who don't know, for the record, our then-Governor of 
Michigan really led one of the most comprehensive economic 
overhauls of our State, developing programs like the State 
Small Business Initiative--Credit Initiative to give credit to 
our suppliers and small businesses who, in a very different 
financial time, couldn't get it, and that program resulted in 
the creation of the State Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. And 
it was because Michigan was leading the way under a very 
skilled Governor.
     And so now, as the Secretary of Energy, I wanted to ask 
you about the leadership, and the way in which you are seeing 
some of the programs that the DOE is responsible for with 
advanced vehicle technologies, particularly also the 
investments that come from the ATVM (Advanced Technology 
Vehicles Manufacturing) Program, and how you intend to lead the 
Department of Energy with those programs, what we need to do 
with them, you know, if it's plussing up, because certainly 
we've got to move on the access to the materials for these 
electric vehicles, and also what's going to go into the 
battery.
     Secretary Granholm. Well, thank you so much. It's so great 
to see you. And, you know, as I was working on the outside of 
Federal Government with the auto industry, I know you were 
working on the inside, and without your leadership we would not 
see a domestic auto industry like we see today. I mean, the 
fact that General Motors has gone all in on electric vehicles, 
the announcement by Ford yesterday, you know, I mean, it's so 
exciting, the future. So you talk about the ATVM, the--we want 
to make sure the Advanced Technology Vehicle Provision of the 
Loan Program Office (LPO) includes not just light duty 
vehicles, but heavy duty vehicles as well, because you see that 
Ford--going into the truck and making sure that the F-150 is 
all electric, we want to make sure that we continue that kind 
of research, and development, and deployment.
     You know, the American Jobs Plan supports all parts of 
electrifying transportation, from the vehicle, to the charging 
infrastructure, and everything in between, and that means not 
just re-tooling vehicle factories, but making sure we've got 
full and robust supply chains from components back to batteries 
and critical minerals, so it also means more than cars. It 
means, as I say, SUVs (sport utility vehicles), and pickups, 
and long haul trucks, and ships for long distance shipping, and 
the ferries that make many communities unique, as well as 
aviation. So I look forward to working with you to make sure 
that we've got all of the pieces in place to accelerate 
deployment of electric vehicles, broadly defined, and 
particularly passenger vehicles, as we know the American Jobs 
Act--or Plan is supportive of.
     And I just want to say, on the supply chain issue, because 
you--and I've come from this great manufacturing State, we want 
to make sure that we support and incentivize manufacturing here 
at home. I know the American Jobs Plan does some of that. that 
48(c) tax credit was----
     Ms. Stevens. Um-hum.
     Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Embedded in that----
     Ms. Stevens. Yeah.
     Secretary Granholm [continuing]. So we want to make sure 
that we do all we can, policy-wise, to ensure that we are 
building stuff here in America, using it here, and then 
exporting it to other places.
     Ms. Stevens. Yeah. Over a decade on, and the 48(c) tax 
incentive being overprescribed, and still ready to go, we would 
love to see that get done, Madam Secretary. And you also have 
the full support of the mapping of the supply chain for the 
battery, identifying those missing middles where we aren't 
producing here. I know in a community you know well, 
Northville, Michigan, there's a company called SoulBrain that 
does the electrolytes manufacturing that goes into the lithium-
ion battery. I would love to take you there. They are the only 
one in Michigan, and one of two. The other type of manufacturer 
along these lines is located in Oak Ridge, but I'd love to take 
you here, because I--you know, they are growing, but they are a 
part of that supply chain, so, alongside the Department of 
Commerce, we support you in those efforts. And, with 10 seconds 
left, if you have anything else, Madam Secretary, otherwise 
I'll cede it back over to a colleague.
     Secretary Granholm. I'm just so proud that Michigan now 
produces 1/3 of all North American batteries, so let's keep it 
going.
     Ms. Stevens. Let's keep it going. And with that, Madam 
Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
     Staff. Representative Baird is next.
     Mr. Baird. Yes. Thank you, and I want to thank Chairwoman 
Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas for holding this overview of 
science and energy research enterprise. And, Madam Secretary, 
we certainly appreciate you being here, and I think you're 
holding up extremely well to be the only witness on the 
program, so----
     Secretary Granholm. Well----
     Mr. Baird [continuing]. Congratulations on doing that.
     Secretary Granholm. All right. Go easy on me, then.
     Mr. Baird. I'll give you a break. I've got about a 
paragraph or two, and then I'm going to get to the question. 
But anyway, I represent Indiana's Fourth District, which is 
heavily reliant on agriculture production and research. My 
background is in animal science, and I currently serve on the 
Ag Committee, along with being on the Science Committee, which 
works out extremely well, in my opinion. But accordingly, I 
understand the relationship--or I think I do, parts of it--the 
relationship between humans, and animals, and plants, and 
biology in general, and I also recognize the need to invest in 
biological research, and biological research infrastructure, 
within the Office of Science to improve this understanding in 
the knowledge that we obtain, and this is the reason why I 
introduced the DOE BIO (Biological Innovation Opportunities) 
Act, which really reauthorizes DOE's--those Bioenergy Research 
Centers, and establishes a program to develop, construct, and 
maintain those biological and environmental research user 
facilities because I think that increases the access that young 
researchers and U.S. researchers have to study some of these 
very complex biological and Earth and environmental systems.
     So, with that kind of background, my question to you is 
how do you feel the Department of Energy is uniquely qualified 
to provide leadership in this U.S. biological science research 
and development activities?
     Secretary Granholm. We are. Thank you for that. I mean, 
there is a critical need to sustain U.S. preeminence in this 
emerging and globally competitive, really, bioeconomy, which 
spans the entire research and biotechnical innovation space for 
the life sciences, for economic, you know, for--I mean, we know 
that the innovation space for social and national security 
benefits, et cetera, it all touches on this bioeconomy. DOE 
specifically focuses on the genomic science of plants, and 
microorganisms, and microbial communities to achieve its 
mission goals.
     You know, a priority clean energy activity in the Office 
of Sciences before Bio Research Centers, which are tackling the 
basic science challenges that are needed to produce fuels, and 
chemicals, and other products from sustainable and renewable 
biomass resources. So fundamental geonomic science--genomic 
science on plants and microorganisms is leading to the 
development of dedicated and resilient bioenergy crops, which 
is great, and important, and a broad range of modified 
microorganisms and capabilities to advance the biotechnology 
solutions that are needed to underpin a burgeoning and globally 
competitive bioeconomy, and so we're going to continue to move 
on that.
     And I would just put a plug in as well for biofuels, and 
for--especially biofuels related to aviation. Hugely important. 
The aviation world is all in on those advanced biofuels, and I 
think the Department of Energy and the Department of 
Agriculture can be partners in making some of those refineries 
reality in the United States.
     Mr. Baird. So for whatever it's worth to you, I really 
think you're right on target. I agree with you, and one of the 
things that I see happening is--looking at the genotype in 
soybeans, and then, with cameras going across the fields, 
taking in a tremendous amount of data so that we can connect 
genotype to phenotype, and that in the interest of trying to 
improve productivity, and increase crop yields, and so on, and 
so that requires tremendous computing capabilities----
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
     Mr. Baird [continuing]. And you have access to the quantum 
computer, so--I guess I'm about to run out of time. I certainly 
would have other questions, but I think you're right on target, 
and I appreciate the opportunity to share that with you.
     Secretary Granholm. 1,000 percent. Thank you so much.
     Mr. Baird. And I yield back. Thank you.
     Staff. Mr. Sherman is next.
     Mr. Sherman. Why thank you. One comment on recharging 
stations, and that is, while it's important to have them out on 
the highways for vacation, the most important thing is that 
they be available where we work and where we live, and we need 
to require all of the--those who provide paid parking, those 
employers that have over 50 parking spaces, big office 
buildings, to provide enough places for people to recharge, and 
we need to make sure that landlords who provide parking to 
their apartment residents provide at least some of those spaces 
with recharging stations.
     Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for concluding your 
prepared testimony by acknowledging the Department of Energy's 
duty to clean up contaminated sites, many of them leftover from 
World War II and the cold war. And I want to direct your 
attention to the Santa Susana Field Lab, which was the subject 
of a 2007 consent decree. There's some 90 acres that is the 
responsibility of the Department of Energy. There's adjoining 
acreage that is the responsibility of NASA (National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration) and of Boeing. This 
contaminated site is immediately adjacent to the city of Los 
Angeles, so it affects hundreds and hundreds of thousands of 
people. Some 700,000 signatures have appeared on the petition 
demanding full cleanup of the site, and I'm going to be getting 
to you the documentary ``In the Dark of the Valley'', that 
being the San Fernando Valley, about the effect of this nuclear 
contamination on hundreds of thousands of people. And I would 
like to know whether we can count on you to use the Department 
of Energy to comply with the 2007 consent decree, and hopefully 
do what has not happened since 2007, and see major action taken 
on the ground in furtherance of that decree.
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, thanks for asking. As you 
alluded to, we're already out of compliance with the decree. 
There were steps that needed to be taken, like the cleanup of 
soil, that have not been completed at this point, and so I look 
forward to working with you, and with the State of California, 
to put in place progress steps that we can see. I know that 
there is--if I'm not mistaken, a building was just taken down, 
and there's another one that will be completed by the end of 
this year, and--so that the soil now can be the next up--teed 
up on our list.
     Clearly, in this case, as well as the other environmental 
management sites, you know, the Department used to have, I want 
to say 116 of these sites, and we're down to 16 of them, or 
it's 107 and we're down to 16, something like that----
     Mr. Sherman. Um-hum.
     Secretary Granholm [continuing]. So they've made progress, 
but some of these are more difficult than others, as you know, 
and a lot of it relies upon resources to make happen. You have 
my commitment. This is a priority in the Department----
     Mr. Sherman. And your predecessor, Secretary Perry, came 
to visit the site. I would welcome if you would do that, but 
more important, we actually have to take the action, and of the 
16 remaining sites, this is the site that's--it seems to be 
second from the bottom in terms of money that's available. I do 
want to--so I look forward to working with you on this, and I 
want to commend to you, and I will get to your office, the 
documentary ``In the Dark of the Valley''.
     Secretary Granholm. Very good.
     Mr. Sherman. One other issue is wind. Much of the wind is 
offshore, and marine engineering is difficult, and has its 
challenges. On land, an awful lot of the wind is up on the 
mountain, where you don't have a road. And you're trying to get 
up there with, like, a 100-ton device, then a blade on the 
rotor of 160 feet long. And, one, sorry, you can't do it 
without a road. You may not be able to build a road, and if you 
build a road, it's got to be a pretty big road, because you're 
talking about big stuff. One other way to do this is with an 
airship, and I hope that the Department of Energy would focus 
on the ability to use a buoyancy control airship, which is just 
in development now, to be able to get these items to the top of 
the mountain.
     Secretary Granholm. Well, I'm so interested in this. I 
mean, I have heard of this idea, of using innovative aircraft 
for wind farm construction, especially when you're talking 
these logistical challenges. So I want to see it, I just 
haven't--I hope--I don't know if there's one near where you 
are, or if there's--but if there is an opportunity for us to 
partner on something like this, we're always looking for these 
innovative solutions. Our Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy is working on these logistical challenges. As 
you know, the wind, especially with large blades, it's just 
so--it's--they're very difficult to move into very large--very 
large blades into spaces, so I'd be super interested, and I 
would love to connect with you and your staff.
     Mr. Sherman. We'll get you some information. The ship----
     Secretary Granholm. Great.
     Mr. Sherman [continuing]. Doesn't exist yet, but an awful 
lot of engineering and prototypes do, so we'll get them----
     Secretary Granholm. All right.
     Mr. Sherman. I yield back.
     Staff. Mr. Garcia is recognized.
     Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for pulling this 
together, Ranking Member Lucas as well. Secretary, it's a 
pleasure to see you. Hopefully get to meet you in person soon. 
