[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2024 
                         BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE
                     BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGE-
                      MENT, THE BUREAU OF SAFETY AND.
                     ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT, AND 
                        THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                           MINERAL RESOURCES

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-19

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-149 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------            
                    COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
                  
                  

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                   
                                ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                       PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
                     WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair
              ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Jared Huffman, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Kevin Mullin, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Debbie Dingell, MI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Susie Lee, NV
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Vacancy
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Vacancy
Mike Collins, GA
John Duarte, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                              -----------                                
                                
                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, April 26, 2023........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota.........................................     1
    Ocasio-Cortez, Hon. Alexandria, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New York.................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Klein, Liz, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 
      Washington, DC.............................................     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     6
        Questions submitted for the record.......................     9
    Applegate, David, Director, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, 
      Virginia...................................................    10
        Prepared statement of....................................    12
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    13
    Huang, Paul, Deputy Director, Bureau of Safety and 
      Environmental Enforcement, Washington, DC..................    14
        Prepared statement of....................................    16
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    20

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman

        EcoRI article, titled ``Brown Report Claims Anti-Wind 
          Group Uses Deceit, Delay, Denial and Chicanery to 
          Sabotage Crucial Renewable Energy,'' dated April 11, 
          2023...................................................    42

        E&E Daily article, titled ``Why Republicans suddenly hate 
          offshore wind,'' dated March 31, 2023..................    46

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Van Drew

        Bloomberg article, title ``Pentagon Sounds Alarm Over 
          Biden Plan for Offshore Wind,'' dated April 17, 2023...    49



 
 OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST 
  FOR THE BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, THE BUREAU OF SAFETY AND 
       ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT, AND THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, April 26, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:27 p.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Stauber, Gosar, Graves, Rosendale, 
Collins, Duarte, Westerman; Ocasio-Cortez, Huffman, Kamlager-
Dove, and Napolitano.
    Also present: Representatives Carl, Luna, Smith, and Van 
Drew.

    Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey, 
Mr. Van Drew, and Mr. Chris Smith, and the gentlelady from 
Florida, Mrs. Luna, be allowed to participate in today's 
hearing.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Mr. Stauber. Today, in the Energy and Minerals Resources 
Subcommittee, I am pleased to host an oversight hearing on the 
proposed budgets of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the 
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and the U.S. 
Geological Survey. And it could not have come sooner. The 
President's budget across the entire Administration is a 
roadmap to spending more, and mortgaging our children's future 
for further expansion of government control, and the agencies 
we have here today are certainly an embodiment of that broken, 
spend-your-way-out-of-the-hole Beltway philosophy.
    And in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's case, they 
asked for a funding increase right on schedule, but somehow 
managed to do less. Come this June, BOEM will be a year late to 
offer the 5-year plan, which is the linchpin of offshore oil 
and gas development. We will hear assurances from the 
Administration before us today that, no worries, the plan will 
be offered by this fall, or maybe this winter, but, yes, some 
time they may offer a plan.
    However, we do know this. In the program's 43 years of age, 
BOEM has never offered a 5-year leasing plan late or not at 
all. And not offering the plan means BOEM has not started 
environmental reviews, which, as we all know, means more delays 
well into the election season.
    Further, President Biden announced a re-election campaign 
to a term past his 84th birthday, and Americans know what he 
said about oil and gas leasing during his last election, and I 
quote: ``I guarantee you we are going to end the fossil fuel 
use.''
    Let's be real here. This delay is intended to walk a line 
between promises to the billion-dollar activist ecosystem, 
including the likes of Michael Bloomberg, and the millions of 
Americans who just want high-wage jobs or affordable fuel for 
their homes and vehicles, or to have the comfort of knowing we 
are not reliant on foreign sources of energy, and the lack of a 
5-year plan is an embodiment of this.
    Bureaucratic delay after delay, lawsuit after lawsuit, let 
deadlines for reviews lapse. Yet, the concern doesn't stop 
there. This Administration has left the possibility open of 
having no oil and gas lease sales in the 5-year plan. This is 
unconscionable.
    Besides the cost increases passed to American families, we 
are leaving conservation dollars on the table. We just had a 
hearing with Director Sams last week, where we discussed how 
funding flows from lease sales and development to park funding. 
Lease Sale 259 generated nearly $270 million in bids, 
demonstrating the value here.
    And just one more point on oil and gas leasing. The 
previous director, Amanda Lefton, said the quiet part out loud 
in a leaked memo, and admitted that the goal is to drive down 
demand by setting the highest possible royalty rates. The anti-
development agenda of this Administration truly knows no bounds 
and has no shame.
    And before I close, I just want to briefly touch on some of 
the funding requests for the U.S. Geological Survey. While I am 
pleased at requests for programs like Earth MRI, I don't 
understand some of the decreases. Why are we cutting funding 
for chronic wasting disease? Another site in my district had a 
positive case.
    And, meanwhile, the Climate Adaptation Science Center saw a 
huge increase request, and that program receives very little 
oversight. It is currently conducting projects in places like 
Madagascar, China, or Laos. USGS needs to focus on issues that 
matter to the Americans here at home, and I am happy to support 
them when they do. However, when they diverge from their 
mission, we will hold them accountable.
    Thank you, and I yield to my colleague from New York, 
Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, A 
     REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to Director Klein, Deputy Director Huang, and Director 
Applegate for taking the time to be with us here today.
    I am grateful to discuss the important work of the Bureau 
of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and 
Environmental Enforcement, and the U.S. Geological Survey, each 
of which are agencies critical to helping our country achieve 
our climate and clean energy goals. These agencies are charged 
with managing our nation's offshore energy resources, ensuring 
the safety of our workers and the environment offshore, and 
providing critical science on natural resources and climate 
change.
    First, let me start with the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management, otherwise known as BOEM. BOEM is playing a vital 
role in facilitating the development of offshore wind energy, 
which has the potential to create tens of thousands of jobs and 
significantly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
    Off the coast of my home state of New York, there are 
currently five offshore wind projects under development. 
Together, these projects will produce 4,300 megawatts of clean 
energy. That is enough to power at least 2 million homes. And 
New York plans to more than double that number of at least 
9,000 megawatts, or 9 gigawatts, by 2035.
    These projects will not just bring New Yorkers and the 
country clean energy. They will bring billions of dollars of 
revenue and 10,000 jobs to the state. I am dedicated to working 
with BOEM and the full range of stakeholders to make sure that 
these are good, union-paying jobs, and that the benefits of 
this new industry set a standard across the country.
    BOEM also oversees oil and gas leasing off our coasts, and 
I look forward to hearing more about what the agency is doing 
to address emissions and mitigate risks to communities most 
impacted by offshore fossil fuel development.
    Now turning to BSEE. BSEE was formed in the aftermath of 
the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, and is charged with ensuring 
that offshore energy industries operate safely and responsibly. 
While we in this room share different views on the future of 
the oil and gas industry, it is essential that current 
operations are conducted as safely as possible to minimize risk 
to workers and neighbors. The safety of our communities must be 
prioritized, especially for frontline communities that are 
disproportionately burdened with pollution and other risks.
    And I am encouraged to see BSEE prioritize some of these 
efforts in the Fiscal Year 2024 budget request through ongoing 
rulemakings, including efforts to update decommissioning 
guidance and enhance transparency after equipment failures or 
``near misses.''
    Last, but not least, I am glad to have the USGS here with 
us today to highlight some of the incredible work they are 
doing to advance our scientific understanding of climate change 
and how we can adapt to it, among other important initiatives. 
USGS's network of monitoring stations, research facilities, and 
experts provide critical, actionable data and tools to help 
communities on the ground deal with climate change. USGS 
scientists do everything from making cutting-edge models to 
predict climate change-driven glacial flooding in Alaska so 
local communities aren't taken by surprise, to helping resource 
managers integrate climate risks into their decision making to 
better prepare and respond to fire and drought.
    I look forward to working with the three of you and with 
your corresponding agencies in our jurisdiction, and advance 
the progress that we are currently making.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Now, I will introduce our 
witnesses.
    Ms. Liz Klein serves as Director of the Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management; Mr. Paul Huang serves as Deputy Director of 
the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; and Dr. 
David Applegate serves as Director of the U.S. Geological 
Survey.
    The Chair now recognizes Director Klein for her opening 
statement.

   STATEMENT OF LIZ KLEIN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY 
                   MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Klein. Thank you. Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member 
Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to 
appear before you today to discuss the mission and proposed 
budget of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM. My 
name is Liz Klein, and I am the Director of BOEM at the 
Department of the Interior.
    BOEM is taking a leading role in transitioning the United 
States to a clean energy future, one that will advance 
renewable energy, create good-paying jobs, and ensure economic 
opportunities are accessible to all communities, while 
continuing to manage the development of oil and gas resources 
on the Outer Continental Shelf. Together with our partners, we 
can move forward with offshore energy development in a way that 
helps create a cleaner, more sustainable energy future for our 
nation.
    BOEM's FY24 budget request reflects the resources needed to 
further Administration priorities and develop the Bureau's 
capacity to execute its mission carefully, responsibly, and 
effectively in service of the American people. It will equip 
BOEM to continue to bolster the nation's energy security, 
foster climate resilience, meet the rising demand for renewable 
energy, create greater certainty for industry, conduct more 
environmental studies to inform our decision making, further 
build the National Offshore Sand Inventory, and advance 
critical minerals science.
    In addition, the 2024 budget request supports the 
development of an offshore carbon sequestration program. The 
proposed funding would enable BOEM to effectively oversee this 
new activity, in partnership with BSEE, by building a dedicated 
team of specialized experts.
    Offshore wind has the potential to play a critical role in 
meeting President Biden's goals of a fully carbon-free power 
sector by 2035, and supporting new domestic industry. The 
Administration established a goal to deploy 30 gigawatts of 
offshore wind by 2030, which could support nearly 80,000 jobs. 
To date, BOEM has held 10 competitive lease sales and issued 27 
commercial wind leases in the Atlantic Ocean, generating over 
$5 billion in high bids and over $6.4 million in annual rental 
revenue, forming the foundation for an emerging offshore wind 
industry in the United States.
    In addition, BOEM recently held an auction for five wind 
leases offshore California. The leased areas have the potential 
to produce over 4.6 gigawatts of offshore wind energy, enough 
to power over 1.5 million homes.
    BOEM is also in the planning stages for identifying areas 
for potential wind leasing offshore the central Atlantic, Gulf 
of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, and Oregon.
    BOEM is making considerable progress toward our goal of 30 
gigawatts by 2030. The Bureau has approved two commercial 
offshore wind projects in the Atlantic, and is currently 
processing an additional 16 construction and operations plans, 
which together would total nearly 27 gigawatts, if approved.
    With respect to conventional energy, as of April, BOEM is 
managing over 2,000 active oil and gas leases on approximately 
11.5 million acres of the OCS, over 70 percent of which are not 
yet in production. BOEM's obligations under the OCS Land Act 
for conventional energy include administering existing leases, 
permitting geological and geophysical surveys, reviewing 
exploration and development plans, evaluating resources, and 
developing a national OCS oil and gas leasing program.
    As required by the OCS Lands Act, BOEM prepares the 
National OCS Program to schedule proposed offshore oil and gas 
lease sales over a 5-year period. The National OCS Program is 
designed to best meet the nation's energy needs, while 
balancing potential access to oil and gas resources with the 
potential for adverse impacts.
    In July 2022, the Department announced the availability of 
the proposed program and the Draft Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement for the next National OCS Program. The 
proposed program includes a range of potential OCS oil and gas 
lease sales, from 0 to 10 potential lease sales in the Gulf of 
Mexico, and up to one potential lease sale in the Cook Inlet 
planning area of Alaska. The Department expects to complete and 
publish the proposed final program in September, with a final 
decision expected by the Secretary before the end of the year.
    Thank you once again for the opportunity to join you here 
today. BOEM's proposed FY24 budget reflects the 
Administration's continued commitment to ensuring a clean and 
low-cost energy future, one that is sustainable and beneficial 
for all Americans. Our work together has the potential to shape 
future generations for the better. And my team and I look 
forward to working with the Subcommittee on these important 
issues moving forward.

    I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Klein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elizabeth Klein, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy 
              Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez and members of the 
Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the 
mission and proposed budget of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 
(BOEM, Bureau). My name is Liz Klein, and I am the Director of BOEM at 
the Department of the Interior (Department).
    BOEM is taking a leading role in transitioning the U.S. to a clean 
energy future--one that will advance renewable energy, create good-
paying jobs, and ensure economic opportunities are accessible to all 
communities, including underserved communities that have powered this 
nation for generations, while continuing to manage the development of 
oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in an 
environmentally and economically responsible manner. BOEM is working 
with Tribal Nations, other Federal agencies, state and local 
governments, underserved communities, ocean users, and other key 
stakeholders to ensure that offshore energy development is done 
responsibly and relies on the best available science and Indigenous 
knowledge. Together, with our partners, we can move forward with 
offshore energy development in a way that helps create a cleaner, more 
sustainable energy future for our nation.
FY 2024 Budget Request

    The 2024 Budget Request proposes $268.2 million for BOEM 
operations, including $57 million in offsetting collections. The 2024 
Budget Request includes a net increase in BOEM's total budget authority 
of approximately $50.6 million from the 2023 Enacted Budget baseline 
level.
    BOEM's 2024 Request reflects a rigorous analysis of the resources 
needed to further Administration priorities and develop the Bureau's 
capacity to execute its mission carefully, responsibly, and effectively 
in service of the American people. It will equip BOEM to continue to 
bolster the Nation's energy security, foster climate resilience, meet 
the rising demand for renewable energy, create greater certainty for 
industry, conduct more environmental studies to inform decision-making, 
and further build the National Offshore Sand Inventory and advance 
critical minerals science.
    In addition, the 2024 Budget Request supports the development of an 
Offshore Carbon Sequestration Program. This request funds the 
implementation of new authority granted in the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The proposed funding would enable BOEM 
to effectively oversee this new activity in partnership with the Bureau 
of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) by building a dedicated 
team of specialized experts and acquiring and maintaining Geological 
Interpretive Tools that will allow for the characterization of 
potential sequestration sites and carbon dioxide (CO2) plume 
migration in the subsurface. Funding will also facilitate the 
development of a model and methodology for a comprehensive, national-
level assessment of CO2 storage capacity across the OCS.
Renewable Energy

    Offshore wind has the potential to play a critical role in meeting 
President Biden's goals of a fully carbon-free power sector by 2035 and 
building a new domestic industry from the ground floor. The Departments 
of the Interior, Energy, and Commerce have established a goal to deploy 
30 GW of offshore wind by 2030, which could support nearly 80,000 jobs. 
More recently, the Department of the Interior also announced an 
additional goal to deploy 15 GW of floating offshore wind capacity by 
2035.
    Renewable energy development activities include the siting and 
construction of offshore wind facilities on the OCS, as well as the 
development of other forms of offshore renewable energy resources such 
as wave and current energy. BOEM facilitates the responsible 
development of these resources through conscientious planning; 
meaningful engagement with Tribal Nations, government entities, ocean 
users and other diverse stakeholders; comprehensive environmental 
analysis; and sound technical review.
    To date, BOEM has held 10 competitive lease sales and issued 27 
commercial wind leases in the Atlantic Ocean from Massachusetts to 
North Carolina, generating over $5 billion in high bids and over $6.4 
million in annual rental revenue, forming the foundation for an 
emerging offshore wind industry in the U.S. Most recently, BOEM held an 
auction for five wind leases offshore California, the first lease sale 
to help achieve the 15 GW goal for floating offshore wind by 2035. BOEM 
is also in the planning stages for identifying areas for potential wind 
leasing offshore the Central Atlantic, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, 
and Oregon. The Inflation Reduction Act directed the Department to work 
with the Governments of U.S. Territories to determine the suitability 
of, and start planning for, offshore wind leasing off their respective 
coasts, and BOEM intends to focus first on working with Puerto Rico.
    BOEM is making considerable progress toward our goal of 30 GW by 
2030. The Bureau has approved two commercial offshore wind projects in 
the Atlantic (Vineyard Wind offshore Massachusetts and South Fork 
offshore New York) and is currently processing an additional 16 
construction and operations plans, which together would total nearly 27 
GW if approved.
    BOEM will continue to advance its renewable energy program through 
identifying new Wind Energy Areas (WEAs), pursuing informed leasing 
efforts, and improving its permitting and environmental review 
processes. This includes an efficient and effective process for 
reviewing plans to develop existing leases, and an inclusive and 
transparent process for identifying areas for potential future lease 
sales. BOEM will continue focusing on reviewing proposals for potential 
renewable energy projects spurred by the renewable energy goals of the 
Administration and coastal States.
    As part of BOEM's commitment to acquire and use the best available 
information and Indigenous knowledge in its decision-making, BOEM is 
improving its processes for identifying future offshore wind energy 
sites. For example, BOEM is collaborating with the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Centers for Coastal Ocean 
Science to employ a spatial model that analyzes entire marine 
ecosystems. This ocean planning tool will help inform BOEM's draft WEAs 
and will be available for public review and comment prior to final WEA 
designations. The Bureau is applying these changes to ongoing planning 
efforts in the Gulf of Mexico, Central Atlantic, Gulf of Maine, and off 
the Oregon coast.
    At BOEM, we engage Tribes, our government partners, ocean users, 
and other key stakeholders throughout our planning process to identify 
areas where environmental impacts and user conflicts can be avoided, 
reduced, or mitigated. For example, in partnership with NOAA Fisheries, 
BOEM has developed a joint Draft North Atlantic Right Whale and 
Offshore Wind Strategy to protect and promote the recovery of that 
endangered whale while responsibly developing offshore wind energy. The 
strategy focuses on improving the science and identifying approaches to 
mitigate and monitor offshore wind development impacts on North 
Atlantic right whales. The strategy also establishes the agencies' 
plans to engage Tribal Nations, state and local governments, partners, 
ocean users, and other stakeholders on these issues.
    Offshore wind has the potential to play an integral role in our 
Nation's future energy portfolio. BOEM will continue to work closely 
with other Federal agencies, Tribal Nations, states, and many key 
stakeholders to ensure the responsible development of this sector.
Conventional Energy

    As of April 1, 2023, BOEM is managing 2,145 active oil and gas 
leases on approximately 11.5 million acres of the OCS, of which 
approximately 74 percent are not yet in production. BOEM's obligations 
under the OCS Lands Act for conventional energy include administering 
existing leases, permitting geological and geophysical surveys, 
reviewing exploration and development plans, evaluating resources, and 
developing a National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program (National OCS 
Program). In meeting these obligations, BOEM supports energy security, 
environmental protection, and economic development, including a fair 
market value for the American taxpayer, mitigation of adverse 
environmental impacts, and maintenance of adequate financial assurance 
by leaseholders.
    As required by section 18 of the OCS Lands Act, BOEM prepares the 
National OCS Program to schedule proposed offshore oil and gas lease 
sales over a 5-year period. The National OCS Program is designed to 
best meet the Nation's energy needs while balancing potential access to 
oil and gas resources with the potential for adverse impacts from such 
activity.
    On July 1, 2022, the Department announced the availability of the 
Proposed Program and the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for the 2023-2028 National OCS Program. The Proposed Program 
includes a range of potential OCS oil and gas lease sales, from zero to 
ten potential lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and up to one potential 
lease sale in the Cook Inlet Planning Area of Alaska. The Department 
expects to complete and publish the Proposed Final Program in September 
2023 with a final decision issued by the Secretary before the end of 
the year.
Carbon Sequestration

    In 2022, BOEM began the process of developing a Carbon 
Sequestration Program for the OCS. Section 40307 of the IIJA amended 
the OCS Lands Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant a 
lease, easement, or right-of-way on the OCS for activities that 
``provide for, support, or are directly related to the injection of a 
carbon dioxide stream into sub-seabed geologic formations for the 
purpose of long-term carbon sequestration.'' Additionally, the IIJA 
directs the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations to 
carry out this new authority. BOEM and BSEE have been working together 
on these regulations.
    We intend for the regulations to provide sound regulatory oversight 
by both BOEM and BSEE and to assure the American public that carbon 
sequestration operations on the OCS will be safe and protective of the 
environment. BOEM is requesting funds to develop a Carbon Sequestration 
Program comprised of specialized experts to implement and enforce the 
regulations, and to conduct the necessary scientific research to inform 
future decision-making.
Marine Minerals

    The OCS Lands Act gives the Secretary of the Interior 
responsibility for managing marine mineral exploration and development 
on the OCS. BOEM's Marine Minerals Program carries out that charge, 
facilitating access to and managing these crucial resources to support 
resilient coasts, natural disaster preparedness, climate change 
adaptation, and critical infrastructure development and protection. 
BOEM's marine minerals mission involves environmentally responsible 
stewardship, mineral resource exploration and leasing activities, 
coordination with governmental partners, engagement of stakeholders, 
and scientific research to improve decision-making and manage risk.
    As of March 2023, BOEM had conveyed the rights to nearly 188 
million cubic yards of OCS sediment and executed 66 negotiated 
agreements for projects in eight States that have restored nearly 449 
miles of coastline. BOEM expects to facilitate additional mineral 
exploration and leasing through FY 2024 on the Gulf of Mexico and 
Atlantic OCS, including the potential for the first negotiated 
agreement with the State of Texas.
    BOEM continues to see a trend of increasing numbers of requests for 
OCS sediment, as well as a commensurate increase in the volume of OCS 
sediment allocated per year. These trends are driven by diminishing 
resources in state waters and a high frequency of recent storms along 
the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Because of this, BOEM is 
continuing the development of a National Offshore Sand Inventory to 
identify potential sources of sand for projects and to facilitate long-
term planning.
    Critical minerals also continue to be a focal area for BOEM's 
Marine Minerals Program. BOEM is building the National Offshore 
Critical Mineral Inventory to centralize information about potential 
OCS critical mineral resources and environmental conditions associated 
with critical mineral-bearing deposits. In FY 2023 and 2024, BOEM will 
conduct baseline assessment and environmental characterization work in 
the Alaska, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico regions.
Environmental Program

    All of BOEM's authorizations for energy and minerals exploration 
and development are subject to the environmental safeguards developed 
through the studies and assessments of BOEM's Environmental Program. 
For 50 years, the Bureau's Environmental Studies Program (ESP) has 
funded research on the potential environmental impacts of activities 
the Bureau authorizes. Because of the quality, scale, and duration of 
studies performed under its auspices, the ESP is a leading contributor 
to the growing body of scientific knowledge about the Nation's marine 
and coastal environments, leveraging partnerships with academic 
institutions and other Federal agencies to produce top-tier scientific 
work.
    BOEM's environmental assessment staff use ESP and other research 
results to evaluate the environmental impacts of energy and mineral 
development and to develop measures for incorporation in leases, plans, 
and permits to mitigate and monitor those impacts. These mitigation 
measures are the fabric for regulatory compliance work by BOEM and 
BSEE.
    A key recent addition to BOEM's science and assessment capabilities 
is the Bureau's Center for Marine Acoustics, whose work has already 
established it as a trusted voice in the scientific community. 
Additionally, since 2015, BOEM has sponsored a standing committee and 
other work by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and 
Medicine to provide the Bureau with independent and authoritative 
advice on our Environmental Program. Advice from the Academies, first 
established by Abraham Lincoln, is a foundation for the excellence that 
our Environmental Program continuously pursues.
Conclusion

    Thank you once again for the opportunity to join you here today. 
BOEM's proposed FY 2024 budget reflects the Administration's continued 
commitment to ensuring a clean and low-cost energy future, one that is 
sustainable and beneficial to all Americans. Our work together has the 
potential to shape future generations for the better, and my team and I 
look forward to working with the Subcommittee on these important issues 
moving forward. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Liz Klein, Director, Bureau of 
                        Ocean Energy Management

Ms. Klein did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate 
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. Can you provide a detailed timeline of BOEM's plans to 
publish a final 5-year OCS plan, including environmental reviews?

    Question 2. What steps is the agency taking to schedule Gulf of 
Mexico lease sales in 2024 and 2025 to meet the nation's energy needs?

    2a) How would a one-year or two-year delay in investing in the 
offshore industry affect ancillary industries such as maritime 
transport and offshore support services, cyber security, oil-spill 
prevention, and has the potential impact of such delays been assessed?

    Question 3. In recent notices regarding the IRA-mandated Gulf of 
Mexico lease sales, BOEM has reduced the areas that are being offered 
for lease, resulting in nearly 10 million fewer acres being offered for 
lease. Much of this area was previously issued for lease with certain 
stipulations aimed at preserving the OCS as a multiple-use resource.

    3a) Why did BOEM remove acreage previously offered with mitigation 
measures?

    3b) Do you believe that the OCS should remain a multiple-use 
resource?

    Question 4. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires a 
Letter of Authorization to perform offshore geological and geophysical 
testing. Due to errors made in the preparation of the final rule and 
NMFS' overly conservative modeling, companies cannot currently obtain 
these permits.

    4a) Has BOEM cooperated with NMFS in resolving problems with 
Letters of Authorization for offshore geological and geophysical 
testing?

    Question 5. Has BOEM contacted EPA regarding the need for new 
discharge permits for offshore operations?

    5a) Do you know when EPA plans to issue the new permit, and if not, 
can you inquire and provide that information to the committee?

    Question 6. Can you provide the exact amount of decommissioning 
liabilities the U.S. taxpayer has acquired in the 60+ year history of 
offshore oil and gas development? Can you provide this information to 
the Committee?

              Questions Submitted by Representative Mullin

    Question 1. My understanding is that BOEM is working to ensure that 
the local coastal and inland communities near the Morro Bay Wind Energy 
Project are being engaged to minimize economic and cultural 
disruptions. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians has found that 
there will be no adverse effects for the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area 
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This 
finding is based on additional BOEM work to protect sacred and other 
cultural resources in the area. Please share what the Bureau has done 
thus far to mitigate the impacts on Indigenous cultural sites and what 
additional funding is still needed to ensure that the Traditional 
Cultural Landscape will be fully funded.

           Questions Submitted by Representative Chris Smith

    Question 1. Two weeks ago, BOEM, NOAA Fisheries, and the 
Responsible Offshore Development Alliance issued a report that claims, 
``Physical changes associated with (offshore wind) developments will 
affect the marine environment--and, subsequently, the species that live 
there--to varying degrees. These include construction and operation 
noise and vibration, electromagnetic fields, and thermal radiation from 
cables, as well as secondary gear entanglement.'' This statement seems 
to conflict with other statements of BOEM and the Biden Administration 
used to dismiss claims that offshore wind industrialization may be 
contributing to marine mammal deaths by interfering with their hearing. 
Given that no project of such magnitude has ever been constructed on 
the US East Coast as those off the coast of New Jersey, how can BOEM be 
sure of the practical effect of 3,400 wind turbines on the marine 
environment?

    Question 2. In terms of off shore wind development and fisheries, 
it has often appeared that BOEM and NOAA Fisheries are not effectively 
working together. How can BOEM improve its coordination with NOAA 
fisheries, commercial and recreational fishing communities, and 
regional councils? I'm specifically curious about where BOEM can 
require OSW developers to share data with fisheries managers and 
scientists and multi factor bidding which potentially can encourage 
restoration and research efforts.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. I thank the witness for their 
testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes Director Applegate for an opening 
statement.

STATEMENT OF DAVID APPLEGATE, DIRECTOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 
                        RESTON, VIRGINIA

    Mr. Applegate. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member 
Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the Subcommittee. It is my 
pleasure to be here today to discuss the Biden-Harris 
Administration's budget for the U.S. Geological Survey for 
Fiscal Year 2024.
    As the science arm of the Department of the Interior, the 
USGS delivers objective, policy-neutral information used to 
protect life and property, inform environmental and natural 
resource management decisions, and serve as a foundation to 
advance the next generation of scientific discovery.
    As the Director of the USGS, I am committed to building on 
our 144 years of scientific excellence focused on the needs of 
the nation and to ensuring that our science reaches those who 
need it the most.
    This budget makes targeted investments in the delivery of 
science to support sound land and resource management 
decisions, and, in particular, to address the effects of 
environmental changes on our nation's ecosystems and physical 
infrastructure.
    Wildfire and drought are two of the most consequential 
challenges facing the Department of the Interior and the U.S. 
Forest Service in carrying out their missions to manage natural 
resources. To ensure they get the best, most useful science 
from the USGS, we are requesting a new investment focused on 
working with our partners to collaboratively develop the 
science they need on decision making.
    To enable science delivery in this and many other key 
areas, the budget also builds out much-needed science 
infrastructure, including advanced scientific computing, the 
next generation of the Landsat land imaging satellite 
constellation, and state-of-the-art facilities to enable 
innovation. These resources will help the USGS meet the ever-
growing demand for our science, and best ensure that it is 
useful and accessible to the public and to decision makers like 
yourselves.
    The budget for the USGS energy and mineral resources 
programs includes funding to advance the assessments of 
geothermal resources and areas for potential geologic carbon 
sequestration. The funding also builds on investments in 
critical minerals research to expand assessments of mine waste 
resources that could be a significant new source of domestic 
critical minerals.
    The budget for the USGS Natural Hazards Programs continues 
funding for the operations and build-out of ShakeAlert 
Earthquake Early Warning, the National Volcano Early Warning 
System, and implementation of the Landslide Hazards 
Preparedness Act. New investments would expand our work 
characterizing the threat posed by giant earthquakes, 
volcanoes, tsunamis, and landslides that can be generated in 
the subduction zones that lie off the edge of Alaska, the 
Pacific Northwest, and the Caribbean.
    The budget also includes additional funding for addressing 
community resilience and landscape changes caused by coastal 
storms. These investments support our ongoing work with 
partners, including the National Park Service, NOAA, and the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to help local decision makers and 
land managers respond to the storms they face today, and better 
plan for future risks.
    Our core science systems programs provide essential 
mapping, surveying, and remote sensing capabilities. For 
example, Landsat has provided a continuous observational record 
of changes on the Earth's surface for more than 50 years, and 
we are preparing for the future with Landsat Next, which will 
collect more data than its predecessors, with more detail, as 
well as proposing a commercial satellite data pilot that will 
help the USGS better understand how commercial data can augment 
Landsat.
    Our budget invests in high performance and cloud computing 
resources to meet our stakeholder needs for finer scale, better 
integrated models in real time. Advances in USGS ecosystems 
programs also supports the nation in the face of future 
challenges.
    The budget supports a variety of work including continued 
monitoring of harmful algal blooms, assessments of potential 
biological carbon sinks on Federal lands, and partnering with 
states and tribes to map big game migration corridors.
    Additionally, the budget supports wildlife disease work and 
the climate adaptation science centers.
    All of this science requires a skilled workforce. As we 
seek to bring on board our next generation of scientific 
talent, we are working to strengthen our existing university 
partnerships and build new ones to tap into the full range of 
diverse talent that is out there. The USGS has partnerships 
with minority-serving institutions such as City College of New 
York and Alaska Pacific University, and we are working to 
expand those partnerships.
    On behalf of the highly skilled and dedicated public 
servants of the USGS, thank you for the opportunity to testify 
today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Applegate follows:]
   Prepared Statement of David Applegate, Director, U.S. Geological 
                Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior
    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the 
Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to be here today to summarize the 
Biden-Harris Administration's budget for the U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS) for Fiscal Year 2024. As the science arm of the Department of 
the Interior (Department), the USGS delivers objective, policy-neutral, 
actionable scientific information to protect life and property, inform 
environmental and natural resource management decisions, and serve as a 
foundation to advance the next generation of scientific discovery. I am 
Dave Applegate, and it is my honor to serve as the Director of the 
USGS. I am committed to building on this remarkable institution's 144 
years of scientific excellence focused on the needs of the Nation and 
ensuring that our science reaches those who need it the most.
    Overall, the 2024 budget provides $1.8 billion for the USGS. The 
budget makes targeted investments in the delivery of science to support 
sound land and resource management decisions and, in particular, 
address the effects of environmental changes on our Nation's ecosystems 
and physical infrastructure. Wildfire and drought are two of the most 
consequential challenges facing the Department and the U.S. Forest 
Service in carrying out their missions to manage natural resources. 
Ensuring they get the best, most useful science from the USGS is a very 
high priority, and we are requesting an investment of $6.5 million to 
improve our ability to bring our science to bear on these hazards with 
a focus on working with our partners to collaboratively develop the 
science they need for decision-making. To enable science delivery in 
this and many other key areas, the budget also builds out the science 
infrastructure we need to set a firm foundation for the future, with 
investments in advanced scientific computing, the next generation of 
the Landsat land-imaging constellation, and state-of-the-art facilities 
to enable innovation. These resources will help the USGS meet the ever-
growing demand for our science and best ensure that it is useful and 
accessible to the public and to decision makers like yourselves.
    The budget proposes $150.8 million for the USGS Energy and Mineral 
Resources programs, an increase of $46.5 million over the 2023 enacted 
level. This includes funding to advance the assessments of geothermal 
resources and areas for potential geologic carbon sequestration. The 
funding also builds on investments in critical minerals research to 
expand assessments of mine-waste resources that could be a significant 
new source of domestic critical minerals and on funding from the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, commonly known as the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), that supports foundational data on 
mineral resources in the energy supply chain.
    The budget for the USGS Natural Hazards programs proposes $226.2 
million, an increase of $25.9 million over the 2023 enacted level, 
continuing funding for the operations and build out of ShakeAlert 
earthquake early warning, the National Volcano Early Warning System, 
and implementation of the Landslide Hazards Preparedness Act. New 
investments would expand our work characterizing the threat posed by 
giant earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and landslides that can be 
generated in the subduction zones that lie along the edge of Alaska, 
the Pacific Northwest, and the Caribbean territories. The budget also 
includes additional funding for addressing community resilience and 
landscape changes caused by coastal storms. These investments support 
our ongoing work with partners, including the National Park Service 
(NPS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to develop and disseminate models of 
coastal change that will help local decision makers and land managers 
respond to the storms they face today and better plan for future risks. 
More than 40 percent of the U.S. population is in coastal counties, so 
these hazards are a matter of national interest.
    Investments in science infrastructure provide benefits for the long 
term. Our Core Science Systems programs are an example of this science 
infrastructure, as they provide many of the mapping, surveying, and 
remote sensing capabilities that other scientists, as well as the 
public, rely on. Core Science Systems also includes the National 
Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program and the National Geological and 
Geophysical Data Preservation Program that are supporting the energy 
supply chain work from the BIL that I mentioned earlier. The budget 
proposes $368.6 million for Core Science Systems, an increase of $84.0 
million over the 2023 enacted levels. Landsat, which for more than 50 
years has provided a continuous observational record of changes on the 
Earth's surface, is another part of the Core Science System portfolio 
of science infrastructure investments. Landsat missions 7, 8, and 9 are 
in orbit and we are preparing for the future with Landsat Next, which 
will collect more data than its predecessors, with more detail, as well 
as a commercial satellite data pilot that will help the USGS better 
understand how commercial data can augment Landsat data. Similarly, the 
budget supports USGS coordination with other agencies and partners to 
improve Federal climate services and data delivery, providing 
accessible climate information to users to respond to climate risks and 
improve climate resilience. Our budget invests in high-performance and 
cloud-computing resources to meet our stakeholder needs for finer-
scale, better integrated models in real-time or near-real-time. Where 
we are able to make these investments, we have seen the enormous 
difference it can make. For example, during the recent eruptions on the 
Island of Hawai`i, access to high-performance computing resources 
enabled us to estimate lava flows in 30 seconds--work that used to take 
27 hours.