I will get to my question here shortly, but I do want to follow 
up on my colleague Mr. Sherman's question. He and I share a 
border. Santa Susana Field Lab actually straddles, and is many 
ways, the delineating line between----
     Secretary Granholm. Um-hum.
     Mr. Garcia [continuing]. Our two districts. I do support a 
cleanup. I think the definition of full cleanup is what's at 
issue right now, not only at the State level, but at local 
levels. I think there's a lot of data. I think we need to clean 
up the areas that do, in fact, have waste, and I think there's 
different approaches, so I would just recommend that before we, 
at an administration level or at the DOE level, move forward 
with anything additional, that we look at exactly how we're 
cleaning up, and simply removing eight to 10 feet of dirt from 
40 to 60 acres of land may actually expose the citizens around 
that area to more risks, and actually do more damage, so I 
don't think our policies and our funding streams should be 
supported by documentaries that are, in some cases, outdated, 
and had bad data. That's more of a commentary.
     My question actually revolves around the nuclear waste 
issue that you mentioned. I think you were spot on. I don't 
think that there's a question about safety. I think we need to 
figure out how to scale up. I do think it's the right answer. 
When it comes to clean energy, other nations have figured it 
out similar to us, but maybe at higher levels, but the waste 
issues still remains I'd say the long pole in the tent on us 
actually being able to scale up, given what's happened at 
Yucca, and basically now the 80,000 or so metric tons of waste 
that's scattered across the country.
     We've seen prospects developing in different industry that 
are actually being able to recycle some of this high level 
waste, and breaking it down to the point where, instead of 
getting down to, say, background radioactivity levels after 
100,000 years, the recycling process and breaking it down 
actually gets it down to below 300 years. Would you support a 
domestic nuclear recycling program--and I think it may even be 
mature to ask if you support a program. I think that there's a 
need for feasibility studies, tech demonstration funding levels 
at lower dollar values for some of these companies that are 
figuring this out, and then tech maturation programs where we 
can actually compete multiple businesses to figure out exactly 
what they have. But the prospects of being able to effectively 
recycle a lot of this waste, and actually get to reactor grade 
plutonium that would support some of next gen reactors that we 
were discussing earlier, I believe is actually a very 
encouraging sign. I just wanted to get your comments that----
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
     Mr. Garcia [continuing]. And any sort of R&D efforts 
behind it.
     Secretary Granholm. You know, I mean, obviously I'm 
supportive of science, and I'm supportive of the Department of 
Energy being the Solutions Department, and this is a big 
problem, and it's a big problem that potentially could have 
some solutions, and so efforts related to that, I would love to 
work with you on, and I think that there would be a team in our 
Fossil Energy Office that would be very excited to work on this 
further as well.
     With respect to specific efforts that are happening inside 
the labs, I think there are some, but I just don't have those 
at the top of my head, but I'm happy to get back to you, and 
have the staff get back to you, on exactly what's happening 
right now on the specifics of recycling.
     Mr. Garcia. That would be fantastic. Happy to cooperate 
with you on that. I think there are a lot of great 
opportunities here, and there's actually some companies that 
are already moving out on their own----
     Secretary Granholm. I'm sure.
     Mr. Garcia. R&D--efforts, and we can probably leverage 
that as well. Before my time is up, I do just want to put a 
quick commentary about the sanctions on Russia and the Nord 
Stream 2. You made the statement that we should've stopped it 
before it was built. I know that you weren't part of those 
discussions. I think, actually, that that's a mistake, to not 
have the DOE as part of those discussions on the waiver of 
sanctions, but I do believe that there's a bit of an irony that 
we actually stopped the Keystone Pipeline in the midst of its 
construction on our own soil, and I do think it's more than 
just anxiety about job loss. There were literally thousands of 
jobs lost as a result of that decision. And, honestly, I think 
it's shameful at the national level that we waive sanctions on 
a Russian company in support of their gas lines, which are 
dirty, which are going to do harm, and we actually stop ours 
which did have a great opportunity. So I was discouraged to 
hear that you weren't allowed to be part of those 
conversations, and I'll save the follow-up question for the 
next round. Thank you, Madam Secretary, I'm out of time.
     Staff. Mr. McNerney is next.
     Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Secretary Granholm, it's great to 
see you again after last week's appearance at Energy and 
Commerce.
     Secretary Granholm. Yes----
     Mr. McNerney. I truly appreciate your enthusiasm, and your 
breadth of knowledge, and I hope to continue to have access to 
your office in the future. So the DOE possesses some of the 
most powerful computers in the world, and you're scheduled to 
deploy even more of those later this year. These systems are 
critical to develop artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities 
and other research areas. Can you provide us a preview of the 
Department's scientific computing agenda under your leadership?
     Secretary Granholm. Now, we are obviously--the labs have a 
broad swath of supercomputing capabilities, and the Federal 
Government has invested enormously in those capabilities, and 
that is fantastic, and we don't want to lose that edge. And I--
let me just say slightly off to you--off of your question, but 
I really am concerned that America is falling behind in 
developing advanced supercomputers, because last year a 
Japanese system became the top supercomputer, and the U.S. 
dropped from having four of the top 10 supercomputers to only 
two of the top 10. So, as you know, that is a problem.
     So high performance computing is needed to maintain the 
leadership of the U.S. in these--computational and data 
science. We remain on track to deploy the Nation's first 
exascale computer this year at Oak Ridge, which is great. If 
that computer performs as expected, we anticipate that the 
United States is going to regain the top spot for the Top 500 
list this fall. And our second exascale computer is on track to 
be delivered at Argonne in 2022, and our third at Livermore in 
2023, so very exciting stuff. The high performance aspect of 
computing is also needed to maintain the leadership, so we're, 
you know, we want to make sure that this exascale computing 
initiative, and strategic computing, remains an administration 
priority, and I think with the American Jobs Plan, and the 
investments that have been articulated here, we will be able to 
do that.
     Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I like that enthusiasm. I believe 
that our society will sooner or later need to count on fusion 
to provide clean, reliable energy to human civilization, which 
our--with our growing energy appetite. Do you agree with that 
assessment?
     Secretary Granholm. Absolutely.
     Mr. McNerney. Very good. Is there room in the Department's 
fusion research budget for work that is high risk? In other 
words, not necessarily in the mainstream, but has potential for 
high payback?
     Secretary Granholm. I think there's always room. Of 
course, you know, fusion would require a major further 
investment, since these projects are very large, and very cost-
intensive, but the reward could be enormously beneficial. So 
we're looking into ways to support public/private partnerships 
in fusion energy, including through the Innovation Network for 
Fusion Energy, INFUSE, I think it's called, which is an 
initiative to help provide promising fusion energy companies 
with access to technical and financial support from the 
National Labs to bring their technologies closer to 
commercialization.
     Mr. McNerney. Well--see, this past December Canada joined 
a list of countries that plan to simulate the production of 
hydrogen. You've already talked about hydrogen a little bit, 
but according to the International Energy Agency's (IEA's) 
Hydrogen Projects Data base, nearly 320 green hydrogen 
production demonstrations have been announced worldwide, with 
new ones being added every week. Do you foresee the Department 
leveraging your capabilities to keep pace with the global 
hydrogen technology trends?
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, but we've got to get on it. I 
mean, this is why what's happened in the American Jobs Plan, 
with these 25 demonstration projects, 15 of which would be for 
hydrogen. I mean, we want to make sure that we are in the game 
on this. I speak with my counterparts in other countries all 
the time, and, in addition to fusion, which is a little further 
out, hydrogen is the holy grail in terms of dispatchable, 
transportable power, clean, and green hydrogen. So we know that 
all of these countries are rushing to make it happen. We need 
to be in the game, and that's why--it can obviously create jobs 
in regional areas, but it also can put the U.S. in the 
leadership.
     We just announced that we would be part--leading part of 
the hydrogen initiative at the G7, the United States will be, 
so--but in order to have any credibility, we've got to be able 
to fund these demonstration projects, which is why I hope that 
this Committee, and others, are supportive of the demonstration 
projects to enable us to get into that leadership position.
     Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary. I yield 
back.
     Staff. Ms. Bice is recognized.
     Ms. Bice. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Secretary, 
for being with us this afternoon. We've talked a little bit 
about electric vehicles, and so I want to focus briefly on 
that. Right now there are about 1.5 million EVs on the road. 
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) researchers 
found that through 2028 the overall power system could support 
up to 24 million EVs, or about 9 percent of current traffic in 
the United States. So while the growing number of EVs is 
admirable, I worry about the grid's capacity to handle the 
amount of electrification this administration is calling for. 
What happens after that 9 percent threshold is reached? Are we 
going to have to sacrifice electricity for our homes and 
businesses to power electric vehicles?
     Secretary Granholm. No. What we have to do is to increase 
the capacity and the resiliency on the grid. I mean, it's 
another reason why--I don't want to be, you know, Johnny or 
Jenny One-Note, but the American Jobs Plan has those 
investments in grid capacity so that we can add more renewables 
and accommodate more demand on the grid. We're going to need it 
anyway. I mean, there's just massive demand out there for 
interconnections, even without additional EV charging. So we 
just--we need to accelerate this, and making the--putting the 
incentives in the right place, which is what the American Jobs 
Plan does, it would enable us to expand the grid to be able to 
accommodate that additional demand, as well as to accommodate 
renewable energy that we want to put on the grid.
     Ms. Bice. I do worry about picking and choosing where to 
invest, though. I mean, candidly, you know, States like 
California tend to be more open at wanting to move toward an 
EV, but they're having a difficult time powering their own 
infrastructure currently. States like Oklahoma, who tend to 
rely more on a fossil fuel strategy, don't have those 
challenges, and so are we going to be sacrificed at the expense 
of putting more electrification in California? So just 
something that I think about.
     The second question, as it relates to EVs, is who's going 
to pay for the electrification of these EVs? And what I mean by 
that is are we going to ask convenience stores, or States that 
you mentioned having 500,000 new charging stations across the 
country. Where's the cost of that burden going to lie?
     Secretary Granholm. Well, it depends, right? So in some 
places the private sector decides that it's in their interest 
to have a charging station, and therefore they will pay for the 
electricity, the output of it. So if you're a 7-11, maybe you 
decide that it's worth your while to pay for the electricity 
because somebody might be in the store longer and buying more 
things. If you are an individual in and driving down a freeway, 
then you have perhaps an arrangement with a charging company 
that allows you to pay for it with a card as you pull up to a 
charger somewhere that may not be associated with a private 
enterprise. I think it depends. It's all very contextual. But, 
you know, it is paid for. Just a question of, you know, where 
the----
     Ms. Bice. Who's paying?
     Secretary Granholm. Well, the person might be paying, like 
you pay for filling up your gas, or the business might be 
paying, if they decide that it's in their best interest.
     Ms. Bice. So, speaking of that, in my home State of 
Oklahoma, the current gas tax is used for critical 
transportation infrastructure expenses. The average Oklahoman 
drives around 19,000 miles a year, with a per gallon tax rate 
at 18 cents federally and 20 by the State, and it results in 
about $345 million in revenue. How are we going to make up the 
loss in revenue with the shift to electric vehicles?
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, it's a good question. We have to 
have a discussion about that, about how we fund our 
infrastructure. Are we simply going to continue to rely upon 
these user fees, it's--as some have suggested, or do we want to 
take this on as a Federal enterprise and say we need to invest 
in this infrastructure through more generalized--through our 
more generalized general fund, or our, you know, special 
purpose funds. The bottom line is I think that, in this 
administration anyway, there's not a desire to raise the gas 
tax on everyday citizens, but it's--this conversation about how 
you fund infrastructure I think is happening probably--even as 
I speak among those who are putting forth various proposals, 
and I think it's a worthy discussion.