    Advances in USGS Ecosystems programs also support the Nation in the 
face of future challenges. The budget proposes $395 million, an 
increase of $87.8 million over the 2023 enacted level, which supports a 
variety of work, including continued monitoring of harmful algal 
blooms, assessments of potential biological carbon sinks on Federal 
lands, and partnering with States and Tribes to map big-game migration 
corridors. Additionally, the budget supports wildlife disease work, 
such as ongoing efforts to prevent the extinction of native Hawaiian 
forest birds, and it supports the Climate Adaptation Science Centers. 
Our Ecosystems programs, along with our Water Resources Mission Area, 
play a key role in the proposal to transform the decision-support tools 
we provide to characterize the impacts of wildfire and drought.

    All of this requires a skilled workforce and functional, safe 
facilities for them to work in. Rebuilding the USGS workforce so that 
we can meet the high expectations to deliver our science where and when 
it is needed is one of my most important responsibilities. As we seek 
to bring on board our next generation of scientific talent, we are 
working to strengthen our existing university partnerships and build 
new ones to tap into the full range of diverse talent that is out 
there. To that end, the USGS now has partnerships with five minority 
serving institutions, including City College of New York and Alaska 
Pacific University, and we are working to expand those partnerships. We 
are also continuing to invest in improving our facilities, including a 
new energy and mineral research facility on the campus of the Colorado 
School of Mines, continuing our move from Menlo Park to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Park at 
Moffett Field, updated laboratory capabilities for our National 
Wildlife Health Center, and the re-location of the Hawaiian Volcano 
Observatory, which was damaged by the eruptions at Kilauea in 2018.

    On behalf of the 8,000 highly skilled and dedicated public servants 
of the USGS, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy 
to answer any questions you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. David Applegate, Director, 
                          U.S. Geologic Survey

Dr. Applegate did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. In creating the critical minerals list your agency 
relies on the most recent data. But as we know, the world is constantly 
changing, and certain mineral supply chains can be greatly affected by 
the opening or closure of a single mine, not to mention wars or 
diplomatic breakdowns.

      What kind of forecasting tools does your agency have to 
            look ahead to current global events that may lead to 
            imminent supply chain disruptions?
    Question 2. What are the selection criteria for grant recipients 
for the Climate Adaptation Science Centers program, and what is the 
methodology for creating such criteria?

      I understand the directors of the Regional CASCS have a 
            large amount of discretion in selecting projects for their 
            program to fund. Is the selection criteria for the Regional 
            CASCs publicly available and transparent to grant 
            applications? Is this criteria uniform across the regions?

    Question 3. In the hearing, you told Congressman Collins that you 
would be willing to transmit additional data and calculations behind 
the decision to no longer consider the non-fuel uses of uranium 
sufficient to qualify it as a non-fuel mineral. Please transmit that 
data to the Committee.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Lamborn

    Question 1. It is my understanding that the USGS 30 Elevation 
Program, or 3DEP, has reached 90% completion. This is a significant 
accomplishment to date as I was one of over 35 bipartisan members to 
cosign the USGS 3DEP FY2024 funding letter to the Appropriations 
Committee. How does USGS plan to map the remaining 10% given most of 
that area is located in public lands states in the West? When will the 
USGS reach 100% nationwide completion for 3DEP?

              Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar

    Question 1. At the Committee on Natural Resources hearing on April 
19, 2023, I asked Secretary Haaland about copper and the official USGS 
critical minerals list. In response, she referenced the next update of 
list coming in 2025. However, in written correspondence to the 
Governors of Arizona, Idaho, and Utah last year, USGS committed to not 
waiting until the next 3-year update if the circumstances for copper 
changed. In fact, in Section 7002 of the Energy Act of 2020, Congress 
specifically gave the Department the authority to revisit the list 
sooner than every 3 years. Because USGS relied upon data from 2015-2018 
for the 2022 list, the methodology on copper was already grossly out of 
date when the list was announced. The supply risk to copper has 
dramatically increased since that time.

      Given this, will you commit to revisiting the copper 
            critical mineral score, using the same methodology and 
            cutoff you used for the 2022 list, without waiting until 
            2025?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. I thank the witness for their testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes Deputy Director Huang for an 
opening statement.

STATEMENT OF PAUL HUANG, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF SAFETY AND 
           ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Huang. Good afternoon, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member 
Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 
the opportunity to be here today to discuss the President's 
Fiscal Year 2024 budget request for the Bureau of Safety and 
Environmental Enforcement, also known as BSEE. I am Paul Huang. 
I am the Deputy Director at BSEE. And before I start, I do want 
to send apologies from our Director, Kevin Sligh, who couldn't 
be here today due to a family emergency.
    BSEE's mission is to promote safety, protect the 
environment, and conserve offshore resources as we regulate and 
monitor offshore energy operations from exploration through 
facility installation, production, and ultimately 
decommissioning on the Outer Continental Shelf, also known as 
the OCS.
    The Fiscal Year 2024 budget request is for $270.6 million 
in total funding, of which $190.9 million is appropriated, and 
$79.7 million from offsetting collections from rental receipts, 
cost recoveries, and inspection fees. The 2024 budget request 
fully supports President Biden's priority to tackling the 
climate crisis and increasing renewable energy production 
safely and responsibly. This includes supporting the 
Administration's goal of 30 gigawatts of offshore wind 
production by 2030, while also overseeing safe, responsible 
offshore oil and gas production.
    The 2024 budget request helps support BSEE's renewable and 
conventional energy programs, which will enable timely and 
rigorous industry plan, permit reviews, create a robust 
offshore renewable compliance verification and insurance 
program, and demonstrate BSEE's commitment and leadership to 
drive safe performance and protection of all offshore workers. 
Additionally, to protect our nation's environmental, cultural, 
and biological resources on the OCS.
    The 2024 budget request also supports decommissioning of 
orphaned wells and infrastructure. It allows us to build a 
carbon sequestration program and establish a tribal liaison 
program. Earlier this year, the Department published the 
Renewable Energy Split Rule. As a result, BSEE is now 
responsible for administering safety, environmental compliance, 
and enforcement of OCS renewable energy activities.
    Tens of thousands of new offshore wind workers will also 
depend on BSEE's robust oversight of worker health and safety. 
We aim to deliver. BSEE is dedicated to fostering a safe and 
environmentally sound offshore wind industry in the United 
States. We are actively working with industry leaders and 
external organizations to develop comprehensive and technical 
safety standards. Our commitment to promoting a culture of 
safety and environmental responsibility throughout the industry 
is unwavering.
    While the development of renewables is an increasing area 
of work for BSEE, we remain focused on ensuring that the oil 
and gas industry is operating safely on the OCS. The continued 
health of the oil and gas industry on the OCS contributes to 
our nation's energy security, and BSEE is proud to be a part of 
that work.
    A focus in 2023 and continuing into 2024 is strengthening 
the organization's decommissioning oversight. BSEE uses the 
full spectrum of regulatory authorities to ensure timely 
decommissioning. For 2024, BSEE is requesting $30 million to 
properly plug in abandoned orphan wells in the OCS and properly 
decommission the associated orphaned pipelines and structures. 
Given that some of these structures have been waiting to be 
decommissioned for over a decade, further delay on receiving 
this funding request increases the risk of potential 
environmental incidences, such as oil spills.
    I would like to take the opportunity to thank the hard-
working men and women of BSEE. We have such a dedicated 
workforce. The BSEE 2023 to 2026 Strategic Plan has four key 
goals: people, protection, reliability, and sustainability. But 
without our people, we would never be able to accomplish the 
other three goals.
    I also want to express my appreciation for your support of 
the BSEE mission to ensure that offshore energy and industry 
operates in a safe and environmentally sustainable way. Your 
continued support of our budget will allow BSEE to build on the 
advances we have made over the years, and allow us to build our 
capabilities to even be more effective on the oversight of the 
OCS operations.
    Thank you, Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ocasio-
Cortez. I look forward to your questions today.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Huang follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Huang, Deputy Director, Bureau of Safety and 
       Environmental Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior
    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, I am pleased to join you today to discuss the President's 
FY 2024 budget request for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental 
Enforcement (BSEE, Bureau), a bureau of the Department of the Interior 
(DOI).
FY24 Request

    BSEE's FY 2024 budget request is $270.6 million in total funding, 
including $190.9 million in current appropriations and $79.7 million in 
offsetting collections from rental receipts, cost recoveries, and 
inspection fees.
    BSEE's FY 2024 Budget Request fully supports President Biden's 
priority for tackling the climate crisis and increasing renewable 
energy production safely and responsibly, and the goal of deploying 30 
gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind by 2030. The FY 2024 Budget Request 
continues to support BSEE's renewable and conventional energy programs, 
which will enable timely and rigorous industry plan and permit reviews, 
the creation of a robust compliance verification and assurance program 
for offshore wind, and demonstration of BSEE's commitment and 
leadership to drive safe performance and the protection of 
environmental, cultural, and biological resources on the Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS). BSEE's FY 2024 Budget Request will continue to 
focus attention on priority areas that foster safe and environmentally 
responsible exploration, development, and production of offshore 
resources, including activities to decommission orphaned wells and 
infrastructure, prepare for the advancement of offshore wind, build a 
Carbon Sequestration Program, and establish a Tribal Liaison Program.
    The FY 2024 Budget Request will enable BSEE to continue 
strengthening oversight, regulatory, and research capabilities on the 
OCS by building and sustaining staff capabilities. Funds will be used 
to recruit, train, and retain expert engineers, geoscientists, and 
inspectors; oil spill planning, prevention, and response specialists; 
and employees in other disciplines to support the implementation of 
BSEE's regulatory oversight responsibilities. BSEE will continue 
outreach and dialogue with stakeholders from academia, industry, 
nongovernmental organizations, and other governmental agencies to 
enhance the knowledge base of technical personnel related to innovative 
technologies, regulatory gaps, real-time monitoring capabilities, and 
risk-based decision making for safety and environmental enforcement.
    The energy resources and activities under BSEE's jurisdiction are 
vast, as the OCS is an important source of energy for the U.S., with 
significant oil and gas production and a rapidly developing offshore 
wind industry. The Nation's first two commercial-scale offshore wind 
projects on the OCS have been approved and DOI has initiated the review 
of an additional 14 projects that, if approved, could provide up to 27 
GW of clean energy for the Nation. From January through December 2022, 
OCS leases offshore Alaska, California, and in the Gulf of Mexico 
produced approximately 630 million barrels of oil and over 784 billion 
cubic feet of natural gas, roughly 14 percent of domestic oil 
production and 2 percent of domestic natural gas. Ninety-nine percent 
of offshore oil and gas production occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Deepwater wells (those in greater than or equal to 1,000 feet water 
depth) accounted for 89 percent of all barrels of oil equivalent 
produced on the OCS.
Decommissioning

    Development in the shallow water areas of the Gulf of Mexico, first 
drilled in 1947, is mature and is experiencing drastic reductions in 
the number of wells drilled and the oil and gas resources produced. 
This area of the Gulf of Mexico is experiencing significant 
infrastructure removal that BSEE believes will continue to accelerate, 
leading to an increase in regulatory workload. Similarly, in the 
Pacific Region, eight of the 23 platforms no longer produce oil and 
gas, and are located on terminated leases that do not allow resumption 
of production. BSEE expects to receive decommissioning applications for 
these eight platforms and associated pipelines and infrastructure in 
the near term.
    An important part of BSEE's responsibilities is to ensure that 
infrastructure used in exploration, development, and production 
activities undertaken pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
(OCSLA) is properly decommissioned to ensure the long-term protection 
of the resource and the surrounding environment. The Administration is 
committed to addressing orphan oil and gas wells that pose serious 
safety hazards and cause ongoing air, water, and other environmental 
damage across the U.S. Orphaned infrastructure are wells, structures, 
or pipelines left on the OCS following termination of the underlying 
lease or right of way without having been decommissioned to regulatory 
standards, and for which there is no remaining liable party capable of 
performing decommissioning. As part of this effort, BSEE is requesting 
$30.0 million in FY 2024 to properly plug and abandon orphaned wells on 
the OCS and properly decommission the associated orphaned pipelines and 
structures. This funding would augment forfeited financial assurances 
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) receives from operators, 
proceeds from bankruptcy proceedings, and potential funds from the 
Federal orphaned wells program established by the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law (BIL) to address the most immediate and urgent needs 
to reduce the risk of safety incidents and pollution.
Offshore Wind and Renewable Energy

    In addition to regulating oil and gas operations on the OCS, BSEE 
continues to support the development of a safe, robust, and sustainable 
offshore renewable energy industry in the United States. In 
anticipation of rapid industry growth, BSEE is engaging with offshore 
wind developers to identify and promote best practices for ensuring 
worker safety and environmental protection. Engagement with industry, 
Federal partners including BOEM and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), 
Tribes, and non-Federal stakeholders continues to inform the 
development of renewable energy program functions.
    DOI is reviewing its siting and permitting processes on public 
lands and in offshore waters to identify steps that can be taken to 
increase renewable energy production, with the goal of deploying 30 GW 
of offshore wind by 2030 and creating good-paying jobs that support 
working families. The Department has issued 27 offshore wind commercial 
leases in the Atlantic and 2 research leases (one each in the Atlantic 
and Pacific). Two Construction and Operations Plans have been approved 
since 2021; there are 14 projects under various stages of review. Based 
on this activity and industry estimates, BSEE anticipates receiving 
over 40,000 engineering reports for review in FY 2023 and FY 2024 
combined, associated with Facility Design Reports, Fabrication and 
Installation Reports, and Certified Verification Agent reports required 
by applicable regulation. BSEE will also support this effort through 
its environmental stewardship vision of meeting the Nation's energy and 
mineral needs without compromising the Nation's natural and cultural 
resources.
    On January 31, 2023, DOI published a final rule in the Federal 
Register (88 FR 6376) that reassigned regulations pertaining to safety 
and environmental oversight of OCS renewable energy activities from 
BOEM's oversight to BSEE's oversight.
Carbon Sequestration

    Section 40307 of the BIL amended OCSLA and authorized DOI to 
administer leases, easements, and rights-of-way on the OCS for geologic 
sequestration (i.e., storage) of carbon dioxide, and directed DOI to 
promulgate implementing regulations for those activities. In FY 2024, 
BSEE is requesting $1.5 million to establish a Carbon Sequestration 
Program to implement the BIL requirements. The FY 2024 request will 
allow BSEE to actively pursue solutions to address the unique 
challenges presented by sub-seabed CO2 storage, including 
creating a multidisciplinary team to focus on identifying relevant 
industry standards and enforcement requirements, determining applied 
research needs and requirements, creating baseline risk assessment 
criteria for carbon storage projects, reviewing flow modeling, 
assessing conservation considerations, and instituting performance and 
safety standards.
    BSEE is partnering with BOEM to develop new regulations and create 
a fully formed program for oversight of carbon sequestration activities 
on the OCS. BOEM will be responsible for leasing, assessing the broader 
environmental impact of carbon sequestration, and certain other 
components of the program. BSEE will be responsible for the activities 
related to installation, operations, inspections, emergency response 
plans, and decommissioning, among other roles.
Inspections and Permitting

    As required by statute, BSEE conducts on-site inspections of safety 
equipment on each OCS facility at least once a year. BSEE will continue 
to execute its Risk-Based Inspections Program, which allows for 
targeted inspections of higher-risk operations and facilities, with 
increased focus on areas such as: crane safety; fired vessel 
operations; continued evaluation of risks associated with high-pressure 
and high-temperature equipment; and implementation of a quality 
assurance program to support effectively carrying out core Bureau 
functions by promoting use of sufficient controls to mitigate risk and 
supporting continuous improvement.
    Among the Bureau's priorities is ensuring the public receives fair 
market value for resources and that fees and cost recovery are fair and 
reasonable. In coordination with the Office of Natural Resources 
Revenue, BSEE's offshore inspectors ensure that production volumes are 
accurately measured and reported for the assessment of royalties owed 
to the American people. BSEE's measurement approval, verification, and 
inspection responsibilities help validate the collection of billions of 
dollars in royalties from offshore oil and gas resources each year. 
This important work will continue in FY 2024.
    Permitting processes are also being regularly reviewed to support 
timely processing and appropriate consideration of the risks and phases 
of development on the OCS. The continuation of robust stakeholder 
technical and procedural workshops along with other engagement efforts 
is critical to the success of these modernization and reform efforts. 
BSEE will continue to hold stakeholder engagement meetings, including 
meetings with industry association groups, to provide updates on 
permitting procedures and BSEE's ``e-permitting'' modules.
    In FY 2024, BSEE is requesting the authority to charge a per-visit 
production facility inspection fee rather than the current once-per-
year fee that has been in place since FY 2012, as well as to adjust the 
existing fees for inflation. This will allow BSEE to recover a greater 
share of the actual costs incurred in overseeing these operations and 
reduce the direct cost to taxpayers, while providing an incentive to 
operators to improve safety performance and reduce the need for follow-
up inspections.
Cybersecurity and Safety

    BSEE will continue developing key relationships across the Federal 
Government in developing the BSEE offshore operational technology (OT) 
cybersecurity safety threat detection and mitigation program. These 
relationships with Federal partners, the intelligence community, and 
industry partners are key to ensuring that, as the program develops, it 
is equipped to inform and address OT cybersecurity risks on the OCS. 
BSEE will continue to explore program enhancements and engagement 
strategies to improve and integrate a cybersecurity posture within all 
OCS activities. Additionally, BSEE has initiated efforts to develop a 
cybersecurity risk profile for its offshore operators. BSEE began 
determining the vulnerabilities within OT systems utilized by a cross-
section of these operators. Field assessments will identify strengths 
and weaknesses within client OT networks and provide BSEE with a 
snapshot of offshore operator OT vulnerabilities. This, in turn, will 
contribute to the development of an overall cybersecurity risk profile.
Strengthening our Regulatory Program

    BSEE continues to support its statutory responsibilities by 
developing and effectuating a robust regulatory program. BSEE has 
established regulatory priorities and is working to advance all 
identified rulemaking efforts. Over the past year, BSEE has published 
the High-Pressure High-Temperature and Subpart B Revisions proposed 
rule, the Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control Revisions proposed 
rule, the joint BOEM/BSEE Renewable Energy Reorganization final rule, 
and the Decommissioning Activities and Obligations final rule. BSEE is 
currently working on several other regulatory priorities including the 
Oil-Spill Response Requirements for Facilities Located Seaward of the 
Coast Line proposed rule, the Revisions to Subpart J--Pipelines and 
Pipeline Rights-of-Way proposed rule, the BSEE Renewable Energy 
Modernization proposed rule, and the joint BSEE/BOEM Carbon 
Sequestration proposed rule.
Strengthening our Commitment to Safety and the Environment

    To continue and encourage the movement by operators toward a 
performance-based safety approach, BSEE works closely with operators as 
they shift their attention from designing to implementing their Safety 
and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) processes. Through this 
approach, BSEE leverages the capabilities and expertise of government, 
industry, and independent third parties to continually improve safety 
and environmental outcomes.
    BSEE's SafeOCS Program is aimed at collecting and analyzing near-
miss, safety, and failure data for well-control equipment and other 
safety and pollution prevention equipment. The goal of the program is 
to identify proactive steps to mitigate risks and ensure offshore 
operations are safe, reliable, and environmentally responsible. BSEE 
will continue to obtain statistical advice on the evaluation of daily 
notifications of safety events through its partnership with the 
Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
    The BSEE!Safe program uses text messaging to send links to 
published Safety Alerts, which are used to inform the offshore oil and 
gas industry of the circumstances surrounding an incident or near miss 
and provide recommendations to help prevent the recurrence of such 
incidents. BSEE!Safe is part of the Bureau's strategy to supplement 
regulation with innovative programs, expanding the available toolbox of 
methods for driving safety performance and environmental stewardship 
improvements, and is the first instance in which a safety regulator has 
communicated directly with the industry workforce to ensure the 
distribution of critical safety information. As of March 2023, more 
than 7,900 subscribers have signed up for the service.
    BSEE is also expanding the Safety Performance Enhanced by 
Analytical Review (SPEAR) Program, with the goal of surfacing 
innovative data analytic tools and strategic Bureau-wide processes. 
SPEAR enables BSEE subject matter experts to thoroughly analyze data to 
identify current and emerging safety and environmental hazards from OCS 
energy operations. The SPEAR Program: (1) explores the potential use of 
advanced data analytic tools to support the Bureau's processes; and (2) 
establishes a world-class approach to analyzing and communicating data 
and information throughout the Bureau and to external stakeholders as 
needs arise. In 2024, BSEE will develop new use cases to evaluate and 
develop data for other useful applications.
    BSEE provides technical training to field personnel, inspectors, 
scientists, and engineers to ensure staff have the tools and knowledge 
needed to accomplish the agency's mission safely and effectively. 
BSEE's training programs provide staff with the most up-to-date, 
relevant training available that addresses the technological advances 
the Bureau's workforce will encounter in the field. The Bureau's 
National Offshore Training Center (NOTC) provides cutting-edge, 
comprehensive, multi-tiered training and professional development 
opportunities for BSEE's inspectors, engineers, and scientists to 
ensure safe and environmentally-sound offshore energy operations. In FY 
2024, BSEE plans to continue to implement a multi-phased approach to 
assess the current program to identify training gaps, develop and 
implement curriculum, develop and implement an accreditation plan, and 
perform annual curriculum reviews. This includes incorporating training 
on renewable energy topics into the NOTC curriculum. These investments 
will help demonstrate the Bureau's commitment to building a ``best in 
class'' technical training program, and will allow BSEE to better 
capture and track the costs associated with the program.
Collaboration

    The Bureau values its close cooperative relationships with Federal 
and State partners on the OCS and is also working to strengthen 
resources through intra- and interagency cooperation. In FY 2023 and FY 
2024, the Bureau is planning on completing several state-level 
agreements regarding oil spill preparedness coordination. Also, BSEE 
has been involved in discussions on continuous safety improvement and 
safety culture policy with other Federal partners focused on high 
reliability organizations, such as the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. BSEE 
continues to engage in opportunities to leverage resources and share 
information across U.S. government agencies.
    BSEE will continue to enhance its international collaborative 
efforts. BSEE engages regularly with its international counterparts to 
promote the safe and environmentally responsible development of 
offshore energy resources globally. BSEE has established itself as a 
leader in international cooperation, actively participating in 
multilateral forums such as the International Regulators Forum, the 
Arctic Offshore Regulators Forum, the International Offshore Petroleum 
Environment Regulators group, and Arctic Council bodies such as the 
Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Working Group. BSEE's 
roles in preparedness activities at the international scale span work 
in both temperate and Arctic waters. The Bureau is taking an 
international leadership role to better understand the viabilities of 
traditional oil spill cleanup strategies in different environments. 
Additionally, BSEE places a priority on maintaining strong bilateral 
relationships with several international partners.
Oil Spill Prevention

    BSEE continues to implement a comprehensive, cost-effective, long-
term research program dedicated to improving response countermeasures 
for oil spills offshore, including in Arctic environments. The research 
program is based upon a strategic plan that recognizes the evolving 
risks in offshore exploration and production and BSEE's mission of 
protecting the environment. BSEE focuses its oil spill response 
research on advancing state-of-the art methods and technologies for oil 
spill detection.
    A crucial and unique asset that aids BSEE's ability to conduct this 
work is Ohmsett, The National Oil Spill Response Research and Renewable 
Energy Test Facility in Leonardo, New Jersey. Ohmsett hosts a large, 
outdoor, aboveground concrete test tank that is 667 feet long, 65 feet 
wide, 11 feet deep, and filled to a depth of eight feet with 2.6 
million gallons of saltwater and allows government agency and private 
industry oil spill response personnel to hone techniques and test full-
scale equipment in realistic sea environments. Ohmsett plays an 
important role in protecting the Nation's oceans by supporting 
development of the most effective response technologies as well as 
preparing responders by creating the most realistic training 
environment available.
Tribal Coordination

    To support the Administration's commitment to Tribal coordination 
and consultation, BSEE is requesting $800,000 to establish a National 
Tribal Engagement Program with dedicated, full-time Tribal liaison 
positions. BSEE has committed to growing its Tribal engagement program 
to engage with federally recognized Tribal Nations through government-
to-government interactions. With this additional funding, the National 
Tribal Engagement Program will be able to provide timely coordination 
and consultation with Tribes.
    BSEE regulates activities that may have direct or indirect impacts 
to the integrity of the shoreline and its ecology, offshore habitat, 
marine mammals, other critical species, natural view-scape, and 
submerged historical or archaeological sites. BSEE strives to ensure 
that its processes surrounding activities that may have effects on 
Indigenous communities are open, transparent, and thorough. BSEE hosts 
consultations with Tribal Nations for three primary reasons: to honor 
our nation-to-nation relationship; to hear directly from Tribal leaders 
as we address economic, racial justice, and climate crises, all of 
which disproportionately impact Native Americans and Alaska Natives; 
and to commit ourselves to a process that addresses Tribal needs and 
ensures we respect and understand the input we receive.
Conclusion

    I would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation 
for the continued support for safe and environmentally sustainable 
offshore energy. The FY 2024 request will support BSEE's efforts to 
ensure responsible development of offshore energy and mineral 
resources, build on the advancements that it has made, and expand its 
capabilities to provide effective oversight of the OCS through the 
initiatives outlined above.
    I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for inviting me here today 
and would be happy to answer the Subcommittee's questions.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Paul Huang, Deputy Director, 
             Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

Mr. Huang did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate 
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. Can you provide the exact amount of decommissioning 
liabilities the U.S. taxpayer has acquired in the 60+ year history of 
offshore oil and gas development? Can you provide this information to 
the Committee?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you for your testimony, and we do wish 
the Director well in what is going on in his personal life, and 
we appreciate you being here at the last minute.
    And thanks to the witnesses for your 5-minute opening 
statements.
    The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes for 
questions. And at this moment, I will recognize myself for 5 
minutes.