     Ms. Bice. Well, it's been in a discussion in my home 
State, and, as a matter of fact, I championed some initiatives 
to try to address it here a couple of years ago, so I think we 
need to be mindful as we're talking about infrastructure as a 
whole. It's not just charging stations, or subsidizing electric 
vehicles, but there's also a very real need for infrastructure, 
and I think that needs to come first. And so I thank you for 
your time today, and, Madam Chair, I yield back.
     Staff. Mr. Tonko is next.
     Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Could you hear me?
     Secretary Granholm. I can.
     Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you, Secretary Granholm, for joining 
us today, and it's great to see you again. I appreciated the 
opportunity to engage with you in your appearance before the 
Energy and Commerce Committee last week, and look forward to 
discussing DOE's efforts to develop science and energy 
research, and was very, very pleased by your responses at that 
Committee meeting.
     Wind power will play an important role in achieving our 
clean energy goals, and as we look to increase clean energy on 
the grid, innovation is key to greater technical efficiency and 
economic growth. For example, in my district, researchers at 
General Electric's Global Research Center in Upstate Niskayuna, 
New York are working on a way to make massive wind turbines 
float by themselves in the middle of the ocean. This technology 
could significantly increase the amount of offshore wind 
production, and I am excited indeed that New York's Capital 
Region is helping lead the way. So last Congress my Wind Energy 
Research and Development Act authorized the Office of Wind 
Energy. What role can the Office of Wind Energy play in 
improving the efficiency, the reliability, and the capacity of 
wind energy technologies?
     Secretary Granholm. Yes, thank you for asking that. Our 
Wind Technology Office, and, of course, our relationships with 
the labs who are doing all of the research--so much of the 
research on this is obviously leading the way. I'm very bullish 
on these floating turbines as well. I know they're not quite 
ready for prime time, and a lot of--there's a lot of effort 
right now going into making sure that they work, and that they 
are particularly in the areas where a land-based effort is not 
that feasible. Often opposite from you, but on the West Coast 
we're seeing a lot of effort in that.
     You know, the notion--I--can I just say broadly, on wind 
energy, it is really a top priority, because we have so much 
untapped wind across the country, both offshore and onshore, 
along with solar, of course, and it's so--it's become not just 
one of our most reliable sources of carbon free energy, but, 
because of DOE's R&D efforts, you know, cost competitive, 
cheaper, cheaper than any other source of power now. So rapidly 
accelerating deployment of wind and solar is a big component of 
how we're going to build our clean energy economy and meet the 
climate goals of getting to 100 percent clean electricity by 
2035, and net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but, of course, 
there are those new innovation horizons as well, and we are 
deeply committed to them. You know, the triple win of offshore, 
because not just jobs, huge jobs----
     Mr. Tonko. Um-hum.
     Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Right, in construction 
and manufacturing, good union jobs. The combination of 
proximity to population centers and high wind resources off the 
coast means it can play just a critical role in moving that--
the country to the 100 percent goal. And we know that the 
President has committed to this national goal of 30 gigawatts 
of offshore wind by 2030, and so it's going to--and it is 
taking a whole of government coordinated effort between, you 
know, DOE, and the Department of Interior, and the, you know, 
all of these entities that are really focused on making sure we 
can do this, including the Department of Defense, which, you 
know, often use an--offshore as a way of doing maneuvers, and 
are working with us to make sure we carve out areas that are 
capable for wind development.
     So, bottom line--and let me just say, the administration 
took another big stride toward that goal this week with the 
announcement of nearly 400 square miles of sea off of the coast 
of California that it's going to make available early next 
year, which unlocks the potential for this Great American Wind 
Project in the Pacific Ocean, and it could be the first 
commercial floating wind project as well. So, bottom line, I'm 
with you 100 percent on it. Very excited about it.
     Mr. Tonko. Thank you, and thank you for the enthusiasm. 
What other additional DOE research is needed to ensure that we 
maximize wind energy's potential?
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, I would say a couple of things. 
One is clearly on the floating turbines. So, you know, we've 
had conversations, and we know others have as well, with, for 
example, those who do the rigs for oil and gas, and those, you 
know, platforms have gone through a lot, and so the wind 
turbines themselves that are floating have to withstand a lot 
of motion, and so the research related to the best sort of 
anchoring of a floating thing on top of the water is critical, 
and that piece of research is going on. Continual research on 
whether you can use offshore wind to also create green 
hydrogen. Can you put electrolyzers, for example, in the base 
of one of these massive wind turbines to create green hydrogen 
from the wind turbine? So----
     Mr. Tonko. Um-hum.
     Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Stuff like that, a 
creative combination of things, whether you have a platform 
perhaps that is also doing tidal energy as--below, and wind 
energy above, that kind of research is very interesting, as 
well as material science research continually on the blades, 
those massive blades. The bigger they get, the more you have to 
have a very sophisticated strategy on materials. So all of 
that's super exciting.
     Mr. Tonko. Madam Secretary, my time is up. I'll just tell 
you that Plug Power is an industry leader in hydrogen. They're 
located in my district. I have other questions on hydrogen that 
I'll forward you----
     Secretary Granholm. Great.
     Mr. Tonko [continuing]. And would appreciate your 
response, but----
     Secretary Granholm. You bet.
     Mr. Tonko [continuing]. Congratulations on the 
appointment, again, and look forward to working with you.
     Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
     Mr. Tonko. I yield back, Madam Chair.
     Staff. Mr. Feenstra is next.
     Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, and Ranking 
Member Lucas. Secretary Granholm, thank you for testifying 
before the Committee today. As you know, Iowa is a leader in 
our Nation in producing clean biofuels, and my congressional 
district is the No. 1 producer of biofuels in the country. I 
appreciate the work that the DOE is doing to look at the 
innovative uses for our biofuels, such as helping decarbonize 
our airline industry, and expanding their use as low carbon 
fuels. I am actively working on legislative solutions for these 
issues, and I look forward to working with the DOE. I also look 
forward to working with the DOE to continue to advance our 
biofuel industry toward being a net carbon negative fuel 
through innovative research. Today I would like to focus on 
some recent research findings and reports by your Department.
     Secretary, earlier this week the DOE Argonne National Lab 
released a study. I'll quote the headline for you. ``Corn 
Ethanol Reduces Carbon Footprint and Diminishes Greenhouse 
Gases''. This study showed that from 2005 to 2019 corn ethanol 
resulted in more than 500 million tons of greenhouse gas 
reductions, and carbon intensity in ethanol decreased by 23 
percent. This shows that corn ethanol created significant 
emission reductions and biofuel's overall carbon footprint is 
rapidly declining. Based on this data, would you agree with me 
that today's current biofuels have already created significant 
emission reductions in our auto sector?
     Secretary Granholm. Yes, today and for the future as well. 
We've got a whole biofuels and bio energy team that's working 
on this. You mentioned the Argonne study. I'm glad you asked 
about that. We--you know, electric vehicles obviously have 
emerged as this great technology for light duty vehicles, and 
cars, and SUVs, and pickups, but the heaviest duty 
transportation modes that really need energy density liquid 
fuels, which is where biofuels obviously are going to play a 
critical role, and, as you mentioned, aviation and marine fuels 
as well, so it's a very----
     Mr. Feenstra. Well, thank you.
     Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Exciting area----
     Mr. Feenstra. Yeah.
     Secretary Granholm [continuing]. And I'm glad to see that 
Argonne study.
     Mr. Feenstra. Yeah. Thanks, Secretary. Are you aware that 
in February of this year the Energy Information Agency 
published their 2021 annual energy outlook, and it estimates 
that by 2050 liquid fuel vehicles will still account of 79 
percent of the new vehicle sales? Did you note that?
     Secretary Granholm. I saw that, yes.
     Mr. Feenstra. Yeah. I just want you to know that the 
Information Agency has a whole subsection highlighting the 
gasoline and flex fuel vehicles, and we'll only see 16 percent 
decline by 2050. Given this, it seems wise to me that we 
continue investing and expanding in biofuels. My concern, Madam 
Secretary, is that even though the facts paint a clear picture 
that biofuels present a solution to automotive emissions, the 
Biden Administration has hardly mentioned them when discussing 
the American Jobs Plan. Instead, Biden has called for 174 
billion in spending in electric vehicles that the DOT 
(Department of Transportation) projects will account for less 
than 20 percent of the vehicles by 2050. Would you have--we 
should have automotive competition in low carbon automotive 
marketplace, and we can't ignore the findings of your own 
department. Biofuels have a significant and essential role to 
play as we move forward into the future. Can I get your 
commitment to take these DOE findings to President Biden to 
ensure that biofuels are part of this administration's future 
automotive policy?
     Secretary Granholm. I mean, honestly, I believe that 
biofuels are going to be a big part of this administration's 
future policy with respect to transportation, as I mentioned, 
particularly on heavy duty and aviation, so I think that you're 
pushing on an open door.
     Mr. Feenstra. Well, thank you, Secretary. I just want to 
reiterize how important it is that our auto industry can also 
use biofuels and ethanol, and ethanol is so paramount. And I 
know the administration and yourself talk about--well, it's 
important to, you know, larger aircraft and all this other 
stuff, but, just like the facts point out, there's still going 
to be a large percent of our cars that need liquid fuels. So I 
hear what you're saying, I hear your support, but the American 
Jobs Plan does not include biofuels, and that's where I'm 
really concerned about it, and I hope, I passionately hope, 
that you and the administration can advocate for biofuels as we 
move forward. Thank you, Secretary, I yield back.
     Staff. Mr. Foster is recognized.
     Mr. Foster. Thank you. Am I audible here?
     Secretary Granholm. You are.
     Mr. Foster. OK. Well, Secretary Granholm, first off, 
congratulations on your confirmation, and in taking what one of 
your predecessors, Governor Rick Perry, called the coolest job 
in the world.
     Secretary Granholm. It is. It is.
     Mr. Foster. So I'd like to use my time to encourage you to 
throw deep, and with major new investments in the sort of large 
science facilities and initiatives that the United States 
Department of Energy is really uniquely positioned to propose, 
to lead, and to execute. You have, at the Department of Energy, 
an organization with a unique capability, and an incredible 
track record for successfully executing technically challenging 
large scientific projects. But, for most of the last 10 years, 
the pipeline of those large transformative projects has been 
largely running dry, at least in the United States, because the 
U.S., science generally, and DOE Office of Science 
specifically, has been struggling even to preserve its already 
inadequate budgets.
     Over the last decade we saw Paul Ryan budgets proposing 17 
percent cuts to science. We saw the Trump/Mulvaney proposals 
for 100 percent cuts in various areas, so that, for many of the 
last 10 years, even preserving a flat science budget sometimes 
seemed like a victory. As a result of this, the U.S. has been 
increasingly forced to become a relatively minor participant in 
large international projects, rather than the host of world-
leading scientific facilities that was our traditional role.
     But that attitude, fortunately, has changed, at least on 
the House Science Committee. It was over a year ago, well 
before COVID, that we were graced with the wonderful prospect 
of dueling Republican and Democratic proposals to double the 
scientific research budget. And then they both concentrated 
especially on the fundamental scientific research that will be 
necessary in the long run to solve climate change, to meet our 
other challenges, and to preserve the U.S. leadership in 
understanding the mysteries of the universe. And I remember out 
on the campaign trail Vice President Biden--then Vice President 
Biden would oscillate between doubling and tripling the science 
budgets, which I guess is the range of flip-flopping that we 
can--most of us can tolerate. So I'm really very proud that, 
under the bipartisan leadership of Chair Johnson and Ranking 
Member Lucas, this Committee is working toward a thoughtful and 
technically feasible reauthorization, you know, not only for 
the Department of Energy, but across our entire science 
portfolio. That's the way our government and budget process 
should work.