    Director Klein, it is great to see you again. We met last 
week in our office, and I appreciate you joining us here today. 
I understand that BOEM is working on a new rule concerning 
financial assurance for offshore operators. Do you have an 
exact amount of what decommissioning liabilities the U.S. 
taxpayer has acquired in the 60-plus-year history of the 
offshore oil and gas development?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you very much for the question, and I 
certainly appreciated the opportunity to meet with you last 
week before our hearing today, and will look forward to 
continuing our work together.
    We are in the midst of developing a financial assurances 
regulation. Aging infrastructure on the OCS is a concern, and 
we want to make sure that we are not creating undue liabilities 
for the American taxpayer.
    I don't have the exact number off the top of my head, but I 
am happy to have our staff follow up with your staff on the 
numbers that we are seeing.
    Mr. Stauber. That would be great. And could you provide 
that information to the Committee?
    Ms. Klein. Yes.
    Mr. Stauber. OK, thank you. When we talk about the revenue 
generated by the offshore industry, is that a good return for 
the taxpayers, in your opinion?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for that question. I think at BOEM, 
certainly as Director, my job is to implement the President's 
priorities and follow the law. Part of the mission of BOEM is 
to manage the environmentally responsible, safe development of 
resources on the Outer Continental Shelf in a way that ensures 
a fair return to the taxpayer, so we will continue to do that, 
moving forward.
    Mr. Stauber. I would just ask that you reconsider the 
arbitrary increase in the bonding requirements for the offshore 
operators be reasonable.
    And as we move forward, the ESG movement continues to make 
access to capital harder and harder. Operators will be unable 
to continue to invest. And this rule just stacks another--as we 
saw earlier--clearly unnecessary burden on operators, 
regardless of the size. I would like to move from the talks 
about ESG and some of the other items that you will be 
responsible for. I want to discuss some ethics questions here.
    Prior to working in this Administration, you were employed 
at the Bloomberg-funded State Energy and Environmental Impact 
Center based in New York City. Is that correct?
    Ms. Klein. I was employed at the State Energy Environmental 
Impact Center, which is affiliated with the NYU School of Law. 
At the time I was working there, it was located in Washington, 
DC.
    Mr. Stauber. And then that center funds lawyers to work for 
Bloomberg, some of the pet causes, and the State Attorney 
General offices across the country. Would that be correct?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for the question. I welcome you to 
communicate with the State Impact Center about the work that 
they do currently. Certainly, while I was there, the mission of 
the center was to support State Attorneys General in their 
efforts to engage on environmental and energy issues.
    Mr. Stauber. And I will just say some of the lawyers that 
were assigned were put forth in our very own Minnesota Attorney 
General's office. And shortly thereafter, there were some, in 
my opinion, some questionable lawsuits filed by the State with 
lawyers paid by Bloomberg under your direction against several 
oil and gas firms, in line with the millions provided by 
Bloomberg.
    In my last 47 seconds, I will just say that my concern in 
your position now--we had a meeting last week, and I want to be 
able to trust that you are going to make the best decisions. 
Your background does speak volumes about your angst against the 
offshore oil and gas industry. I would just hope that in your 
new position you would look at it in a broader way, that there 
could be reliable and affordable clean energy under the all-of-
the-above opportunities for us.
    So, I will just say I appreciate you coming in. I 
appreciate your comments today. And I will now turn it over for 
5 minutes of questioning to Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, 
Director Klein.
    As the Vice Ranking Member on the House Oversight 
Committee, one's background and any potential conflicts of 
interest are always something that are of high concern. I have 
not seen any evidence of that here, and I applaud you for your 
service.
    In advancing much of our climate policy, I am particularly 
focused on making sure that we secure good jobs and invest in 
building and nurturing the skills needed for this new and 
emerging clean energy industry that is coming, that is here, 
that has arrived, that is growing, and that will continue to 
grow, virtually, no matter what we do, because the technology 
is here and the need is here.
    However, in the 2021 U.S. Energy and Employment report, it 
states that only about 10 percent of solar and wind workers are 
presently unionized. Dr. Klein, can you speak a bit about how 
BOEM incentivizes project labor agreements in these offshore 
wind projects, and BOEM's work with Labor, State, and local 
government to ensure that the offshore wind industry is 
creating union jobs?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you so much for the question. I think 
certainly when the President set a goal of 30 gigawatts of 
offshore wind by 2030, and then our additional goal to hit 15 
gigawatts of floating offshore wind by 2035, he really views 
this as a way to create jobs here in the United States, to 
strengthen our domestic supply chains, and to create real 
economic opportunities for communities all across the country.
    In some of our recent offshore wind auctions, BOEM actually 
found some innovative ways to include lease stipulations that 
encourage lessees to really make every available effort to 
enter into project labor agreements, and really ensure that we 
are creating that pipeline of domestic workers, and ensuring 
that, again, this effort to transition to cleaner energy 
sources is a job creation opportunity.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. And Director Klein, I applaud 
the efforts that BOEM is taking to encourage unionization and 
PLAs in the offshore wind workforce.
    I would like to turn now to inquiring a little bit about 
the community benefits and environmental justice in our 
offshore wind development.
    I seek unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter 
from Taproot Earth, a global environmental justice organization 
that was delivered yesterday to BOEM's Office of Emerging 
Programs.
    Director Klein, this letter notes that in a previous 
offshore wind lease sale notice for waters off the coast of 
California, BOEM provided a 2.5 percent credit to developers if 
they entered into a Community Benefit Agreement. CBAs are 
agreements signed by community groups and developers that 
identify community benefits that the developer will provide in 
return for the community support for the project. However, in 
BOEM's February 2023 Public Sale Notice for the Gulf of Mexico, 
no such CBA incentive is offered. So, Director Klein, could you 
please explain how BOEM chooses to incentivize Community 
Benefit Agreements in their offshore wind lease sales?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you very much for the question. Certainly, 
again, we really are working very hard at BOEM to find 
innovative ways throughout the process, including the leasing 
process, to incentivize not just the domestic supply chain, but 
also ensuring that communities have a real voice in this 
development, moving forward.
    You mentioned the Community Benefit Agreements, which are 
something we have deployed in California. I don't have the 
details of the Gulf of Mexico Proposed Sale Notice, but would 
be happy to follow up with your staff to get you those details.
    I would also say that environmental justice concerns that 
have been raised to us by communities across the country are 
also at the forefront of our minds. So, we are working, for 
instance, in New York and New Jersey to do quarterly community 
meetings, where stakeholders come together and exchange 
feedback and ensure that we are really bringing benefits to 
these communities, moving forward.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
    Director Klein and Deputy Director Huang, in a recent GAO 
report it was revealed that since the 1960s, BSEE and BOEM have 
allowed the offshore oil and gas industry to leave 97 percent 
of pipelines--that is 18,000 miles of infrastructure--on the 
sea floor of the Gulf of Mexico when no longer in use. This 
infrastructure is now inhibiting the development of offshore 
wind.
    Deputy Director Huang, I understand that BSEE has 
discretionary authority to enable oil and gas companies to 
decommission in place. Can you speak a little bit as to why we 
are not presently requiring that companies clean up old 
pipelines?
    And also, to Director Klein, can BOEM potentially mandate 
that oil and gas lessees hold fully vested trusts that ensure 
cleanup of infrastructure and wells?
    Mr. Huang. Yes, thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
    We, at BSEE, are in charge of the entire life cycle, 
including decommissioning and timely decommissioning. We work 
closely with offshore producers to ensure that they are true to 
their commitments, and we have done a couple of things recently 
to improve that.
    One was an update to our financial assurance rule to ensure 
that all parties, not just the current operator, get together 
and determine how best to address the decommissioning issues 
and liabilities.
    Secondly, we also are updating completely our Subpart J 
regulations to ensure that we are looking at leak detection, 
pipeline integrity, and also removal of pipelines no longer 
used, to ensure that they are environmentally safe and 
compliant and removed when not used.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I believe Director Klein is----
    Mr. Stauber. Director, do you want to follow up on that, 
quickly?
    Ms. Klein. Sure, thank you. I would just say, building off 
of what Deputy Director Huang mentioned, we work closely with 
BSEE on decommissioning activities throughout the process, and 
the financial assurances rule that BOEM is also working on is 
meant to really ensure that we are not saddling the taxpayer 
with undue costs associated with orphaned infrastructure. And 
it is certainly a priority for the Bureau, moving forward.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    And for the Members here, you will notice that I let my 
Ranking Member go a little longer. One of the things that 
Representative Lowenthal and I agreed on, as long as it is 
respectful, we can go a little bit to allow a question to be 
completely answered. So, as long as we remain respectful, I 
think that is the right thing to do.
    The next individual, Mr. Rosendale, you are up for 5 
minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Applegate, thank you so much for being here with us 
today and providing your testimony regarding the USGS and the 
President's budget. I appreciate it.
    I understand the importance of using real, science-based 
approaches to land and resource management. Montana is known as 
the Treasure State, and we would love to be able to unlock 
those resources and develop them in a responsible manner to 
keep and maintain that name.
    In your testimony, you mentioned wildfire and drought as 
some of the most consequential challenges facing the Interior. 
I am glad you brought that up, because I have been very 
concerned about the lack of scientific reasoning used to make 
decisions concerning forest fires and drought in Montana. When 
you consider wildfire management and a science-based approach, 
does your Department include timber harvesting in those 
discussions?
    Mr. Applegate. Thank you very much for the question, and 
this is a key area where we are looking to ensure that our 
science is being put to use.
    We look at wildfire both from the standpoint of the fuel 
loading, that is sort of that front end, including it is one of 
the capabilities we are able to bring our Landsat satellite to 
understand the vegetation loads, so that is an aspect of it, is 
forestry. And we are also looking at not just forested 
landscapes, of course, but also, for example----
    Mr. Rosendale. I understand the things that you are looking 
at. But what I am asking is, are you considering the harvesting 
of timber as you look at that? Because clearly, it doesn't take 
a scientist to figure out that when you have a forest that has 
not been harvested, that you have so much fuel, and you can 
look at as many different types of information you want, that 
is going to create a larger risk of wildfire than one that has 
recently been harvested and is managed. And I have looked at 
these forests, and they are much healthier after that.
    So, are you taking into consideration the acreages that you 
are harvesting timber on, and the health of those forests, as 
opposed to the forests that are not being managed?
    Mr. Applegate. Yes. I do want to emphasize, in this area in 
particular, we have partnered very closely with the Forest 
Service and their tremendous research capabilities. They are 
primarily focused on those forested landscapes, on those 
harvest landscapes. So, I think a lot of that research is sort 
of more over in their bailiwick. We are particularly looking at 
Department of the Interior-managed lands, for example, 
understanding the sagebrush biome and other capabilities like 
that.
    Mr. Rosendale. But, again, we do have a lot of Interior 
lands that are forested, as well.
    Let me provide you with some statistics from the 
Congressional Research Service. Forty years ago, over 10 
billion board feet was harvested from Federal forests, and less 
than 4 million acres burned in wildfires. So, we were at a 
ratio of much more timber being harvested and dramatically less 
wildfire acreage being destroyed.
    As important to me and to the taxpayers, everyone around 
this room, we were generating in today's dollars about $2 
billion a year worth of revenue from that timber that was being 
harvested, basically funding Forest Service actions. Right now, 
we are looking at about $150 million a year of revenue, and it 
is just a fraction of it.
    Again, this trend has remained true since the 1980s. As 
timber harvesting is reduced, wildfires burn more land. It is 
really not complicated. Will you take these statistics into 
account when you discuss how to deliver science to the 
agencies?
    Mr. Applegate. Yes, absolutely, sir. We are part of the 
Joint Fire Science Program with both the Department of the 
Interior and Agriculture. And as part of that effort, this is 
an area of active research and investigation. We will certainly 
take that into account, yes.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK, it looks like I am going to get down to 
my time.
    I served on the State Land Board for the state of Montana 
for 4 years, managing all of the school trust lands. And we had 
a sustainable yield amount of 45 million board feet a year on 
school trust lands that was our target to make sure it could be 
replenished each year. Sustainable yield for the forest. We hit 
it every year, 45 million board feet, year after year after 
year.
    The Forest Service has exponentially many more acres of 
land. Could you tell me what the sustainable yield acreage is 
for either Montana or cumulatively across the nation of what 
your target amount is?
    Mr. Applegate. Again, we are there to have our science put 
to use, but we would not be setting target amounts. We are 
there to inform the policy decisions, we are there to inform 
them----
    Mr. Rosendale. But if you are going to be using good 
science, a sustainable yield harvesting number is critically 
important to make sure that we keep a healthy forest. It truly 
is.
    Well, I will tell you that the sustainable yield amount for 
Forest Service throughout Montana is about 140 million board 
feet a year, much more than the 45, but they only harvest 42 
million board feet a year. Therein lies the problem.
    Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Next, Representative 
Kamlager-Dove, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This first 
question is for Director Klein.
    According to Oceana, fishing, tourism, and recreation 
support nearly 600,000 jobs along California's coast--I 
represent Los Angeles in California--and generate over $42 
million in GDP. And we know that where you drill, you spill. 
Most recently in 2021, an underwater pipeline leaked tens of 
thousands of gallons of oil, threatening communities' 
livelihoods across the state. And, oftentimes, the fossil fuel 
pollution from offshore drilling is hurting low-income families 
the most.
    As you develop the next 5-year plan for oil and gas 
development, how are you considering state and community 
perspectives and well-founded opposition to new drilling, as 
well as climate impacts?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you very much for the question. The 
National OCS Program, which I mentioned, is in development 
currently. We expect to have the proposed final out in 
September, with the Secretary ultimately making the decision 
before the end of the year.
    As the Secretary makes that decision, she is actually 
required to evaluate a range of factors, including not just 
needs for energy supply, but also the concerns of communities, 
the potential for environmental impacts. So, the issues that 
you mentioned certainly are of high importance to the Secretary 
as she makes those decisions.
    And I can say that, certainly, the feedback that we get 
from states is also critically important. The extent to which 
there is industry interest or state interest in having that 
type of activity off their coastlines is very important to the 
Secretary as she makes that decision.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you.
    Director Applegate, this question is for you. I would like 
to turn to the importance of climate science, and ask about the 
USGS's role in informing policy and decision makers on the 
ground.
    So, as we know, USGS plays a crucial role in providing 
scientific data and analysis to help us understand how climate 
change is affecting our natural resources, our communities, and 
the economy today, as well as how we plan for the future. 
However, it has been a fight to keep up adequate funding for 
these programs. How are communities around the country using 
USGS's data and tools to understand and address the impacts of 
climate change in their daily lives?
    Mr. Applegate. Thank you very much for that question and, 
absolutely, that is very much the goal. We use very practical, 
pragmatic science, understanding what those impacts are. So, 
whether it is decision making associated with land use as we 
see changing patterns--for example, changing regimes for 
invasive species; looking at impacts, for example, with coastal 
communities as we are seeing the combined effect of sea level 
rise, of coastal subsidence, as well as then extreme storms--so 
for coastal communities it is understanding that combination of 
impacts, both for the hazards they face today and the hazards 
they are going to face in the future.
    So, we focus a lot on what we call co-production of 
science, so that we are actually working with communities to 
understand what are the issues that they are wrestling with, 
and then how can we bring science to help support the decision 
making.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that. And the follow-up 
question is, can you sort of talk to the importance of funding 
this work?
    Mr. Applegate. Absolutely. Funding is a key part of this. 
In the budget request that we have put forward, we have a 
number of investments related to, particularly looking at 
community resilience, being able to see the science put to work 
and, again, understanding what the biggest challenges are that 
we can help to inform.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Great, thank you.
    I have no further questions. I just wanted to let Director 
Klein know that this is also the very respectful Committee on 
passion and body language. I am warning you in advance, and 
thank you.
    I am going to yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The next Member up is 
Representative Westerman, the Chair of the Full Committee.
    Representative Westerman.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, and thank you 
to the witnesses for being here today.
    Director Klein, in your testimony you state that BOEM is 
expected to publish the 5-year offshore leasing plan in 
September 2023. How many lease sales has BOEM traditionally 
offered in the Gulf of Mexico prior to Secretary Haaland's 
arrival and your arrival at the Department?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for that question. I don't have the 
numbers off the top of my head for all of the lease sales in 
the Gulf of Mexico for each 5-year program prior to the 
Secretary arriving. But, certainly, I know that I had the 
opportunity to be in the Gulf just last month for Lease Sale 
259, so we are continuing----
    Mr. Westerman. I will help you out. It has been at least 
two annually, and I believe you actually were able to do two 
lease sales because the IRA did two lease sales, and the 
proposed program published by BOEM in July 2022 includes two 
potential lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico for 2024. Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for the question. I believe the 
proposed program that we put out evaluated a range of options 
from 0 to the potential of 10 lease sales. We are, of course, 
required to evaluate a range of options. And as you know, the 
Secretary ultimately makes a decision balancing a range of 
factors for the final version of the program.
    Mr. Westerman. OK. Well, I believe you did put out two 
potential lease sales, but that leads into my next question. 
Have there been any specific environmental reviews undertaken 
or even started for those potential 2024 sales, regardless if 
it is 2 or 10?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you. As I said, we are working very hard 
to go ahead and put out the proposed final program by September 
2023. The Secretary----
    Mr. Westerman. But have you started any sale-specific 
environmental reviews for 2024 sales?
    Ms. Klein. We have not yet started any specific 
environmental reviews. Certainly, the Secretary is expected to 
make a decision before the end of the year.
    Mr. Westerman. OK, but you do have the ability to initiate 
that process as Director, correct?
    Ms. Klein. Again, the Secretary is expected to make a 
decision on the program by the end of the year. And once that 
decision articulates how many lease sales there will be, we 
will follow the law and proceed from there.
    Mr. Westerman. So, there have been no sale-specific 
environmental reviews undertaken and, if I am hearing you 
correctly, that is not going to happen until the end of the 
year, when the Secretary makes a decision.
    I have come to learn that at a recent Offshore Operators 
Committee meeting in New Orleans that BOEM officials suggested 
that the review timeline for NEPA for any forthcoming sales 
would take at least 2 full years. Is that correct?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for the question. I understand that 
environmental reviews can take a range of time to undertake, so 
I can't say that I can predict how long any particular review 
will take at this time.
    Mr. Westerman. Well, BOEM officials said it would take at 
least 2 full years. So, if the 5-year plan is finalized in 
December, and NEPA is projected to take 2 years, when will the 
first sale happen if it all goes perfectly?
    Ms. Klein. So, I think we are on track to put the proposed 
final program out in September. Then, the Secretary is expected 
to issue a decision before the end of the year. I think it is 
premature for me to say what might be in that decision.
    Mr. Westerman. So, if the end of the year or the start of 
next year is 2024, and it takes 2 years, as your office has 
said it will take to do NEPA permitting, we are talking about 
2026 before the first oil and gas lease can occur. That will be 
spring of 2026, at the earliest. Would you disagree with that 
or agree with that?
    Ms. Klein. As I said, I think it would be premature to 
predict the final decision that the Secretary makes in the 
program, which is expected before the end of the year.
    Mr. Westerman. So, it could be longer than that, but there 
is nothing out there that is going to speed that up, and this 
gets to my final point.
    The Inflation Reduction Act prevents the Agency from 
issuing wind leases unless an oil and gas sale is held within 
the previous year. If the only currently planned sale takes 
place in September of this year, and we have no oil and gas 
leases until 2026, what does that say about when wind leasing 
may occur?
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Westerman. And you can feel free to use the chart 
behind me, and I wouldn't say cheat, but if you need some help 
figuring out when that date is going to be----
    Ms. Klein. Thank you. We certainly take the direction that 
we have received in the Inflation Reduction Act seriously, and 
intend to follow the law in terms of the coupling, so to speak, 
between our offshore oil and gas lease sales and our offshore 
wind lease sales. I think, as I have mentioned in my opening 
statement, we feel confident in our ability to move forward 
with the President's goal of meeting 30 gigawatts of offshore 
wind by 2030.
    Mr. Westerman. Feeling confident and aspirational won't do 
much to help our energy situation here. And it appears to me 
that we are looking at no lease sales for oil and gas in 2024 
or 2025, and none for wind in 2025. That looks like where we 
are at in the process right now.
    My final question will be, is there anything you will try 
to do to speed that up? Because I know a lot of us are 
interested in all-of-the-above energy. And according to the 
IRA, you can't issue wind leases until you do some oil and gas 
leases.
    Ms. Klein. Thank you. From my perspective, I feel honored 
to be Director of BOEM at this time, and implement the 
President's priorities, follow the law----
    Mr. Westerman. Is it the President's priorities to not be 
energy independent and not to produce our own energy?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for that question. I think the 
President has indicated that energy security and energy 
independence is important to him, and one of the ways that he 
views we can do that is to facilitate renewable energy, 
including the wonderful domestic offshore wind energy we have 
here in the United States.
    Mr. Westerman. I apologize, Chairman. I went way over time. 
But thank you to the witnesses, and I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Lee for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the witnesses 
for being here today.
    Director Applegate, I would like to ask a couple of 
questions about you. I represent Nevada. As you know, we are in 
the middle of a 23-year drought, although there has been some 
recent rains, but it is still drought conditions. And water, 
every drop, counts. And as we know, the largest share of our 
water use is water loss. That comes from a combination of 
evaporation and transpiration, or evapotranspiration. I will 
just say ET from now on.
    Last month, I led a bipartisan, bicameral reintroduction of 
the Open ET Act. This is legislation that will establish an 
open access ET data program within the USGS to support the 
generation and distribution of satellite-based ET data. Can you 
explain why ensuring the accuracy and accessibility of such 
data is so critical to achieving a more sustainable future for 
places like the Colorado River Basin?
    Mr. Applegate. Thank you very much for the question. And as 
you indicated, evapotranspiration is a key component of 
understanding the overall water budget. One of our 
responsibilities at the USGS is to undertake a water census. 
So, this information that is derived from the Landsat satellite 
capability has been very valuable to us in understanding the 
complete picture.
    We are very, very pleased to be part of the Open ET 
consortium, working with university partners to be able to 
better characterize this tool capability, and also to explore 
how it can be applied more broadly.
    Mrs. Lee. Yes, thank you. You do play an active role behind 
this existing, but limited program. Not only NASA, non-profits, 
universities, the Environmental Defense Fund take part in this 
program, as well. And one of the survey's key partners in this 
effort is the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    So, I would like to ask you how you could highlight how and 
why farmers and ranchers stand to benefit as much as Federal, 
state, and local water managers from this enhanced and reliable 
data.
    Mr. Applegate. Thank you again for the question. And, of 
course, particularly as we think about the arid West, but even 
as we extend it into the somewhat more humid Midwest, for 
farmers, anyone west of the hundredth meridian, every drop 
counts when we think about irrigation practices. So, the better 
that we can characterize this aspect of that total water 
budget, certainly, is going to be a benefit to the agriculture 
community, just as it is for land managers and all of those who 
are concerned about the many, many uses of water in the West.
    Mrs. Lee. Clearly, water use is incredibly important to my 
state and all the seven states in the Colorado River Basin. And 
it is precisely all of the benefits you just highlighted that I 
led the effort to increase funding for the Open ET program from 
$1.5 million in Fiscal Year 2022 to $3.5 million in Fiscal Year 
2023. And I just want to say, I will remain committed to 
continuing to increase funding for this vital public-private 
partnership in Fiscal Year 2024.
    Before my time runs out, I want to just turn briefly to the 
3D Elevation program or 3DEP. This is, as you know, a goal to 
provide a national baseline of consistent topographic data. 
Since the full year of 3DEP production in 2016, the Southwest 
has been one of the most under-mapped regions, Nevada being the 
most under-mapped state.
    Can you provide an update of the status of 3DEP, both 
nationally and specifically the Southwest?
    And, also, when can Nevadans expect to have complete 3DEP 
coverage?
    Mr. Applegate. Sure, thank you for that question. And, of 
course, this has been just an extraordinary set of partnerships 
that have enabled us to collect this high-resolution elevation 
data with an extraordinary range of applications. Nationwide, 
we are at about 90 percent in terms of acquisition and 
acquisitions that are underway.
    For the Southwest, that number has lagged, in part with the 
heavy amounts of public lands, that somewhat limited the range 
of partners. But we are at about 85 percent.
    And specifically with Nevada, I am very pleased to see that 
we have been able to tap into a number of partnerships, 
including with some of the new investments associated with the 
infrastructure law. So, we are hoping to have acquisitions 
completed by the end of 2023 is my understanding.
    Mrs. Lee. Great, thank you. I look forward to continuing to 
work and support that effort. And I yield.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. Next up, Representative Collins for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Klein, I wanted to follow up on an answer that you 
gave Mr. Westerman. You said that the President said it was 
important for us to be energy independent. Is that also a 
priority?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for the question. I think the 
President has indicated that energy security and a transition 
to cleaner energy sources, tapping into the domestic resources 
we have offshore is a priority.
    Mr. Collins. All right, thank you. Also, Director Klein, 
the Biden administration prioritized its climate agenda over 
domestic energy production, and that has led to increased 
energy prices that affect all Americans, including Georgians, 
where I am from.
    Of serious concern, is the Agency's decision to issue 
leases in Cook Inlet in Alaska with the highest possible 
royalty rate due to undefined social cost of greenhouse gas 
emissions. With this in mind, I have a few questions that I 
wanted to run by you regarding the woke and pandering policies 
of this Administration, which Congress has not authorized or 
mandated.
    In my view, calculating the social cost of greenhouse gases 
is critically harmful to society, rather than helpful, due to 
the inherent uncertainties and limitations involved in your 
assumptions. I say assumptions, because they are not 
calculations because all we know there is no consensus on 
determining an accurate formula for social cost of GHG 
emissions.
    So, Dr. Klein, do you believe that energy security is a 
national security?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for the question. I think the 
President has said that he believes climate crisis is something 
that the Federal Government has an obligation to address. And 
the social cost of carbon that you mentioned is a way for 
operators to internalize the costs of their greenhouse gas 
emissions, and----
    Mr. Collins. No, I was asking do you believe that energy 
security is a national security?
    Ms. Klein. My job is to implement the President's 
priorities. And the President has indicated that energy 
security is a priority for this Administration.
    Mr. Collins. So, where in the law is the Agency directed to 
study the cost of greenhouse emissions and bake it into the 
royalty rates for offshore lease sales?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for the question. We are provided the 
authority under OCSLA to set royalty rates for our oil and gas 
lease sales, and the Inflation Reduction Act provided us with 
the direction to set a minimum and then a maximum. And within 
the analysis that was done in order to ensure a fair return to 
the taxpayer, and also to ensure that we are addressing the 
climate change impacts in a way that the President has said is 
a priority. We also calculated a social cost of carbon to set 
the royalty rate at 18.75 percent, which the Inflation 
Reduction Act allows us to do.
    Mr. Collins. So, do you believe that relying on these 
flawed or biased calculations for the social cost of GHG 
emissions that could ultimately do more harm than good?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for that. I, as Director of the Bureau 
of Ocean Energy Management, have the great privilege to work 
for just an amazing group of really dedicated, smart, 
hardworking public servants who contributed to that analysis.
    And the Inflation Reduction Act allows us to set both a 
minimum and a maximum for the royalty rate. The President has 
made clear that he thinks addressing the climate crisis is 
something the Federal Government has an obligation to do, and 
we are moving forward with that implementation of that priority 
in part through the setting of royalty rates.
    Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you, ma'am.
    Dr. Applegate, I am going to try to kick this out real 
quick. Uranium, while primarily is used as a fuel mineral, it 
is also been important in non-fuel uses related to national 
security. What sort of analysis determined that uranium's non-
fuel uses were no longer sufficient to qualify that as a 
critical mineral?
    Mr. Applegate. Thank you for that question. As I think 
reflected in your comment, the primary usage of uranium is as a 
fuel mineral. And the Energy Act of 2020 did exclude fuel 
minerals from the critical mineral list. And that was because 
of the dominant nature of that, that is what reflects its lack 
of inclusion----
    Mr. Collins. But you would say that it has non-fuel uses, 
as well.
    Mr. Applegate. Yes, more limited than the fuel uses.
    Mr. Collins. So, what made them no longer sufficient to 
qualify them as a critical mineral?
    Mr. Applegate. We would be happy to get back to you on the 
specifics in terms of what goes into the calculations 
associated with these determinations. But it is both looking 
from the standpoint of the resource itself, as well as looking 
at the vulnerability of supply chains. So, those are the 
factors that go into determination.
    But, again, specifically in the case of uranium, its 
exclusion does reflect the fact that we did have direction to 
not include fuel minerals.
    Mr. Collins. Would you say it is very important to national 
security, as far as non-fuel uses?
    Mr. Applegate. I will say that our focus is very much on 
being able to characterize all minerals, whether or not there 
is an inclusion in the critical minerals list. Our National 
Minerals Information Center is looking at all applications, all 
minerals. This is information that we see as being very 
important to determine to be able to address these.
    But I certainly can get back to you with any specifics on 
that question.
    Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you, sir.
    Sorry for going over, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Next up, Representative 
Huffman for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Klein, welcome to our Subcommittee. The purpose, I 
think, of this hearing is supposed to be to examine the 
President's budget request for your agency, but it sure didn't 
seem like it when you were taken down the rabbit hole of dog 
whistle conspiracy theories a little bit earlier in the 
hearing. I am sorry that you endured that, but thank you for 
your service, and for being here to answer our questions.
    I am going to stay focused on this issue of royalties. And 
I want to ask you about fossil fuels and the external costs 
that are inherent in the extraction and development of fossil 
fuels. We know residents of Cancer Alley in Louisiana, for 
example, have a 50 percent greater chance of developing cancer 
than other U.S. citizens. Health costs for communities like 
Cancer Alley, not to mention the cost for mitigating and 
adapting to sea level rise, seem like major factors in 
considering the costs of fossil fuels.
    Now, you have some discretion when it comes to setting 
royalty rates for individual lease sales, correct?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for the question. Yes, that is 
correct. We have discretion under OCSLA, and then the 
additional direction under the Inflation Reduction Act.
    Mr. Huffman. So, what does BOEM take into account when 
deciding royalties in these situations? Do you account for 
social costs?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for the question. Again, I think, the 
President has made clear that the climate crisis is something 
that the Federal Government has an obligation to do something 
about. There is a tremendous amount of effort across the 
Administration to address some of the very concerning impacts 
to communities that you noted there, from coastal erosion to 
extreme droughts and wildfires. These are having real impacts 
in communities across the country. And, certainly, as we 
calculate a social cost of carbon associated with the emissions 
of greenhouse gases, the types of costs associated with that 
are taken into account.
    And as we set royalty rates, the Inflation Reduction Act 
allowed both for a minimum and a maximum. And the folks at BOEM 
were able to set a royalty rate that we think ensures a fair 
return to the taxpayer, but also ensures that oil and gas 
operators are internalizing the costs of their activities.
    Mr. Huffman. I appreciate hearing that. I think it is 
appropriate that those who develop and profit from the 
extraction of fossil fuel bear those costs instead of 
externalizing them onto the public and onto communities like 
Cancer Alley. So, thank you for including that.
    I want to ask you now about a form of energy that is not 
causing cancer, that is not emitting greenhouse gases that are 
killing the planet. To my knowledge, this is a form of energy 
that doesn't involve explosions or massive spills that create 
ecological disasters. I don't think there has ever been a war 
fought over this form of energy. So, those concerned with 
energy security should embrace this form of energy. I am 
talking about wind energy and, in particular, offshore wind.
    I think you know that in my part of Northern California we 
have some of the best wind energy resources around. We are very 
excited to be moving forward after a successful auction. Yet, 
these floating offshore platforms do face some challenges. We 
have a relatively new technology and transmission challenges to 
really realize the full benefits of this.
    Can you speak to how BOEM is working with industry and the 
Department of Energy and other stakeholders to prepare for this 
new technology, especially in terms of siting?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you very much for that question. We 
certainly share the enthusiasm about the prospect for offshore 
wind off California. And I know the state of California is 
exceedingly excited about the prospects for offshore wind and 
meeting its own energy goals.
    We work very closely with the Department of Energy at BOEM 
on the floating offshore wind challenges. And I know Energy has 
set its own goals to try to support decreasing the costs of 
this new technology, because it does hold such great prospect 
for bringing offshore wind to coastlines where the topography 
wouldn't allow for necessarily your fixed turbines.
    So, we work closely with the Department of Energy, 
certainly, on transmission issues, as well. We recently 
concluded a series of workshops to do some planning on the 
Atlantic, and plan to do a similar effort on the Pacific, 
because we know that, certainly, making sure that we are taking 
a diligent and holistic approach to transmission planning will 
be crucially important for this industry, moving forward.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
    Director Huang, did you have anything to add to that?
    Mr. Huang. No. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 
Offshore floating wind is an emerging technology, and one that, 
thanks to the funding provided the last 2 years for BSEE, we 
have been able to staff up some researchers to ensure that we 
are coordinating with industry, researchers, and learning from 
global partners on how to safely stand up offshore floating 
wind.
    Due to the conditions in the Pacific, the depth of water, 
and seismic risk, floating wind seems to be a solid solution, 
and we have to just make sure that we are doing it safely in a 
way that is also protecting the environment.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. Just one last question.
    Director Klein, I am particularly interested in the energy 
transmission line bottleneck, and I just wonder if you could 
speak to how the funds that Congress provided in the Inflation 
Reduction Act last year are being put to use to make sure we 
are coordinating and streamlining and planning for the kind of 
transmission that we will need to speed this along.
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for that question and, certainly, BOEM 
is grateful for the funding identified in the Inflation 
Reduction Act that went to the Department of the Interior. BOEM 
will be able to avail itself of a portion of that to work on 
just these types of issues, the type of environmental analysis, 
and planning, and stakeholder engagement that is really crucial 
as we move through this process.
    And, certainly, our FY24 budget request also includes what 
we think are a reasonable approach to making sure that BOEM can 
be the most capable and efficient bureau that it can be on all 
of these issues.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the extra time. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Next up, Representative Duarte.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Director Klein, you mentioned 30 gigawatts of wind energy 
targeted by the Biden administration between now and 2030 to 
provide renewable energy. I am Googling it as you speak, and I 
find that America is currently using about 100 quadrillion 
BTUs--they call it a quad--a year, and that 30 gigawatts is 1 
percent of that. Is that as you understand it?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for the question. I don't know that I 
have seen those same sources, but would be happy to have my 
staff follow up with the specifics.
    Mr. Duarte. No, I just encourage you to have a conceptual 
idea of what we are talking about, because I believe that is 
true. I had my staff look at it.
    So, we are talking about 1 percent of the nation's energy 
demand between 2023 here and 2030 being put in wind energy. And 
we are talking about oil leases and gas leases kind of being 
drug their feet on, from our perspective. We don't have a plan 
B for carbon energy right now. Thirty gigawatts sounds great, 
but it is 1 percent of our total energy needs, and it is going 
to occur in this program alone over the next 8 years.
    So, it is not a solution. We are still working out 
transmission lines. The gentleman here is saying it is an 
emerging technology, and we have to make sure it is delivered 
safely. So, we really can't rely on it, and we are not 
developing the carbon energy sources we need today. And that 
concerns me, because I think it is imposing scarcity on working 
Americans nationwide. I think it is destroying their 
opportunity and affordability. And I think it is pushing many 
American working families up against the edge of privation with 
high energy costs, high food costs, and destroying our 
manufacturing base.
    Carbon energy or carbon gas and oil aren't just energy, 
they are also manufacturing, they are fertilizer, they are 
plastics, they are pharmaceuticals, they are chemicals. So, we 
are really destroying not only our energy base, but as well as 
our manufacturing base. I will stop there; I want to talk to 
Mr. Applegate.
    Thank you for coming today. I understand the USGS provides 
information, resources, and technologies that support decision 
making. In California, where I am from, in my district we stand 
to face torrential floods over the next few months. It is 
coming. The USGS has mapped the drainages, the water systems, 
where the channel flow is going to be.
    Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife, NOAA, have any of these groups approached you in 
the last few months--I am going to ask you to send me their 
communications--and asked you for resources from your USGS 
technologies to show them where the choke points are, where the 
most critical flooding is likely to occur, where the dredging, 
where the levees, where the infrastructure improvements need to 
be made posthaste, or at least where flood preparations can 
occur? Because catastrophic flooding is highly likely to come.
    Mr. Applegate. Thank you for that question. And, 
absolutely, in light of the really extraordinary sequence of 
atmospheric rivers that struck the state, now we are looking at 
this next phase of challenge.
    We work very closely with the state, with NOAA, with the 
Army Corps, with Reclamation, our sister bureau, a number of 
other partners to bring our science to bear, whether it is from 
the standpoint of monitoring----
    Mr. Duarte. Be very specific, please. In the last 3 months, 
since the beginning of the year, when the torrential flooding 
looks imminent, I would say, both on the coast and in the 
Central Valley are there specific programs that you are engaged 
in today or your group is engaged in today to deal with, map 
the flooding, look at where siltation has occurred in the last 
40 years, start to make moves?
    I can offer resources here in Congress. That is one thing 
we can do to help, is make sure you have authorizations and 
resources to deal with the flooding. So, specifically, can you 
provide me communications between yourself or your group and 
these agencies where there is flood planning going on today, 
using the information, resources, and other resources that you 
have?
    Mr. Applegate. Yes. Well, I will certainly get back to you 
with the specifics in terms of the interactions that are 
happening at our USGS California Water Science Center. But I do 
know that we are working with all of those partners on a 
weekly, even daily, basis. But I will get you the specifics in 
terms of the interactions.
    Mr. Duarte. Who is the lead agency status on that? Who are 
the local or state or Federal agencies in the Central Valley 
today that I can refer emergency personnel and concerned 
parties within my district to find out where the leadership is 
on flood preparations for this spring and summer?
    Mr. Applegate. At a state level or a Federal?
    Mr. Duarte. Whoever is in charge, whoever is going to help 
these people not get flooded.
    Mr. Applegate. Absolutely. Well, we work very closely on 
flooding and a range of other hazards with the California 
Governor's Office of Emergency Services, as well as with FEMA 
Region 9. So, the communities are at the tip of the spear for 
these issues.
    But we are there to ensure that our science is getting put 
to work and, certainly, can follow up with you on the specifics 
of the interactions.
    Mr. Duarte. Please do. I would love to find out that there 
is focused teamwork going on here to prevent flooding in my 
district and others.
    Mr. Applegate. Absolutely.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you.
    I will yield back. Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. Next up, Mr. Smith from New Jersey.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much, Chairman, for including 
me in this Subcommittee. And I thank the Ranking Member and 
both sides of the aisle for this courtesy.
    I represent several military installations in my New Jersey 
district, including Naval Weapons Station Earle, which supplies 
munitions for all Atlantic fleet carrier and expeditionary 
strike groups. Our ocean, as you know so well, is filled to 
overflowing with military and civilian vessels that may be 
significantly put at risk by radar malfunction caused by ocean 
wind turbines.
    I would note parenthetically, I recently learned that even 
the armed forces of Finland has expressed opposition to 
building wind farms over concerns with radar interference. And 
they have noted in their statement that a wind turbine, the 
distance between needs to be at least 40 kilometers, or about 
25 miles. Otherwise, there is disturbance.
    I have read BOEM's radar interference analysis from August 
2020, which stated in pertinent part future offshore wind 
energy installations on the Atlantic Coast may impact land-
based radar systems. And 2 years later, a 2022 study by the 
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 
determined that ``wind turbine generator returns obfuscate the 
marine vessel radar picture for both magnetron-based and solid 
state radar, thereby affecting navigation decision making.'' 
Their findings said matter of factly, ``Wind turbine generators 
lead to interference in marine vessel radar'' and will--this is 
their words--``frequently lead to unintended consequences of 
suppressing detection of small targets like boats or buoys, or 
creating misleading images on radar screens.''
    Ominously, the National Academy of Sciences report found, 
and I quote, ``wind turbine generator mitigation techniques 
have not been substantially investigated, implemented, matured, 
or deployed.''
    So, my question is, is that true? This was only issued last 
year. Is there the possibility that some 3,400 wind turbines 
proposed to be deployed off our coast could make navigation 
less safe?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you very much for the question. I think, 
since the beginning of the renewable energy program at BOEM, we 
have worked very closely with our partners at the Department of 
Defense all throughout the process, starting as we identify 
potential sites for offshore wind. We certainly take the input 
from the Department of Defense seriously, and make sure that we 
are deconflicting where we are placing these, suggesting that 
we lease for wind energy and making sure that we are not unduly 
impacting any Department of Defense activities. It is something 
we do throughout.
    Actually, there is a clearinghouse within the Department of 
Defense that we work closely with throughout, as I said, from 
the leasing process through any decision that might be made on 
an individual project.
    Mr. Smith. But, again, as they have suggested--and it is 
their conclusion, it is their finding--it has not been 
substantially investigated, implemented, matured, or deployed.
    And there is a relative fast tracking, and part of it is 
because of the Inflation Reduction Act with a tax credit that 
operations have to begin, at least, by January 2026, so there 
is a rush to get it done. I am very worried about all of that 
vessel traffic, and collisions, and worse that could happen.
    Ms. Klein. Thank you. Again, I think, in our engagements 
with the Department of Defense, we also, I would add, we also 
work very closely with the Coast Guard and with NASA. And it 
turns out our ocean is a busy place. So, from the beginning of 
the leasing process all the way up until the end, we make sure 
that we are seriously evaluating all of these potential impacts 
and minimizing any conflicts that may occur.
    I would say--not to speak on behalf of the Department of 
Defense--but it is my understanding that we have been able to--
--
    Mr. Smith. No, I am talking about all vessels, too, not 
just Defense, with all due respect.
    Ms. Klein. Sure, the Department of Defense recognizes the 
importance of offshore wind and the importance of working 
collaboratively together with BOEM as we move forward to 
deconflict areas on the OCS.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you. Director Klein, could I ask you, can 
these size-of-the-Chrysler-building wind turbines sustain a 
Category 3 or a Category 2 hurricane?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for the question. I am happy to have 
our folks get back to you on the details of the analysis that 
they do in terms of the ability of turbines to withstand 
extreme weather events.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you. I do have a number of other 
questions, but I see I am out of time. If I could submit it for 
the record, I would appreciate it.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Next up, Representative 
Gosar for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you folks for showing up today. We 
appreciate it. I understand that a bipartisan letter led by 
Senators Manchin and Sinema urged the Department of the 
Interior to re-evaluate if copper should be added to the 
critical minerals list, as an updated supply risk score for 
copper has indicated that it would now qualify for the list 
using your existing methodology.
    Considering the electrification goals of your 
Administration, that will require massive amounts of copper in 
the coming years. Will USGS, Mr. Applegate, commit to using its 
authority under the Energy Act of 2020 to re-evaluate the 
critical minerals list before its next required update in 2025?
    Mr. Applegate. Thank you very much for the question. There 
is no question that copper is essential for our economy. The 
terminology, though, of the critical minerals designation is, 
of course, both the importance of the mineral, as well as then 
the vulnerability of the supply chain.
    So, in the case of copper, of course, we produce a lot, we 
have secondary recovery in terms of recycling, and we have a 
number of key partners with which we have free trade agreements 
from which we receive imports.
    So, under our current assessment of the situation, it does 
not meet that criticality determination. But I would also 
stress that we are doing a tremendous amount of science, 
particularly through our earth mapping resource initiative, 
because copper deposits also are host to a whole range of other 
critical minerals, as well. So, the investments that we are 
making to better understand the copper resources in the United 
States are not impacted by that designation.
    We are continually assessing, changing, whether it is from 
a supply chain standpoint or other factors. But at this time, 
that has been our determination.
    Dr. Gosar. OK, I am going to take off with where you are 
saying that.
    Critical minerals uses, as you said, a number of factors to 
look at critically, which, by necessity, ranks certain minerals 
as more important and in danger of disruption than others. As 
you know, this can be extremely hard to predict, as mineral 
supply chains are subject to sudden changes due to shifting 
global circumstances. Uranium is a prime example of this. 
Uranium was removed from the previous version of the list, 
despite its well-known non-fuel uses, and the ongoing war in 
Eastern Europe increasing supply vulnerabilities.
    Would you agree that the inherent weaknesses in ranking 
non-fuel minerals by criticality at all, and that a scaled 
system may be better to capture global supply risk than a 
static list published every 3 years?
    I mean, these are so used in the technology, it is a little 
of this, a little of that. And you throw in the smelting 
process that we don't do, you turn over the predictability of 
the market to another country.
    Mr. Applegate. Thank you for that question. And this is a 
really important point, we don't just look at those minerals 
that fall within those very specific criteria that were 
identified for that list, because there are so many other 
minerals that are essential, and there are so many factors 
going into this.
    So, when we are thinking about this in our National 
Minerals Information Center, we are thinking about that whole 
range of minerals, that whole range of uses. We don't sort of 
stop looking at it, whether it is on that list or not on that 
list, and along the lines you identified, it is very much a 
continuum. So, that just underscores the importance of our 
continuing to review and assess the importance of these 
minerals, understand the supply chains, understand the 
resources.
    Dr. Gosar. You would be very supportive of a dynamic score 
that you are constantly watching and inventorying these types 
of minerals.
    Mr. Applegate. Well, right now, we are operating under 
specific direction through the Energy Act and so forth, to 
provide that critical minerals list. And I will just say that 
we do that within a context of a much broader assessment of the 
whole range of minerals, the whole range of supply chain 
issues, the resource assessments, and will continue to do that 
to try to provide the best information we can----
    Dr. Gosar. I have one more question, so I am going to cut 
you off a little bit there.
    Mr. Applegate. Yes.
    Dr. Gosar. So, the other part is not just the mining of 
this, it is the smelting and recovery of that that we are so 
dependent upon.
    There are new technologies that I am understanding that 
have now gone through proof of concept, and they are now 
looking at scale, they are finishing up scale, that actually 
would do that procedure or process from the ore by pulverizing 
it, electrifying it, and then stripping it, and you are given a 
silicate matrix as a leftover, and then you get a bar of 
everything else that you can separate. I think this ought to be 
something that we ought to really look at. It is very green, it 
is a very waterless process.
    But we tend to have the technology to do this better than 
anywhere else in the world. I would really like to see us 
really make a move to be less dependent upon China, even with 
our own ore.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Next up, the 
Representative from New Jersey, Mr. Van Drew.
    Dr. Van Drew. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having me here 
today.
    I don't know how to say it, but I guess just to say it, 
Director Klein, I don't agree with what you and your company is 
doing. And while BOEM continues to approve offshore wind lease 
areas at what I would call blinding rates, we have seen a wide 
array of those involved in the offshore wind process continue 
to express concerns about its current implementation.
    And you don't have to take that from me. I have my own 
sense of what it is going to do to tourism, what it is going to 
do to so many aspects of the economy, so many aspects of the 
environment, but let's hear what a few people say--direct 
quotes, no editorial work done by me. BOEM, NOAA, and RODA came 
out with a report, and I am sure you know about it. In their 
own report they released a report that said there is ``an 
enormous amount of research that is still needed in order to 
understand the impact of offshore wind on our environment and 
our fisheries.''
    And by the way, does anybody care about the fishermen? The 
people, I think, do.
    Maritime Transit, who worry of offshore wind's impacts when 
BOEM's own EISs claim impacts of industrial offshore wind on 
navigation and vessel traffic would be--quote, I am not 
editorializing--``it would be major, that it would increase the 
risk of collisions,'' which could result in ``personal injury 
or loss of life.''
    The Pentagon recently came out with a report. They revealed 
how multiple offshore wind leases lie directly on top of 
``highly problematic areas that might harm our national 
security.'' You can't make this stuff up. And I haven't even 
done a completely thorough investigation into this.
    The Coast Guard, who warn of radar interference from 
turbines and its potential impact on search and rescue 
operations; fishermen who worry that their entire industry is 
at risk of being eliminated, which it has been in many parts of 
Europe due to offshore wind; the weather sector, people are 
concerned what is going to happen, know that where these 
windmills are now you don't have hurricanes. We have some 
pretty good hurricanes out here on--I will just talk about the 
area I know best, the east coast of the United States of 
America, the area where I live, right along the shore. Coastal 
communities who are worried about the destruction of their 
pristine coastlines and impacts to the tourism industry.
    I want the Committee to understand there are going to be 
over, just in the beginning, 2 million acres of these things. 
There are going to be thousands of them. And this is just the 
beginning. It is just the start.
    Now, you would have to know New Jersey, and New York, and 
our whole coastal area a little better to know how important 
tourism is. It is the main industry that we have. And when you 
have thousand-foot-high windmills with lights on top of them 
that actually make noise when they are all whirring together, 
and the loss to the birds; I am sure you saw, maybe you didn't, 
you should have seen it, the eviscerated bald eagles that got 
sucked up into the wind turbines.
    We used to care about those things. That used to be what 
the environment was. And environmentalists, many of the ones 
that haven't gotten special funding, who are alarmed at the 
rate at which marine mammals are washing ashore near our 
offshore wind surveying sites where the surveys were done, and 
people say, oh, it just happens. No. We once in a while have 
had a whale that beached on our shores, but not dozens of 
whales, not dozens of porpoises. We don't even know why. They 
haven't even really started yet. They are going to be digging 
trenches on the ocean floor. They are going to be in the cold 
pool, which is one of the most environmentally sensitive areas 
there are.
    And the hundreds of thousands of coastal citizens. You 
ought to see it where I live, because I am telling you, people 
are getting mad. They are getting mad. You see signs everywhere 
to stop the windmills. You see people talk about the fact that 
they just don't want this in their communities. Some are as 
close as 9 miles away.
    So, my first question is simple, because I don't want to go 
on and on. If all these stakeholders in your own agency, your 
own agency, continue to express numerous concerns about 
offshore wind, do you believe BOEM has done due diligence in 
properly assessing the impacts of offshore wind? Do you really 
believe they have done due diligence?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for the question. I think, from the 
very beginning of the process that BOEM uses to identify places 
that seem ripe for this type of development, they ensure that 
they are identifying areas for lease that would minimize the 
amount of impacts to the environment and to other ocean users. 
And, really, throughout the process, we have----
    Dr. Van Drew. I only have a few seconds left, so I want to 
say this to you. I spoke to you folks a long time ago. I 
originally thought it sounded like a really neat idea. Not you, 
not you all, but others. So, I said, ``Will you at least try to 
work with the fishermen who are going to lose their business?'' 
It is always bad to destroy another business to create another 
one. It is wrong. And I asked afterward, ``Did you speak with 
them?''
    ``Yes.''
    ``Did you have a good conversation?''
    ``Yes, we worked everything out.''
    We had a hearing--not the recent one--we had a hearing 
years ago in our area, 150 fishermen there. I asked how many 
people did BOEM speak to. These were the major commercial 
fishermen in the area. Three people raised their hand, and 
those three people actually worked for Orsted, the company 
itself.
    So, I will, I guess--do I have time, or do I have to yield 
back my time? Mr. Chairman, do I still have some more time?
    Mr. Stauber. I would quickly wrap it up.
    Dr. Van Drew. OK. That is your nice way of saying it.
    So, I think you are going to hear more from me. I think you 
are going to hear not from hundreds, but tens of thousands of 
residents who don't want this. I think you are going to hear 
from leaders. We currently have dozens upon dozens of mayors 
who have even been offered money not to shut up, but still have 
put their mouth where the truth is, and have actually said that 
this is wrong, and it is bad for our area. We have people that 
are standing up and telling the truth. This is going to cause 
way more harm than good. It is not good for our area, and we 
don't want it in New Jersey, particularly.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Stauber. You are welcome. Next up, Mr. Graves from 
Louisiana for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Graves gets going, 
could I ask unanimous consent to enter a couple of things in 
the record?
    Mr. Stauber. Yes.
    Mr. Huffman. The first would be an article about a Brown 
University report showing how some of these Astroturf fossil 
fuel-funded organizations opposing offshore wind on the East 
Coast are using disinformation, logical fallacies, conspiracy 
theories, fake experts, and cherry-picked facts.
    Mr. Stauber. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