     You know, you could take the opening statements of our 
Chair and Ranking Member, and you could interchange them 
without noticing a difference, and I don't know of another 
Committee in Congress that you could say that of. You know, but 
there is a long list of large science investments that are 
overdue--that are really overdue. For example, infusion. As the 
large international ITER Project is approaching the finish 
line, the international community is now looking at the design 
and the site of the next machines. Good candidates for this 
include a next generation either light tokamak, or perhaps in a 
significantly higher field, or perhaps an optimized 
stellarator, the U.S. invention which was successfully 
prototyped in Germany that promises a simpler and more 
economical operating path for fusion, or many other designs. 
And there are many similarly large new projects, many waiting 
in the wings for over a decade, in high energy particle 
physics, in bioinformatics, quantum, cloud-based biology, 
neuromorphic community, you know, the list goes on.
     There are opportunities for big new investments in DOE 
also outside of the Office of Science. At NSA (National Nuclear 
Security Administration), after a decade of progress at NIF 
(National Ignition Facility), we are now in a position to write 
down the design of a next generation laser ignition facility 
that could reliably be projected to achieve robust laboratory 
scale thermonuclear fusion, which is perhaps the most 
scientifically exciting use for our stockpile stewardship 
workforce. And we--many Members here have mentioned the nuclear 
waste problem, and while we have struggled for decades with the 
politics of nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain, in Europe 
there is a project underway to demonstrate that instead of 
finding someplace to store long nuclear waste, you can simply 
incinerate it using a charged particle beam that's very much 
like the one the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge uses 
every day. But unless we make these big new investments on 
these large new projects, our competitors are going to get 
there first. So I'd like to echo Chair Johnson's observation 
that a 5 percent increase doesn't really cut it for the Office 
of Science, and I hope that we do better when this procedure 
settles out. So throw deep, as I said. You know, the Department 
of Energy team has a lot of good receivers, and they are wide 
open, and they are far downfield. In Congress, we are ready to 
hand off the ball to you, the budgetary football, but you have 
to call the plays, you have to hit the open targets. You have 
to put a few scores on the board, and we can have a pretty good 
first quarter. And I have now used up my time, but I look 
forward to working with you.
     Secretary Granholm. That was beautiful. Thank you for 
that.
     Staff. Ms. Kim is recognized.
     Ms. Kim. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, and Ranking 
Member Lucas, for holding this important hearing, and I want to 
thank you, Secretary Granholm, for being with us today.
     You know, unfortunately, residents of my home State of 
California have firsthand experience with energy infrastructure 
that cannot meet the demand. Like, last summer, over 800,000 
customers suffered power outages over two evenings in August. 
You may recall that. Californians only averted another round of 
rolling blackouts in the coming days through emergency measures 
and voluntary conservation. And California adopted a 
requirement that renewable energy and zero carbon resources 
supply 100 percent of retail electricity by 2045. So as this 
plan requires fossil fuels to be phased out, are advances in 
grid resiliency keeping pace with the increased use of 
renewable energy necessary to meet the standard?
     Secretary Granholm. I'm sorry, the question is are----
     Ms. Kim. Advances in grid resiliency----
     Secretary Granholm. Yes.
     Ms. Kim [continuing]. Pace with the increased use of 
renewable energy----
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, we clearly need to do both. I 
mean, there is no doubt that the grid issues--I mean, 
California's grid issues are a combination of things, right? 
One of them is that you've got an old grid, and the grid is on 
poles that were put up in the 1950's, and you need to 
underground--you--not you personally, but California needs to 
underground the wires so that it is resilient from wind. A lot 
of the outages had to do with anticipated high wind events, 
where we didn't want to create fires, and so people, you know, 
saw their system shut down as a result of that. We shouldn't--
in the 21st century we shouldn't have that kind of a system. A 
grid should be resilient, it should be reliable, it should be 
secure, and we should have enough capacity to be able to meet 
the energy needs of our citizens, and we--so we need to work on 
that in California.
     I think the importance of investing in the technology of 
grid, in--and what--the American Jobs Plan is a signal for 
this. You know, being prepared means a lot more than having a 
plan, it means making the investments in the transmission 
system, and the generating resources. The grid itself has got 
to be resilient enough to be managed under various extreme 
weather circumstances, and that challenge is connected with the 
generation, you know? So, bottom line is we've--it's very 
complicated, but we have to invest in the basics, which is----
     Ms. Kim. Sure.
     Secretary Granholm [continuing]. A grid that is 
underinvested in. And California doesn't have the resources to 
pay for it all by itself, so this is why we need to have an 
aggressive public/private partnership with the transmission 
operators to get these new lines built, and to underground the 
lines that we have.
     Ms. Kim. So how are DOE's research and development 
activities preparing utilities to address that high demand on 
hot, windless days, as temperatures peak in the afternoon and 
early evening, while solar generation decreases as sunset 
approaches?
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah. I know that the Office of 
Electricity is looking at various technological advances on 
energy grids, first of all, to make sure that grid dispatching 
is efficient, and that means AI, and making sure we've got the 
right technology on the grid to make it efficient, but it also 
means that we have got to invest in the kind of wires that are 
resilient. So that means replacing a lot of wires, making them 
resilient to heat, making them, you know, further research and 
development to lowering the cost of undergrounding, where it's 
appropriate to be able to do that. So a lot of the work that we 
are doing is, you know, learning from what has happened both in 
California, in Texas, you know, and across the country to make 
sure that we--but ultimately we need to invest to get--to 
upgrade the system.
     You know, in Europe they do a huge amount of 
undergrounding of high speed DC wires, and they underground 
them in trenches, and they may run underneath agricultural 
land. You don't even know that they're there. They may 
compensate the owners for it. So there's a lot that we could be 
doing policy-wise to shore up and harden----
     Ms. Kim. Secretary, I have 30 seconds left so I----
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah. I'm sorry.
     Ms. Kim [continuing]. Let me reclaim my time, because----
     Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
     Ms. Kim [continuing]. Express my concern that a shift to 
renewable resources for which our grid is not prepared could 
increase the frequency of blackouts. And I believe you have 
stated that our country's electric grid is unprepared for 
extreme weather events such as wildfires, so, in your opinion, 
what is the greatest challenge in improving grid resilience and 
minimizing service disruption in areas frequently threatened by 
wildfires, and how is DOE addressing this?
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah. I mean, honestly, what we have 
to do is invest in the grid to harden our defenses. It doesn't 
mean that we shouldn't be adding capacity like clean energy to 
the grid. It means we have to add capacity, and we have to 
shore up the existing lines and wires, whether it's 
undergrounding, or adding the microchips that make it smart for 
dispatchable power to be sent where it needs to go at the time 
it needs to go. So, you know, the--we have to invest in all 
aspects of the grid, including cyber. But right now we have 
been--we have really turned our back on the grid, and this is 
why--this is a moment. We're all in this moment of being able 
to say this is a time to invest in this piece of 
infrastructure. And I would really posit that while we're 
talking about infrastructure investment, investing in the grid 
is infrastructure.
     Ms. Kim. OK. Well, thank you so much. I think my time's 
up. I yield back.
     Secretary Granholm. OK.
     Ms. Kim. Thank you, Secretary, for being with us.
     Staff. Ms. Ross is recognized.
     Ms. Ross. Thank you so much, and, Secretary Granholm, I 
could not be happier that you're where you are. Clearly you're 
thinking the right way, and you're thinking about the future, 
which is the most important thing. I represent the Research 
Triangle area in North Carolina. As a matter of fact, I've seen 
you at NC State University talking about renewable energy and 
clean energy. And, by the way, the Chancellor told me he really 
wants you to come back, so this is an open invitation to come 
back to NC State. And I've learned that both NC State and Wake 
Tech Community College, which is very near NC State, have 
programs in cybersecurity, training up the next generation to 
help us avoid problems like the Colonial Pipeline crisis that, 
you know, we experienced so directly here in North Carolina.
     But because so many of my colleagues have asked you 
questions that I was going to talk about, including the one on 
the grid, great answer, and the one about offshore wind, I want 
to focus on something that we are not hearing enough about, but 
I think is really a big part of solving the climate crisis, and 
that's energy conservation, and making sure that we have better 
buildings, and ways of making sure that we have energy 
resilience, and so the less energy we use, the less energy we 
have to produce. But our utilities don't have an incentive to 
implement these conservation programs because they sell less 
energy. If they build fewer things, then they have less to put 
into their rate base, and less of a rate of return.
     And I've seen this here in North Carolina. I represented 
municipalities who wanted our monopoly utilities to give them 
better ways to load ship, to have more advanced meters, so that 
people could figure out what they were doing, and how to reduce 
their energy bills. And I would like to know how we can move 
forward on this, because I'm all for all the new and different 
ways of having energy and having a new grid, but wouldn't it be 
great if we could just conserve some and save our constituents 
some money?
     Secretary Granholm. Yes, yes, yes. I mean, both have to 
happen. We have to generate renewable and clean energy, and we 
have to have energy efficiency, and we have to put the 
incentives in the right spots, right, for the utilities to be 
able to produce what used to be called the fifth fuel, which 
was energy efficiency. This is why having a clean energy--an 
energy efficiency standard, which is what is contemplated in 
the American Jobs Plan, is such an important piece of things. 
You can see the benefit if you put the incentives in the right 
places. We did this in Michigan, a number States have done 
this. There is--there are ways to construct it, and I would say 
the American Jobs Plan as well gives States--allows us to shape 
State block grants that would reward States that do that, that 
reward efficiency.
     I mean, you know, there's a big emphasis in the American 
Jobs Plan for increasing weatherization and building--
retrofitting homes and buildings, and, honestly, the energy 
efficiency piece, it's not just about the climate. It's really 
about the climate, but it's not just about it. It's also about 
people. I mean, when you think about how much, particularly 
poor families, pay, up to 30 percent of their income on energy, 
it's just wrong. We need to have secure homes that don't leak, 
and it would be wise for us to make sure the incentive 
structures are accurate, and right--and placed in the right way 
so that we can incentivize building back better for all 
communities.
     Ms. Ross. And could you speak a little bit about how we 
inspire our people to want to conserve energy, and maybe turn 
off the lights, and things like that. And it--when I was 
growing up, that's what we did, because we had energy--an 
energy crisis, but I think that we've taken for granted that 
we're always going to be able to plug in our devices, and 
everything's going to be there, and, you know, it might be good 
if we inspire people to be a little bit more conscious of what 
they're doing.
     Secretary Granholm. 1,000 percent. One would hope that the 
financial savings would be inspiration enough. I would also say 
that sometimes it's difficult to inspire individuals, but you 
can construct technology that does the work for you so that 
people don't really have to think about it. So smart buildings, 
for example, energy savings in building's management that will 
automatically turn off lights when there's no movement, the 
smart and efficient appliances that save people $600 on average 
per year, and if that's not enough on their own, but having 
that as part of building codes I think is a critically 
important piece of a comprehensive strategy with respect to 
energy.
     Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
     Staff. Mr. Babin is recognized. Mr. Babin is not with us 
anymore.
     Mr. Babin. Here I am.
     Staff. There----
     Mr. Babin. Here I am. I'm sorry. I apologize. I've got a 
few questions that I'd like to ask. Appreciate you being here, 
Madam Secretary. Thank you so very much.
     Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
     Mr. Babin. And this is a very, very important subject and 
issue. On the first day in office President Biden announced 
that his intention to was to rejoin the Paris Agreement. In 
April he submitted the United States Nationally Determined 
Contribution, which was an emissions reduction target of 50 to 
52 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2030. The submission 
did not offer much information, other than vague phrases on how 
it was determined, like saying the National Climate Advisor 
conducted an inter-agency process across the Federal 
Government, and consulted a range of other stakeholders. The 
Obama Administration's pledge to reach 80 percent reduction by 
2040 was estimated to cost the United States economy $3 
trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs. Therefore, I 
want to ask, and well, let me just say this. I believe that the 
American people deserve transparency, and a justification if 
their jobs and economy are really on the line like this. So, 
Secretary Granholm, what was DOE's role in determining this 
target, and did you meet or communicate directly with the 
National Climate Advisor, Ms. Gina McCarthy, and what, if any, 
models or data sources from DOE were used to inform this 
process? Please, ma'am.