Brown Report Claims Anti-Wind Group Uses Deceit, Delay, Denial and 
Chicanery to Sabotage Crucial Renewable Energy

Green Oceans' persuasion methods echo those of national climate change 
deniers

ecoRI, April 11, 2023 by Mary Lhowe/ecoRI News contributor

https://ecori.org/brown-report-claims-anti-wind-group-uses-deceit-
delay-denial-and-chicanery-to-sabotage-crucial-renewable-energy/

                                 *****

Green Oceans, a Little Compton, R.I.-based citizens group that lobbies 
against offshore wind projects, bases its arguments on techniques of 
disinformation--skewed and cherry-picked facts, obstruction, denial, 
delay, fake experts, conspiracy theories, and logical fallacies--that 
are taken directly from the playbook of national climate change denial 
organizations and obstructionists funded by the fossil fuel industry.

That's the conclusion of a 22-page report by the Climate and 
Development Lab at Brown University.

The Lab released the report today under the formal title ``Discourses 
of Climate Delay in the Campaign Against Offshore Wind: A Case Study 
from Rhode Island.'' Climate Jobs Rhode Island collaborated on the 
report.

The report opens by restating the urgency of global warming, which 
threatens Rhode Island with deadly high temperatures and coastal 
flooding. It states, ``Rhode Island needs to rapidly transition to 
renewable energy and eliminate its dependency on fossil fuels,'' and 
calls offshore wind ``the most viable renewable technology to meet our 
state's energy demands.''

J. Timmons Roberts, professor of environmental studies and of 
environment and society and sociology at Brown University, said, ``For 
Rhode Island to do its share in fighting climate change, offshore wind 
is the most viable and abundant resource we have. There has been a 
decade of planning and negotiation and biological studies, and now it 
is time to get building because we are already behind if we want to 
save a livable future for our children.''