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, thank you for asking that. Yeah, 
it's part of a whole of government approach. We are all about 
making sure every agency is looking at this. They've used a 
number of resources, economic models, I've certainly talked 
with them, et cetera, and the whole point is that there a 
number of paths that one could get to. You ratchet up one a 
little bit higher, one maybe going a little bit lower, but 
there are a number of reports out there that are publicly 
available that suggest that there are different paths to be 
able to achieve getting to that goal of 50 percent reduction, 
or 50 to 52 percent reduction, by 2030.
     Mr. Babin. Yes. OK. Well, I understand. Now, the second 
one I want to pivot to touch on a topic relevant to my role as 
the Ranking Member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee. 
The ability to use to nuclear power in propulsion systems 
safely, securely, and sustainably is vital to maintaining and 
advancing U.S. leadership in space. The National Strategy for 
Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion was issued last year in an 
effort to increase coordination and collaboration across all 
relevant Federal agencies, and maximize efficiency and return 
on taxpayer investment. Additionally, capitalizing on the 
commonalities among space nuclear power systems and terrestrial 
nuclear systems, especially fuels or fuel variants, could 
shorten the timescale for the development of critical 
capabilities.
     And, Secretary Granholm, how is DOE coordinating with 
other Federal agencies on existing and future space nuclear 
power initiatives, especially with an eye toward future 
applications of the Department's current R&D efforts, and how 
is DOE engaging with the private sector to meet the needs of 
civil and national security space? In one instance, should 
agencies consider issuing a request for a proposal for the 
development and construction of an in-space or lunar surface 
power reactor system or demonstration? I know I packed in about 
three questions.
     Secretary Granholm. Wow. You've got a lot in that one.
     Mr. Babin. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
     Secretary Granholm. That's OK. That's all right. So let me 
just say, I'm excited and really proud of how the Department of 
Energy assists NASA in its important space exploration 
missions. So, for example, our national labs, like Idaho, and 
Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge developed and assembled the plutonium 
power source for the Perseverance Rover that landed on Mars 
earlier this year, so--and DOE itself has built nearly 50 radio 
isotopic power systems units that have powered and--more than 
two dozen, I think, space missions. So we have partnered with 
NASA, and we're excited about that, and of course DOD--DOE and 
the National Labs are also leading teams to develop new nuclear 
thermal propulsion rockets that have the potential to be able 
to move, you know, and, I would say, to carry and significantly 
reduce travel times. And we're also working with the Department 
of Defense on the development of fission power systems, 
especially microreactors, that could perhaps provide surface 
power for missions on the Moon, and maybe even Mars. So I look 
forward to working--continuing to work with NASA, and I'm glad 
to know that you're really interested in that as well, and 
space exploration. So, you know, we look forward to working 
with you and with the Committee on that.
     Mr. Babin. Well, thank you so very much, Madam Secretary. 
That's a very good answer. And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, 
thank you, I'll yield back. Appreciate this informative 
hearing.
     Staff. Mr. Crist is recognized.
     Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Secretary 
Granholm, it's great to see you, and thank you for joining us 
today, always a pleasure. The Department of Energy recently 
announced an ambitious and laudable goal of cutting the cost of 
solar energy by 60 percent within the next 10 years. What 
programs and initiative does the Department plan to use to meet 
the goal, and what can Congress do to help you support that?
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, thank you for asking. I mean, 
obviously the cost of solar has dropped so dramatically, but we 
announced we're cutting it yet again by 60 percent. And we do 
have a great plan. I'm really proud of how we're going to keep 
that price of solar coming down, and down, down. And, as you 
noted, you know, we were really being aggressive about it, so 
to help us get there, we're committing funding, and we're 
committing assistance to support that goal. It's a 
comprehensive plan. Every bit of the process, from the raw 
materials, to the point a solar panel is delivering electrons 
to your house, it includes--this plan that we're getting there 
to reduce by 60 percent includes continuing the front end R&D 
on material science to develop lower cost and higher performing 
solar technology, like our work in perovskites, as one example. 
Just this past March we announced more funding for that effort.
     And it also includes things people don't even think about, 
like, for example, the soft costs of permitting and siting, so 
there's--I'm--those soft costs, they are a big part of why, as 
cheap as solar has gotten, it's still more expensive to install 
than--here in the United States than in other countries. So, as 
one example, we are partnering with State and local governments 
to use this online permitting tool so that people can get 
standard rooftop solar permitted instantly, rather than waiting 
for months, and our solar office--I'm not getting ahead of 
myself here, but we're going to be announcing this--launching 
this app next month to completely eliminate the soft waiting 
time, et cetera, and the cost associated with that, so you can 
appreciate the role of getting all these distributed energy 
resources online in Florida for sure, and making sure that 
they're benefiting Floridians. Long story short, there's a lot 
going on in this area. I'd be happy to have your team connect 
with our Solar Energy Technologies Office if you'd like even 
more detail.
     Mr. Crist. Well, thank you, that would be great. While 
solar energy is growing in Florida, my home State hasn't 
exactly lived up to our nickname as the Sunshine State, so, as 
I'm sure you're probably aware, Secretary, State energy 
policies in Florida can make it difficult for homeowners to 
install, integrate, and fully benefit from solar panels. 
Meanwhile, Florida is arguably the State most susceptible to 
the impacts of climate change, and therefore the State most in 
need of increased renewable energy development. How can the 
Department of Energy incentivize States to increase integration 
of renewable energy into the grid?
     Secretary Granholm. That's a great question too. I mean, 
this is critical, as we need States, and localities, and 
companies to all work together, along with the Federal 
Government, to achieve our goals for renewable energy. And so 
the State Energy Program, SEP we call it, is in the Office of 
Energy Efficiency inside of DOE--Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, and it's working this year to strategically 
engage the leadership of States in deploying clean energy 
technologies across the country. SEP funding helps to establish 
and to implement these clean energy policies and programs to 
reduce energy costs, and enhance competitiveness, and all of 
that, and improve the environment.
     And in addition, our national labs, and all of our program 
offices, have tools to help States integrate more clean energy 
onto the grid. But we can do a lot more, and want to do more, 
and the American Jobs Plan would help us do that, and also to 
give States, and local units as well, incentives to come up 
with their own homegrown strategies to move toward 100 percent 
clean energy. You'll see that in the jobs plan, the State Clean 
Energy Block Grant Program, that I like calling the Build Back 
Better Challenge Grant Program. And my vision is really to work 
with States to come up with the best strategies to maximize 
clean energy, and if the State government is not so interested 
to work with the local units of government inside of that State 
to do the very same thing to support these resources. And the 
further they go in figuring out how to integrate clean energy, 
the more resources we would get to them to help them fulfill 
that vision. So I'd love to work with you on developing that 
program too.
     Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Secretary, I truly appreciate 
that, and I yield back the balance of my time.
     Staff. Mr. Obernolte is recognized.
     Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Secretary Granholm, for what's been a really fascinating 
hearing. In your testimony you mentioned the problems with the 
Colonial Pipeline, and the threats to the civilian supply 
chain, and, obviously, that's something that the Committee here 
has been very concerned about also. We had an Investigations 
and Oversight hearing on that exact topic this week. Although 
we were more focused on the government supply chain, obviously 
the economic supply chain for the rest of the country is even 
more important. I'm wondering what you think needs to be done 
to try and address those vulnerabilities, because, 
unfortunately, your job is even harder than the job that we 
were looking into because you run the risk of over-regulating 
if you require everyone to comply with something, and also you 
create changes to the competitive landscape if you were to 
require things that only large companies were positioned to 
comply with. So----
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
     Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. What do you think needs to be 
done about this, and how can we help you get that done?
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, I appreciate you asking. It is 
really a sensitive issue, because you want to, you know, you 
want to encourage innovation, and you want to cure--encourage 
adaptation of whatever the solutions are that you are 
promoting, but you also, you know, you want to make sure that 
everybody can do it, right? So, you know, you're aware, of 
course, since you had had a hearing on this, and you saw this 
week, that the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) 
has--who has regulatory authority over pipelines, right? So--
but at this--up to this point it's been voluntary. On the 
electricity side, that--the utilities have really been grateful 
for the fact that there are some minimum standards that are on 
their end, and--that they use to make sure that the, you know, 
that the transmission grid and distribution system is as safe 
as possible.
     One wonders whether we can borrow from what is happening 
on the electricity side to put over to the oil and gas side to 
make sure that we at least have knowledge of what is going on. 
So, for example, on the electricity side, we--many of the 
transmission operators have technology that was developed by 
PNNL, actually, and is on the grid, called CRISP (Cybersecurity 
Risk Information Sharing Program), and it identifies when there 
is a threat, a hack, et cetera, and it also alerts PNNL. It 
alerts those who are monitoring it, and CESER (Cybersecurity, 
Energy Security, and Emergency Response), and make sure that 
our intelligence community is aware, especially if there is an 
international threat. There's no such system like that on the 
pipeline side, and so one wonders if that might be something 
that we should require, or if that should be considered.
     You know, the utility community is all in on making sure--
because they see it happening, and so should the folks on the 
pipeline side. So TSA announced this week that it was going to 
be requiring pipeline operators to tell them when there was a 
hack, and I think that's an important step. And the final thing 
I'll say--I'm sorry to go on, but I think it's a really 
important question--that NIST (National Institute of Standards 
and Technology), over at the Department of Commerce, has 
developed some basic cyber floor, I will say, that entities 
should be using, in terms of cyber hygiene. And I think that 
having some basic requirements on these systems is important, 
because we have to continually upgrade, but we also make to--
need to make sure that everybody has some basic protections on 
systems that we all benefit from.
     Mr. Obernolte. Sure. Thank you. That was a great 
discussion, and I think you're absolutely right. The point that 
came up over and over again in our Subcommittee hearing earlier 
this week was that it's not enough for NIST just to upgrade 
guidance. You know, it's going to require some kind of--and if 
not regulation, then maybe some automation, as you say to----
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
     Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. Highlight the vulnerabilities 
that we have in the supply chain, because otherwise this is 
just going to continue to happen to us.
     Secretary Granholm. Agreed.
     Mr. Obernolte. And then, lastly, if I could ask you about 
some of the research programs at DOE? I know you share my 
concern for the U.S. falling behind in its competitiveness in 
programs like exascale computing and artificial intelligence, 
you know, things that really have the capacity to fundamentally 
transform our economy, and I think it's just vital to maintain 
our competitive stance there. What can we do to better assist 
the DOE with implementing those programs? Because my concern is 
not just the basic research, but also vocational training for 
the next generation of Americans to prepare them to compete in 
this space.
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah. I mean, I agree with you that we 
have to continue to buildup the STEM workforce. I acknowledge, 
I think, that you have a Master's degree in artificial 
intelligence, and you're, like, the only one in Congress that 
may have that. That's pretty amazing.
     Mr. Obernolte. I haven't researched that. I don't know.
     Secretary Granholm. But it would be great to see more 
interest in areas that often are seen by young people--you 
know, if they're not interested in computers off the top, then 
they may not be at all looking at--in this space, but we need 
to really build out this pipeline. Today DOE announced an 
initiative--a $100 million initiative to fund the research of 
young science efforts to make sure that we are continuing to 
support these young STEM future career workers, but we need to 
get--go deeper and go younger to really expand that STEM 
pipeline, and a lot of times--I mean, I taught at Berkeley. 
There's a class there that is essentially computer science--in 
the Computer Science Department, but for Liberal Arts majors. 
And the number of women, the number of diverse folks who took 
that class because they felt it was less threatening, perhaps, 
was amazing. They had enormous success. We need to develop--we 
need to be thinking about how young people view it. And, if 
they don't see themselves as a math person, they might not be 
interested in going into this field, and I think we've got to 
be more creative.
     I will say that the labs have been great about expanding 
the STEM pipeline, and really focusing, and now this is our 
effort inside on a diverse STEM population, because, in the 
space of artificial intelligence, in the space of designing, 
programming, if you don't have good inputs, you're going to 
have bad outputs, as you know, and if you don't have a diverse 
population at least providing some of those inputs, you're 
going to see like what we did with the facial recognition 
software, way overidentifying African-American men, for 
example, in the criminal justice space, et cetera. So we need 
to have a diverse pipeline of inputs and there--and of STEM 
workers in order to be able to achieve what we want to achieve.
     Mr. Obernolte. Well, it's an exciting initiative, and I 
know we're looking forward to working with you on that, so----
     Secretary Granholm. Great.
     Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. Thank you very much, Secretary 
Granholm, and I yield back.
     Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
     Staff. Mr. Kildee is recognized.
     Mr. Kildee. Thank you. And, hey, Secretary Granholm, how 
are you? It's good to----
     Secretary Granholm. I am great. It's great to see you too.
     Mr. Kildee. Both to you and Dan. Congratulations again on 
your confirmation. It's good to have you, as a Michigander, as 
a Midwesterner, in this administration, particularly in this 
role. Obviously we're focused very much on the auto sector, and 
knowing that the future of the automotive industry is electric. 
We know that we have to act boldly and aggressively, if not, 
China will lead the future of this industry, and we have to 
have specific and strategic Federal policy to make sure that 
American workers and American companies can compete in this 
21st century economy, particularly in this space, and 
particularly given the ascendancy of China in this particular 
area. Right now electric vehicles make up about 2 percent of 
vehicle sales. So, as you know, and we've chatted about this, 
I'm working with Senator Stabenow to extend and to expand the 
electric vehicle tax credit to increase demand for electric 
vehicles, and to lower costs for the purchase of those vehicles 
for consumers, but that's just one of the tools that we need to 
help grow this industry.
     So, as you and Representative Stevens discussed earlier, 
at the Department of Energy there's a program, the Advanced 
Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program, the ATVM 
Program, which provides loans to support the manufacture of 
advanced light duty vehicles. So far this program has supported 
the production of more than four million advanced technology 
vehicles. Unfortunately, however, past administrations have not 
used this program as Congress intended, and as such there 
hasn't been a loan disbursed since--really since 2012. There 
are billions remaining in this loan authority, and I would like 
to see it used more aggressively to help us essentially take an 
all of the above approach to making sure that we're going to 
win the future. Do you have thoughts on how to use the ATVM 
Program to support production of EVs, and to create those 
really good paying jobs that we know that it can create right 
here in the U.S.?
     Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you for asking this 
question, and thanks for your leadership and concern, 
especially about expanding the definition of what is available 
for access to the ATVM Program, including heavier duty 
vehicles. So you are aware, I know, and for everybody who may 
not be following this so closely, we have brought in a fellow 
named Jigar Shaw to run our Loan Programs Office, which 
includes the ATVM Loan Program, and he is--he's an--he's a--he 
comes from the financial world, and is completely obsessed with 
retooling the loan program to make it accessible. I mean, the--
it has been moribund. Not just the ATVM, but the other Loan 
Program Office, you know, opportunities.
     You know, before--I mean, the LPO had demonstrated great 
success in providing financing, for example, to Tesla as an EV 
startup, right, and it recapitalized Ford's manufacturing 
plants in a number of States, and it also helped to refinance 
the Nissan plant in Tennessee. But there are--we just need to 
go further. I mean, there's whole a whole--there have been a 
series of hurdles that were set up at the Loan Program Office 
that made it inaccessible not just to those big players, but to 
smaller players as well, and we want to, you know, let 1,000 
flowers bloom, and that means allowing, you know, bringing down 
some of the initial costs that make that a barrier to entry, et 
cetera. So Jigar Shaw is working on a whole plan on this. He is 
an impatient soul, and I think you will be seeing some results 
from this very quickly. But we know this is a huge opportunity, 
and we are not going to miss it.
     Mr. Kildee. Well, I appreciate that. Changing the subject 
just slightly, you may have touched on this, I've had to come 
and go during the hearing, but I wonder if you could comment on 
your Department's strategy around research on storage. The 
whole broad range of issues around energy storage. Obviously, 
with renewables, one of the challenges we have is dealing with 
peak demand, and one of the ways to address that is with more 
effective technology related to energy storage. Is there--who's 
the--who's got the tip of the spear on that research, and 
what's the U.S. DOE's role in that?
     Secretary Granholm. Well, there are a number of labs that 
are doing research on storage, but I will say--and I just came 
from a virtual tour of one of them, the Pacific Northwest 
National Lab, where we have this whole grid storage launch pad 
on--particularly on energy storage--on energy storage--on 
utility scale storage, and that is very exciting. We have a 
whole--you know, the Vehicle Technologies Office is doing a 
huge amount on batteries, and the storage component of it, we 
want to bring down the cost of utility scale storage, and we'll 
be announcing an initiative on that in the next couple of 
weeks, in terms of a challenge to be able to get it down to the 
cost that we need to have it be readily adopted.
     You know, the ARPA-E has been focused on that as well, and 
has been--has announced challenges related to storage and 
materials. We've looked at critical minerals as a component of 
the need--on the vehicle side in particular to make sure that 
we have the capacity in the United States to build the 
batteries in the United States, and so making sure we are 
mining in a responsible way for these materials. So, for 
example, DOE has funded--in the Salton Sea in California, has 
helped to fund a project by--that was--had been funded by BHO, 
which is a responsibly mined geothermal project where we pull 
lithium from the Salton Sea, and that lithium is being used now 
in vehicle batteries, or will be used in vehicle batteries. 
It's just starting up. So the bottom line is we have to be--we 
have to look at the supply chain of energy storage from soup to 
nuts, and from vehicles to utilities, and the 17 national labs, 
I would say probably half of them have got energy storage 
initiatives, working on different components. We're 
coordinating, and working on different components, to make sure 
that we are, you know, are being responsible.
     And I will say thank you to this Committee, that adopted 
the Better Energy Storage Technology Act, the BEST Act, from 
the Energy Act of 2020. You know, it was signed into law, and 
we're working on a lot of the priorities that emanated from 
that. It needs to be funded, right, but we are--we've got all 
this cost cutting research and development work that the Act 
certainly gave--pushed us in the direction of, and we're 
excited to be able to take that to scale with both the American 
Jobs Plan, and/or with funding that is--that was--that--funding 
the authorization of that Act.
     Mr. Kildee. Well, thank you very much. I really appreciate 
your thoughtful approach to all these issues. Keep up the good 
work. I look forward to seeing you in person soon.
     Secretary Granholm. Very good.
     Mr. Kildee. Thanks.
     Staff. Mr. Sessions is recognized.
     Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. Ms. Secretary, I want 
to thank you for taking time not only to join us today, but for 
your service to this country. I think it's important that, as 
this Committee engage you, and other Members engage you, we 
give you the real sense that what we're trying to do is to move 
forward the best positions the United States to be prepared for 
its future. And one of the things that we have talked about in 
earlier Committee hearings is American competitiveness, and 
American competitiveness means that we grow what we have in our 
universities, that we grow in our labs, and we grow in 
collaboration with public/private partnerships with companies 
that can take on, perhaps, more specific things, and take 
things further down the road.
     One of the things that I would say to you is that, in your 
role, I wholeheartedly encourage you to know that a viewpoint 
that is not always shared by everyone is a word that we use, 
all of the above. And that is that we believe that, if you live 
in the Northwest, or have something that is--where you have 
hydropower, good for you. If you live in Texas, or if you live 
somewhere where the resources might be different, or in the 
Northeast, where they might be entirely different, that you 
utilize those that make sense, and in Texas, and in the 
Southwest, it is natural gas.
     What my point to you is is that it is my hope that you 
will know that this Committee wants your leadership. We expect 
you to aim to the best, and lead to the best, but I would also 
remind you that the United States, whether we are with solar 
panels, whether we're moving--and we have those directly in the 
district--the congressional district that I represent in 
Central Texas--or whether we have the big 38 story wind 
turbines, we all want to work together, and it's my hope that 
as you do champion those things that are clean and better 
energy, please remember that there's also people like my family 
and others that have disabled children, and people who come 
home with a loved one who may have been in the military, and 
they have to have a big SUV because they have a disabled 
person, or perhaps a wheelchair, or some other things.
     And I think too many times there's a tendency from some 
people--it's hard to say, sometimes it could be me, even--but 
who finds a way to become more narrow rather than acknowledging 
that we're all in different circumstances, and we all have 
different needs, and we need each of these areas, like--I'm 
big, you know, into nuclear power, because it's a non-emitting 
source. My point is thank you, and I hope that you know that 
this Committee wants and needs you to be successful, but that I 
hope that you'll remember that that balance comes about, that 
different people have different needs. And I know a good number 
of the young people in your party are pushing you, and I get 
that. That does not bother me. They're pushing you in certain 
angles. I would encourage you to remember everybody. And I want 
to thank you very much. The gentlewoman, Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
and I have served together in a district right next to each 
other.
     Secretary Granholm. Um-hum.
     Mr. Sessions. I know her well. Her professional nature, 
her abilities, are dominant when she chooses to put them to 
play, and she does. And I will tell you that we all wish you 
well, and want this to be a spectacular opportunity for 
everyone that's involved. I know you've got about 20--35 
seconds, but Secretary, I want to thank you.
     Secretary Granholm. Well, I appreciate that. If I could 
just say, thank you. I want to see all as well, and I think 
that the great thing about this energy space is that there are 
good paying jobs for all kinds of people in all pockets of the 
country. For communities like you're talking about that have 
relied on fossil fuels, the technology that we can bring to be 
able to manage carbon emissions is really an opportunity for 
them, and so I'm excited to work with this Committee, and I 
appreciate your real uplifting of the bipartisan nature of 
that. I have been questioned, certainly, but that obviously is 
reflected--reflective of the spirit of esprit de corps of this 
Committee. So thank you for that.
     Mr. Sessions. Yes, ma'am. We'll I've got--only got 23 
years in, but if I can be of assistance to you, Ed Perlmutter 
and I are good friends, Eddie Bernice--Chairwoman Eddie Bernice 
Johnson are good friends. We wish you the best, and, quite 
honestly, we need you to succeed. And thank you very much, 
Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.
     Staff. Mr. Beyer is recognized.
     Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, welcome. 
It's been really fun learning so much from you. And I think 
it's truly weird that we had all those football analogies from 
the----
     Secretary Granholm. Amazing.
     Mr. Beyer [continuing]. Only Ph.D. physicist here. But--
and I've been trying to rewrite my notes to do that, but I 
can't. So--and as you probably know, we've put together a--an 
informal Fusion Caucus here in the House. Democrats and 
Republicans, the Science Committee, a lot of folks on the 
Energy Subcommittee in Appropriations, and--recently sent a 
letter to you, which you and your staff--very polite response, 
we're just thrilled. We didn't get any responses the last 4 
years. And our letter specifically asked that you highlighted 
the energy programs, and Conor Lamb's Energy Act of 2020, which 
included alternative and enabling concepts, milestone base 
development program, design of future fusion systems, full 
support for the construction of the ITER Project, on time and 
on budget. And I'd just love to get your sense of your 
commitment, and DOE's commitment, to following through on all 
these fusion energy landmarks we sent out.
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, thank you for asking. I do feel 
like, as I mentioned earlier, that fusion is kind of the holy 
grail. If we can crack that code, you know, it solves so much, 
right? So the ITER Project is going to be a key step toward the 
eventual development of fusion energy, and--so I think it's 72 
percent complete to achieving the first plasma, but I think the 
impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are still being evaluated in 
the system. But our U.S. progress on it I think is about 67 
percent complete, so we have finished two of 12 of the 
hardware-in-kind contributions, and we're seeing that funding--
the funding below the project's approved baseline has hampered 
our ability to provide the in-kind components and systems in a 
timely manner, so I look forward to continuing to work with 
Congress to help ensure that the U.S. can effectively aid the 
completion of the project.
     And on fusion more generally, you know, the Fusion Energy 
Sciences Program within the DOE Office of Science is building 
the foundation that's necessary to develop a fusion energy 
source separate from ITER, or in parallel with. The '22 budget 
request invests in transformative R&D to accelerate progress 
toward fusion energy, and it includes investments in additive 
manufacturing, and in quantum information, science, and 
artificial intelligence, and it's also going to support the D3D 
National Fusion Facility, which is a world-leading fusion 
experimental--experiment--experimental device located in La 
Jolla. So bottom line is we are in on fusion, we think its 
progress is enormous. And, you know, it may not be in the times 
we are serving here, who knows? It may be we're looking to the 
future, to our children or grandchildren who will be able to 
benefit, but nonetheless, as I often say, leadership is 
sometimes planting trees under whose shade you will never sit.
     Mr. Beyer. OK, but I'd love to get a reset on that, 
because that's sort of what we heard all of our lives, and 
what--the--we talked to a lot of physicists in the last year 
who say stop thinking about 25 years, or our children, or our 
grandchildren.
     Secretary Granholm. All right.
     Mr. Beyer. Let's think this decade. And let's also not 
just think ITER, which is the classic Big Government approach. 
There are at least nine small fusion energy companies, 
commercial companies, in the U.S. that have a couple of billion 
dollars invested in them already, some doing accelerators, some 
doing tokamaks. We were up at the National Academies a couple 
weeks ago, and they were like, yeah, 2035 to 2040. But 
Commonwealth Fusion, TAE, some of these others--I'm really 
interested in--you know, I only have 50 seconds, but getting 
DOE and your fusion efforts combined with the small, aggressive 
people who can make it happen fast.
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, yeah. 1,000 percent. We're doing 
this through INFUSE, you know, the Innovation Network for 
Fusion Energy, which is working at ways to support the public/
private partnerships with these companies that are looking to 
make quicker advances. So I don't mean to suggest that we're 
only going to get it long term. I know that that is what 
everybody says, but we are proceeding with these smaller 
efforts through INFUSE.
     Mr. Beyer. I just think we got a vaccine in under a year.
     Secretary Granholm. Good point.
     Mr. Beyer. In fact, we got it under 2 months, and it 
took----
     Secretary Granholm. Good point.
     Mr. Beyer [continuing]. A year to get it out there. We 
need to think about fusion energy that way.
     Secretary Granholm. All right.
     Mr. Beyer. And the holy grail is perfect. There's a German 
phrase, ``eierlegende Wollmilchsau.''
     Secretary Granholm. I'm never going to remember that----
     Mr. Beyer [continuing]. That lays eggs gives you wool, 
gives you milk, and bacon. And that's what fusion energy is for 
the future of this planet.
     Secretary Granholm. Awesome.
     Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam----
     Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
     Staff. Mr. Meijer is recognized.
     Mr. Meijer. Thank you, and welcome, Madam Secretary. I 
think the last time we met, I was a cadet at West Point, and 
you were the Governor of the State of Michigan, so----
     Chairwoman Johnson. My gosh.
     Mr. Meijer [continuing]. It's great to--it's good to see 
you again, and congratulations on your----
     Secretary Granholm. It's great----
     Mr. Meijer [continuing]. Confirmation.
     Secretary Granholm [continuing]. To meet you--great to see 
you.
     Mr. Meijer. You know, I want to kind of route it back into 
Michigan a little bit. I know that really a priority of this 
administration's energy plan has been around supporting green 
jobs, supporting jobs in the energy sector, and being mindful 
of the implication on some of the transitions that are 
underway, what implication that will have on the labor market 
more broadly.
     You know, I'm sure this issue came up when you were 
Governor of our great State of Michigan, but recently the 
Enbridge Line 5 Pipeline that starts over there in, you know, 
in the Wisconsin/Minnesota border, crosses through the Upper 
Peninsula, crosses under the Strait of Mackinaw, and then heads 
over into Sarnia, Governor Whitmer, your successor's successor, 
has been engaged in a pretty long struggle to shut down that 
pipeline, specifically citing the concerns of the path of the 
pipeline under the Strait of Mackinaw. Enbridge agreed to build 
a tunnel, but so far that tunnelling operation has been put on 
hold because of State-level concerns, which I find personally 
frustrating because every day that the tunnel sits there is a 
risk, and that--or, sorry, every day that the pipeline sits on 
the bed of the Straits of Mackinaw it presents a greater risk, 
and we could solve that with the tunnel.
     Now, I think we're all in broad agreement on the need to 
be entering into an all of the above scenario, increasing the 
use of renewables, increasing the use of low carbon, or carbon 
zero energy production technologies, and I think we also all 
agree we're not going to arrive there overnight. This is going 
to be a transition period. We'll always need some base load on 
demand, and we have a lot of consumers right now who are 
dependent on fossil fuels, whether for transportation or for 
home heating, and Line 5 is critical for propane distribution 
throughout the State. And this is an issue that even the 
Canadian ambassador has raised out of concern that a premature 
shutdown of Line 5 will have cascading energy impacts, and that 
it's something--I'm fully supportive of a green future, but 
also know that we need to build a bridge to get there. So I 
wondered if you could speak to where the administration's 
stance is on the Line 5 Pipeline, and on kind of the Governor 
of Michigan--on Governor Whitmer's efforts to shut that down.
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah. Thanks for the question, and for 
your service. So it is a matter that's in active litigation, 
and DOE doesn't have a direct role regarding this project, but, 
because it's in active litigation, I'm not going to comment 
further on it.
     Mr. Meijer. All right. Well, I understand that position, I 
just wish that there--especially considering our strong 
partnership with Canada, and the way in which this impacts our 
bilateral relationship with out neighbor, and vital trading 
partner, that the administration will do everything they can to 
expedite that tunnelling so that, again, we can reduce the risk 
of any sort of pipeline spill, while at the same time ensuring 
we are stabilizing markets, and not putting an undue burden on 
the citizens in Michigan, on their energy needs. And especially 
given some of the initial steps toward shutting down the 
Keystone XL Pipeline, again, we're in a transition. We need to 
be managing it well, rather than kind of more signaling 
measures.
     But on a more positive note, I also wanted to say, you 
know, the DOE MSU (Michigan State University) Facility for Rare 
Isotopes is in our State as well. It's cutting edge. We're 
really excited about it on the research side. I think we went 
back to 2001, when the concept was originally considered, and 
cost estimates were initially 1.1 billion. Now we're looking 
at, through a cooperative agreement, a total cost of around 730 
million, so significant cost savings. In these tight fiscal 
times, how are you considering innovative measures at DOE to 
support world class research, but doing so in as cost-effective 
a manner as possible?
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah. Thanks for that too. I mean, I'm 
very excited about FRIB (Facility for Rare Isotopes Beams), 
and, you know, it was initially a germ of an idea when I was 
Governor. It's very excited that--very exciting that Michigan 
State has got this very important facility, and, you know, 
hopefully it's a--it is a--game--we know that it's a game 
changer, and I think the research is going to start next spring 
at the Facility for Rare Isotopes Beams. So, you know, it's a 
game changer for the international research community as well.
     So, I mean, on the broader question, you know, this is why 
it is so important that--first of all, that this Committee has 
taken such a leadership role in supporting science, and 
supporting the facilities that support science. This is a big 
facility, it's an expensive facility, but it is--it's going to 
be a huge jewel in the crown of facilities that we in the 
United States have to advance--advanced research. So whether 
it's exascale computing, or the, you know, FRIB, or the efforts 
with the cyclotrons, I mean, honestly, there's so much capital 
and funding that have gone into these important facilities that 
when the--when Congress decides that it is going to fund 
research and support these facilities, it is a statement to 
both America, to our researchers, but it is a statement to the 
world that we are committed to leading. And so I am grateful, 
at the very start of this, that our Chairwoman said we've got 
to really double down and support the Office of Science. And, 
of course, under the Office of Science, all of these 
facilities, which are the great labs, and they're--and the 
expensive facilities that the American taxpayers have paid for, 
but that are producing great results, so thanks for raising 
that, and thanks to the Committee for continuing to support it.
     Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I yield back.
     Staff. Mr. Casten is next.
     Mr. Casten. Secretary Granholm, so nice to see you again. 
The--I know I've always been impressed by you, but, my 
goodness, your patience and your knowledge in this hearing is--
it's astounding, so thank you so much. And I think, also, as a 
child of the 1980's, I think of this as a Clash song. Some of 
my older colleagues may think of it as The Crickets, but, you 
know, when you fight the law, the law wins, and it is so 
refreshing to have a secretary at the Department of Energy who 
is not trying to fight the laws of physics and win, so thank 
you.
     Secretary Granholm. Right. We do our best not to violate 
the laws of physics.
     Mr. Casten. Well, not to fight them, right? The--you can't 
violate them. I want to ask you a couple of questions, sort of 
more in the context of your position, you know, as one of the 
senior advisors to the President on our climate policy, maybe 
beyond your role at the DOE, but certainly including. I am so 
impressed by the seriousness at which the Biden White House has 
addressed climate change. The--you know, recognizing that 
what's necessary may exceed what's politically possible, and 
the laws of physics will win. The goals, as I understand it, 50 
percent reduction by 2030, net zero by 2050. And, you know, in 
here, as I know you know, last week, the IEA, which I don't 
think anybody would think of as some, you know, lefty, uber-
progressive organization, came out and said the path to net 
zero is narrow. Staying on it requires immediate and massive 
deployment of all available clean and efficient energy 
technologies, and that a large--there is a large and growing 
gap between the stated goals of nearly every nation and their 
actual policies. And so my question, and I think I know the 
answer to this, and I don't want to put you in a difficult 
point, but I would just love to get you on the record, as 
ambitious as the Biden White House goals are, do you think they 
are more or less ambitious than what the IEA is saying we must 
do?
     Secretary Granholm. Well, I would say our goals for our, 
you know, for our commitments are extremely ambitious, but we 
also have to lead in a way that holds other countries to their 
goals, right? I mean, we have to make sure that everybody has 
equally ambitious goals. Not equally, because everybody's in a 
slightly different place, but that we hold these countries to 
the goals of getting to the over--I mean, the reason why they 
signed on--196 countries signed on to the Paris Accord is 
because everybody agrees to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, 
and that's the way we're going to hold, you know, climate 
change down.
     So, you know, I think that many components of the report 
that the International Energy Agency discussed were really 
helpful, because it did set people's hair on fire, as you 
alluded to. You know, they mirror the priorities you--that you 
see in this administration's approach. It's why--I mean, John 
Kerry has been going all over the world to hold other 
countries' feet to the fire. It's why when the President held 
the Leaders' Summit here, I mean, he did it as a way of saying, 
yes, America's back, and we're serious, and we want you to be 
serious too, and we want as many of you to articulate goals, 
and then show us how you are going to achieve those goals.
     And, you know, 100 percent zero carbon electricity as the 
basis for getting to a net zero economy is a big lift, we know. 
But we also know that the technologies exist today to be able 
to get there, and so it's an exciting time to be--for the 
United States to be at the helm of this pushing other countries 
because, in addition to the climate goals, there's also the 
economic opportunities that go with it, and the President is 
focused on both.
     Mr. Casten. Yeah. And I guess I'm--and maybe I'm 
inartfully asking the question, but I just--it strikes me that 
we are always in this line of work that, you know, all of us on 
this call have, having to grapple with political--the need for 
political compromise. And the laws of physics will win every 
time. And, you know, if your view is that we are being way more 
ambitious than we need to be in your plan, and we have room to 
compromise, you know, let us know. My sense is that we need to 
at least do what's in that plan. And, yes, then make sure our 
international partners do as well.
     Secretary Granholm. Yes, yes.
     Mr. Casten. And----
     Secretary Granholm. Yes. I'm sorry. I should've just 
said----
     Mr. Casten. Yeah.
     Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Yes to your question.
     Mr. Casten. Well, it--but, you know, I had some other 
stuff I wanted to talk about, and we're running near the end of 
the time, but I would just ask you that I hope, you know, 
continue to not fight the laws of physics. And--doesn't matter 
why we fight the laws of physics. Maybe we fight them to 
appease our donors, maybe we fight them to appease our voters, 
maybe we fight them in the name of finding room for bipartisan 
compromise. It doesn't matter why we fight them. The laws of 
physics are going to win.
     Secretary Granholm. Every time.
     Mr. Casten. And stay strong, and we've got your back, and 
let us know how we can help.
     Secretary Granholm. Appreciate it. Thank you----
     Mr. Casten. Thank you--yield back.
     Secretary Granholm. --Congressman.
     Staff. Mr. Bowman is recognized.
     Mr. Bowman. Thank you. Secretary Granholm, thank you so 
much for joining us today, and for your leadership in advancing 
a bold energy transition that weaves in equity throughout. I'm 
wondering if you could tell us more about your overall vision 
for energy justice, and what that means to you, and your 
approach to implementing the Justice 40 Initiative at DOE.
     Secretary Granholm. Thank you for asking this question. I 
mean, the--first of all, the President has made sure that 
Justice 40, EJ-40, is embedded in everything we do. And so that 
means that can't just be words. That has to be actions. So, you 
know this, everybody should know this, that too many 
communities in our country, low-income communities, communities 
of color, urban and rural, have experienced disproportionate 
downsides from issues like pollution stemming from the energy 
system, and have missed out on the benefits, so 40 percent of 
the benefits of the American Jobs Plan are going to be directed 
to communities that have been left behind. And to implement 
that Justice 40 initiative across the DOE complex, and to 
coordinate with other Federal agencies, we--he has developed a 
whole of government approach.
     And one thing that's really going to help us with this 
work is the early stages of piloting. For example, we have--
Shalanda Baker, who heads our Office of Equity, is piloting an 
online visualization tool that displays our investments through 
an energy justice lens, so that we are transparent about where 
these funds are going, and which communities are benefit--
benefiting. It's going to show DOE spending data, and then 
overlay the data from indicators like EPA's (Environmental 
Protection Agency's) EJ (environmental justice) screen tool, 
which shows the communities facing the worst pollution, for 
example. So, you know, we are focused on making sure we right 
historic wrongs with this, and as we do this. And that's not--
that's in communities of color. It's also in coal and power 
plant communities who also have felt left behind. These 
communities, across the swath, who have felt left behind, are 
the communities who should benefit from the most--the most from 
these investments.
     And, to us, making sure that we have a Department that 
reflects that full spate of communities, meaning people who 
we've appointed who are helping to make these decisions and 
guide us are really and critically important so that the policy 
outcomes are the right ones. So Environmental Justice 40, to 
the Biden Administration, is a whole of government effort to 
make sure that we see all of these communities, and that we not 
just see them, but that we help make sure that they also--
they--not they also, that they lead our desire to have a clean 
energy future. Jobs, investments, homes, rebuilding, you name 
it.
     Mr. Bowman. Um-hum. You know, one--thank you for that 
answer. One of the things I've seen is the current 
infrastructure that's in place, much of it is already 
inequitable, but those are the companies and individuals who 
have the capacity to apply for some of the new grants that are 
going to be coming from DOE. How can we assure new 
entrepreneurs of color and grassroots organizations have the 
capacity to apply for some of these grants?
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah, this is a great question, and we 
have been meeting with various grassroots organizations to 
ensure that we have developed our process in a way that allows 
access, and that doesn't create further systemic barriers to 
access. So Shalanda Baker--I don't know if you know her or have 
met her, but I would love to have her connect with you. She, as 
I say, is leading our whole DOE effort, but she's also 
connected, of course, to--the Council on Environmental Quality 
is making sure that we--they lead the whole of government 
approach, but making sure that we listen to the voices who are 
most impacted, but also who have the opportunity to help us 
overcome and tear down the barriers that historically have 
existed to accessing these programs is a key part of it. It's 
just a key part of it.
     Mr. Bowman. Awesome. Thank you so much, and I'll follow up 
with your office and Ms. Baker as well.
     Secretary Granholm. We'll follow up with you. Yeah.
     Mr. Bowman. Thank you. Thank you.
     Secretary Granholm. All right.
     Mr. Bowman. Thank you. I yield back.
     Staff. Mr. Lamb is recognized.
     Mr. Lamb. Madam Secretary, thank you for serving, again, 
and for hanging with us in this long hearing. I wanted to talk 
to you, if I could, about steelmaking in Western Pennsylvania. 
And I know that a couple other Members, including 
Representative Kildee, have asked about the Loan Program 
Office. In the Energy Act last year we made a change to the 
authorization for the LPO that would specifically allow them to 
get involved in industrial processes like steelmaking, and 
decarbonizing steelmaking. This has a new urgency in Western 
Pennsylvania today because we were all expecting U.S. Steel to 
make about a billion and a half dollars of investment in their 
historic Mon Valley Works here in Western Pennsylvania, and it 
was going to lower the carbon impact, and improve emissions, 
air quality, all that kind of thing. Unfortunately, they 
recently announced that they're not going to make that 
investment in Western Pennsylvania anymore. They seem to be 
wanting to move resources to their non-union operations in the 
South.
     There's a long history of U.S. Steel moving investment 
away from Western Pennsylvania, unfortunately, to other places, 
whether non-union operations or overseas, and so many of us 
want to fight for these workers and for these jobs----
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
     Mr. Lamb [continuing]. In the area that has produced some 
of the best steel that has really allowed America to be what it 
is. It's the time to start making investments in steelmaking 
processes based on natural gas and hydrogen, that are much less 
carbon intensive, and I think the LPO will have the authority 
to be a partner here. I'm just curious if you know whether you 
guys have started coming up with any sort of a plan or a 
program to get involved specifically in steel? I know that's 
kind of a new thing for the LPO, and just----
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah. I mean, it does--steel qualifies 
in the LPO, and, Congressman, I'm happy to also connect you 
with Jigar Shaw to talk through how he's thinking about this, 
because absolutely we want to use the LPO to help, and to help 
decarbonize these hard to decarbonize areas, as well as to help 
make sure that they are providing the means for the products 
that we want to be building, and this whole manufacturing 
ecosystem that we want to create in clean energy.
     I noticed--I noted that today Citi--Citibank, and Goldman 
Sachs, and Societe Generale, and Standard Charter, and 
UniCredit, these are all major lenders to steel producers, 
they're all announcing today that they're working toward a 
financing agreement to decarbonize the steel industry as well. 
And--so, you know, DOE can provide--you know, can work with and 
provide banks, you know, credit guarantees to fund the debt 
that--directly to steel companies, so I think we have to 
develop a strategy around this. Because we--I mean, they--you 
know, they should be going to an area that has steelmaking in 
its DNA, like you.
     Mr. Lamb. Right. There's nowhere in America that has the 
heritage that we do and----
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah. Yeah.
     Mr. Lamb [continuing]. Just be starting off further ahead 
here. Bill Gates has it in his recent book that the average 
American consumes 600 pounds of steel a year, so that's not 
going away. We have to figure out----
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
     Mr. Lamb [continuing]. A way to make it without carbon. I 
would really like to encourage you to come to Western 
Pennsylvania. Our staffs have actually already been in touch, 
and so I----
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
     Mr. Lamb [continuing]. Think there's some impetus, but we 
have a group together there between the United Steelworkers, 
many of the building trades unions, the universities, the 
National Energy Technology Laboratory that we have there led by 
Brian Anderson, who I should tell you is fantastic. U.S. Steel 
is involved, EQT and natural gas companies involved, other 
steel companies are involved. It remains to be seen who is 
willing to, you know, put their chips down on their Western 
Pennsylvania workers. U.S. Steel has not proven to do that 
recently, but others may, or maybe they will have a change of 
heart. But anyway, this proposal is coming together, and we 
really would like you to listen to it and see if there's ways 
that we can work together to bet on the future of steel 
manufacturing in Western Pennsylvania. So we'll be----
     Secretary Granholm. 1,000 percent. Let--let's do it.
     Mr. Lamb. But just wanted to put that on your radar----
     Secretary Granholm. OK. Great. I appreciate it.
     Mr. Lamb. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary--or Madam 
Chairwoman, I yield back.
     Staff. Mr. Perlmutter is recognized.
     Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. Last but not least, I think. 
But I just want to be--I'll be kind of parochial, but first I 
want to say Congressman Beyer should've spoken to you in 
French, not German. It would've been much easier for you to 
remember the saying. The second thing is I want to join Mr. 
Sessions in wishing you all the success at the Department. It 
is so key, this time in our country's history, in the world's 
history.
     So I'm in a building about a half a mile east of the 
National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), a building that was 
designed by some engineers in the predecessor lab called the 
Solar Energy Research Institute. And so I can look right out my 
window to the mountains, and to the lab, where it's nestled 
right in there next to a mesa just as we get to the mountains, 
and they are busy, and they are active over there, and we've 
got fantastic scientists and engineers, and I think my job is--
they advocate for themselves, but I want to advocate for them.
     In the infrastructure package that we're all discussing, 
there is substantial support for the labs sort of writ large. I 
just want to make sure that, as part of your list of 
priorities, that NREL is part of that list.
     Secretary Granholm. Of course.
     Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. Such a fantastic laboratory.
     Secretary Granholm. Absolutely, absolutely. I mean, you 
know, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and NREL 
are the collaborating team that are at the global forefront of 
delivering our zero-carbon technology, so absolutely, and you 
are blessed to be in that State and near them.
     Mr. Perlmutter. You know--and so there is--we're actually, 
and the DOE is part of it, doing a land swap with the State and 
with the county to make sure that the top of the mesa, and it 
sits right on one of the flanks of the mesa, remains open. So 
we have--it's a big open space thing, and then they're creating 
a parcel of ground where there will be a public/private kind of 
an area where a lot of energy efficiency and renewable energy 
companies can come and locate in a specific area right next to 
the lab. And I just want to thank the Department for being part 
of that effort.
     Secretary Granholm. Awesome. Well, happy to, and look 
forward to continued collaborations on--whether they're in 
Colorado or out of Colorado, because they're--I mean, NREL's 
amazing.
     Mr. Perlmutter. Well, when you're in town, we'd love to 
visit the lab with you. And it's right in an area--and I've 
invited the Chair of our Committee, and it was postponed 
because of COVID, but there are a number of labs right here on 
the very front range of Colorado. There's the Colorado School 
of Mines, which----
     Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
     Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. Has so many professors 
working on energy efficiency and solar renewable stuff, but a 
whole bunch of labs in this area. So maybe the Chairwoman of 
the Committee will join you when you're out here, and we'll 
tour these labs together. So I'm just reminding our Chairwoman 
about our postponed visit. So, with that, I'll yield back, and 
thank you, Secretary----
     Secretary Granholm. Thank you. Thanks so much.
     Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. This hearing.
     Chairwoman Johnson. I think that concludes all of our--
participation of our Members, and let me hasten to thank--Madam 
Secretary for your participation, for your patience, and for 
your very well-prepared responses. And let the record--the 
record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional statements 
from Members, and for additional questions that come before the 
Committee. Our witness is excused, and we thank you again, and 
the hearing is adjourned.
     Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
     [Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
                   
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]