It then launches into 16 pages, followed by references, of scathing 
analysis about the ways Green Oceans replicates the disinformation 
methods used by oil industry-funded think tanks such as the Texas 
Public Policy Foundation and the Caesar Rodney Institute. The anti-wind 
rhetoric of these groups ``often disguises itself as pro-
environmental,'' the report notes.

Green Oceans members say they fear the environmental consequences of 
building hundreds of wind turbines on the Outer Continental Shelf, but 
the report says the group is using arguments designed, ultimately, to 
keep the fossil fuel industry rich.

The report emphasizes the need ``to understand the . . . networks of 
mis/disinformation that are seeking to obstruct . . . renewable energy, 
as a strategy to maintain fossil fuels as a dominant energy (and 
profit) resource.''

Green Oceans was founded last December and some of its core members own 
property in seaside Little Compton. It has promoted its anti-offshore 
wind views through newspaper opinion pieces, public forums, a 
PowerPoint presentation, and a white paper. It has focused its 
opposition on Revolution Wind, which expects to receive final 
permission this summer to build up to 100 wind turbines off the 
southeasterly coast of Rhode Island.

Roberts said, ``It is important for people to have their own 
perspective about whether they want energy infrastructure in their 
neighborhoods, but they don't get to make up their own facts.''

ecoRI News asked Green Oceans on April 11 to read the Brown University 
report and offer its reactions and rebuttals. Elizabeth Knight, the 
main spokesperson for the group, said no one would be available today 
to speak to a reporter about the report. She said, ``It is too bad they 
are focusing on `technique' as opposed to addressing the actual issues 
about which we are concerned. That sadly diverts the conversation away 
from facts and the truth and squanders the effort to actually try to do 
the right thing.''


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The `Discourses of Climate Delay' framework. (Brown University)

The first framework is Discourses of Climate Delay (Lamb et al. 2020), 
which offers four categories of obstructionism--three of which are 
heavily used by Green Oceans--and includes several specific examples 
that apply to Green Oceans' communications.

The first category, ``Emphasize the Downsides,'' presents the costs of 
mitigating climate change, such as harms to sea life, as worse than the 
costs of doing nothing. ``Redirect Responsibility'' implies that 
others--but not the historically biggest polluters, like the United 
States--should take the lead in solving climate change. The third 
category, ``Push Non-Transformative Solutions,'' refers to rejecting 
wind power in favor of technologies that are not viable now, such as 
hydrogen and fusion, and those that are not welcome in peoples' 
backyards, like nuclear.

The second framework, named FLICC (Cook 2020), describes five 
techniques of science disinformation and gives examples of how these 
are used by Green Oceans.

The five techniques are fake experts, spokespeople who convey the 
impression of expertise on a topic when they have none; logical 
fallacies, which occur in arguments where the starting assumptions do 
not logically lead to the conclusion; impossible expectations, 
described as unrealistic or unattainable standards of scientific proof; 
cherry-picking, meaning selectively choosing data that lead to a 
conclusion different from the conclusion from all available data; and, 
finally, conspiracy theories, or suggestions of secret plans to 
implement nefarious schemes.

The Brown report gives several examples of Green Oceans' arguments 
against offshore wind and shows how the arguments track with the 
disinformation techniques of ``Discourses'' and ``FLICC.''
Emphasize the Downsides/Policy Perfectionism

CO2 Emissions: Green Oceans says wind turbine structures would provide 
habitat for invasive filter feeders that eat phytoplankton and release 
CO2. The Brown report says this example of policy perfectionism 
portrays offshore wind as imperfect technology with hidden forms of 
harm, thus introducing doubt and distraction, and encouraging inaction. 
Here, Green Oceans is using ``blowfishing''--focusing on an 
inconsequential aspect of scientific research, blowing it out of 
proportion to distract or cast doubt--to exaggerate the scale of 
filter-feeder emissions. The report says various studies show the life-
cycle emissions of offshore wind facilities at about 6 to 13 pounds of 
CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), whereas natural gas-fueled electricity 
generation releases about 500 pounds per kWh, making wind energy nearly 
50 times better for the climate. (Techniques used: logical fallacies 
and blowfishing).


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The `FLICC' framework. (Brown University)

Endangered Species: Green Oceans claims offshore wind would threaten 
the North Atlantic right whale and other species, partly due to 
acoustic soundings on the seafloor to determine locations for turbines. 
The report says Green Oceans cited two ``highly speculative'' articles 
to claim dangers of wind facilities, one of them published by the 
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which denied the existence of 
human-caused climate change until 2016 and received substantial funding 
from ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and the Charles Koch Foundation. The 
second article included false claims about offshore wind's harms to 
marine mammals that were later debunked by scientists from the federal 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and oceanographers at the 
University of Rhode Island. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration supports wind energy while saying that continued data 
collection about ocean life impacts is needed and ongoing. NOAA also 
recently issued a final opinion that said an offshore wind project near 
New Jersey was likely to adversely affect, but not jeopardize, sea 
life, include right whales. Also, according to NOAA and the Marine 
Mammal Commission, there is no evidence that offshore wind construction 
leads to whale deaths. (Techniques: fake experts, conspiracy theory, 
cherry-picking, logical fallacies, blowfishing, and misrepresentation).
Appeal to Social Justice

Jobs and Economic Development: In its PowerPoint, Green Oceans said 
Revolution Wind would create 800 to 1,200 jobs for two years and 50 
permanent jobs, but it dropped the mention of 800 to 1,200 jobs from 
its white paper. Orsted, co-developer of Revolution Wind, said the 
project would create 1,660 construction jobs and thousands of other 
``indirect or induced jobs.'' Climate Jobs Rhode Island, working with 
Cornell University, has predicted tens of thousands of new jobs for 
Rhode Island if the state installs 3,000 megawatts of wind power by 
2040. Revolution Wind is designed to produce 700 megawatts; other 
offshore wind projects are in planning stages. (Techniques: cherry-
picking and ``slothful induction,'' defined as ignoring relevant 
evidence when coming to a conclusion).

Impact on Fishing: NOAA and BOEM have strongly asserted that research 
on the impacts of offshore wind on ecosystems must continue, in 
collaboration with the fishing industry. Green Oceans, the report says, 
``focuses on specific studies without contextualizing larger efforts to 
understand the issue.'' Green Oceans also fails to acknowledge how 
warming waters and ocean acidification caused by climate change are 
harming fish and other sea life. Green Oceans also claims that ``wind 
farms can increase water and air temperatures . . . rising ambient 
temperatures can affect fish larvae.'' However, the report says, ``the 
article the group cites to support this argument makes no reference to 
offshore wind development.''

Green Oceans argues that toxic heavy metals coating turbine towers 
would contaminate the ocean, but the very detailed Construction and 
Operation Plan for Revolution Wind makes no mention of heavy metals in 
coatings. Conversely Orsted, the co-developer of Revolution Wind, 
presents ways to mitigate environmental harm during construction with 
methods like bubble curtains, noise mitigation screens, hydro sound 
dampers, and suction bucket jackets. 0rsted is funding research on 
environmental impacts and best mitigation practices by New England 
Aquarium and Inspire Environmental. The report says, Green Oceans 
ignore these efforts and ``fails to acknowledge information published 
by developers and regulators that describes their efforts to minimize 
infrastructure impacts on marine ecosystems.'' (Techniques: logical 
fallacies, misrepresentation, cherry-picking, slothful induction).
Redirect Responsibility/Whataboutism

Offsetting Carbon Emissions: Green Oceans says Rhode Island can offset 
only the amount of CO2 that it emits, which is the second lowest of any 
state. The report says this is false. Rhode Island is part of a New 
England-wide electricity grid, and the 400 MW of electricity it intends 
to buy from Revolution Wind would account for 40% of the state's 
anticipated 2030 electricity demand. In an example of ``whataboutism,'' 
Green Oceans says other countries and states produce more greenhouse 
gas emissions than Rhode Island, so those have greater responsibility 
for the problem of global warming.

The Brown report says, ``Rhode Island is complicit in the climate 
crisis and its size . . . is not an excuse for inaction.'' Viewed 
globally, between 2000 and 2019, Rhode Island produced an average of 10 
tons of energy-related CO2 emissions per person, which was double the 
global average over the same period. Green Oceans' attempt to portray 
the state's emissions as insignificant is a red herring--or logical 
fallacy--that overemphasizes one point--the state's small size--to 
distract from the larger issue of global climate change. (Technique: 
logical fallacies, red herring).
Push Non-Transformative Solutions/Technological Optimism

Fusion: Green Oceans suggests nuclear fusion as an alternative to 
offshore wind, even as it acknowledges that this technology is a decade 
or more from commercial feasibility. ``Technological optimism'' is used 
here to offer a technology that does not yet exist as superior to one--
offshore wind power--that has been commercially available for 30 years. 
Also, Green Oceans cites a 2022 New York Times article that discussed 
nuclear fusion, but The Times said this was not a viable option in the 
near future. The Brown report says, ``Green Oceans cherry-picks 
information from this article and ignores relevant evidence in order to 
present a false conclusion--a textbook example of slothful induction.'' 
(Techniques: cherry picking, wishful thinking).

Dismissing Current Wind Technologies: Green Oceans says the electrical 
output of offshore wind projects, specifically Revolution Wind, would 
not significantly offset greenhouse gas emissions. ``Here, Green Oceans 
deploys the discourse of `oversimplification' by drawing conclusions . 
. . based only on the minimum requirements,'' the report says. 
Discussing technical and economic costs of offshore wind, Green Oceans 
cited the Manhattan Institute, a think tank connected to the fossil 
fuel industry that published climate denial statements as recently as 
last month. (Techniques: logical fallacies, oversimplification, fake 
experts).
Fossil Fuel Solutionism

Natural Gas: Green Oceans suggests ``immediately converting coal plants 
in the U.S. to natural gas.'' The Brown report notes Rhode Island does 
not burn coal, and that natural gas accounted in 2021 for 87% of the 
state's total electrical generation. In 2020, natural gas created 5.3 
million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in Rhode Island, for 
54% of the state's total CO2 emissions. Introducing coal into 
discussion about reducing emissions in Rhode Island is a red herring, 
the report says, deployed to distract from the fact that natural gas is 
not a ``clean'' fuel. ``Warming from carbon dioxide and methane 
emissions from natural gas production, transmission and combustion is 
comparable to that of other fossil fuels,'' the report states, adding 
that Green Oceans ``ignores the abundance of science on the harms of 
natural gas.'' (Techniques: logical fallacies, red herring, cherry-
picking).

The Brown report concludes by saying Green Oceans is not an isolated 
phenomenon, but, in fact, part of a ``very vocal international network 
that attacks renewable energy development, circulates talking points 
rooted in misinformation, and sometimes shares lawyers, lobbyists 
advisors and donors'' in a ``web of deceit and obstruction of climate 
action.''

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. And then the second is an article how some of 
our colleagues in Congress who have suddenly discovered an 
interest in protecting whales have had numerous opportunities 
to support legislation and other efforts to protect whales, and 
were not interested until a chance to oppose offshore wind came 
along.

    Mr. Stauber. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

Why Republicans suddenly hate offshore wind

GOP concerns about wind energy and whale deaths nearly tripped up the 
big energy and permitting bill. Democrats say their arguments ``ring 
hollow.''

E&E Daily, March 31, 2023 by Kelsey Brugger, Nico Portuondo

https://www.eenews.net/articles/why-republicans-suddenly-hate-offshore-
wind/

                                 *****

In the weeks before their massive energy package reached the House 
floor, some Republicans were aghast about marine mammal deaths--and 
blamed the burgeoning offshore wind industry.

They said the rush to build out offshore wind in the Atlantic has been 
killing whales at a rapid clip and they tried to use the legislation to 
address their concerns.

``Like the canary in the coal mine, the recent spate of tragic whale 
deaths shed new light and increased scrutiny to the fast-tracking of 
thousands of wind turbines off our coast,'' Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) 
declared at a packed field hearing in New Jersey earlier this month.

The concern among Republicans was great enough that it cast some doubt 
on whether the energy package, H.R. 1 , the ``Lower Energy Costs Act,'' 
would have enough votes to pass. In the end, concerned lawmakers got 
whale- and wind-focused provisions added.

Despite that resolution, the issue shows no sign of dying down. Former 
President Donald Trump famously railed against wind turbines. And 
conservative media and commentators like Fox News' Tucker Carlson, who 
has been running a series titled ``The Biden Whale Extinction,'' have 
continued elevating the issue on the right.

Since December, 30 whales have been found dead along the Atlantic 
coast, many of them in New Jersey. Eight dolphins were found dead in 
New Jersey this week.

Though NOAA Fisheries says there is no evidence that preparations to 
build offshore wind facilities were the cause of the deaths, and blamed 
many deaths on vessel strikes, that hasn't stopped Republicans from 
beating the drum on the issue.

Democrats are dismissing the outrage as a blatant attempt to give 
fossil fuel interests an advantage. They say the sudden concern amounts 
to misinformation backed by oil money and the Koch network.

``Given their political track record on not supporting a lot of 
conservation bills, the argument does ring hollow,'' said Rep. 
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the House Natural 
Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

Renewable energy proponents acknowledge that all human activity in the 
ocean poses impacts--whether from oil and gas or wind energy.

``The fates of all sectors are intertwined,'' said Alex Herrgott, a 
former Trump administration official and president of the Permitting 
Institute, a nonprofit with offshore wind and oil and gas members. 
``You can't single out one for attack without creating a new hurdle for 
the sector you were trying to help.''

Ultimately, he said, ``whales don't care what the drilling, surveys and 
vessel traffic is for.''
`People are really concerned'

At one point this week, the uproar over wind energy seemed big enough 
to threaten the ``Lower Energy Costs Act.'' Ultimately, it passed the 
House on Thursday mostly along party lines.

Multiple amendments requiring the federal government to study a range 
of potential offshore wind turbine impacts eased concerns among 
Republicans--and got Democratic buy-in.

One, from Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), would require the Government 
Accountability Office to study the impact on, among other things, 
military readiness (E&E Daily, March 30).

Another, from Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), would require the GAO to 
publish a report on all potential adverse effects of wind in the North 
Atlantic Planning Area. Those include maritime safety, the economy, the 
environment and endangered species.

``People are really concerned, and they're not all Republicans; they're 
independents, middle-of-the-roaders,'' Van Drew, who helped lead the 
field hearing, told E&E News. ``People love whales and dolphins, and 
this gets them going.''

Democrats, meanwhile, tried to offer an amendment in favor of wind, but 
it failed. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) scoffed at the Republican-led 
amendments, saying they gave ``hot air'' to the ``fictions'' about 
offshore wind.

He pointed to information from NOAA stating there is ``no specific 
links between recent large whale mortalities and currently ongoing 
surveys.''

The clean energy lobby argued that federal agencies have been studying 
an increase in whale deaths since 2016--well before any offshore wind 
construction began.

``Disinformation shouldn't dictate policy,'' American Clean Power 
Association CEO Jason Grumet said.

One of the key witnesses from the March New Jersey field hearing, David 
Stevenson, has been a consistent opponent of offshore wind projects 
(E&E Daily, March 17). The organization he works for, the Caesar Rodney 
Institute, has received funding from American Fuel & Petrochemical 
Manufacturers. CRI is also connected to the State Policy Network, which 
receives money from Koch network foundations.

House Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), one of the 
chief drivers of H.R. 1, laughed off the idea that dark money groups 
were potentially driving the anti-offshore wind push.

``I find that amazing,'' he said during an interview at the Republican 
retreat in Orlando, Fla., earlier this month. ``It doesn't change the 
fact that there are dead whales washing up on the shore. You would 
think the environmental groups would be raising the red flag. But they 
are turning a blind eye.''

Westerman and several other Republicans interviewed for this story 
called Democrats guilty of double standards.

``Had that happened in the Gulf of Mexico, everybody would be blaming 
the oil industry,'' he said.

``The only thing that is changing on the East Coast is the wind 
industry. I don't know if that's affecting the whales or not, but we 
should probably do some kind of a study to find out what is causing 
those whale deaths.''

Westerman's remarks were before the energy bill hit the House floor. 
But by Wednesday, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) was willing to point the 
finger at the energy transition.

``The Green New Deal is on the backs of marine life,'' he said. ``It's 
something that, in this rush to renewables, Democrats frankly ignore.''
Interest `suddenly springs up'

The whale issue could put Democrats in a difficult spot.

At a recent hearing, Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) pressed an oil 
executive whether he cared about whale deaths--specifically blaming 
seismic surveys.

It did not take long for offshore wind proponents to take note and 
worry that those arguments could come back to bite Democrats, 
especially since wind energy requires seafloor-penetrating surveying 
and pile driving during construction activities.

When asked about the whale-and-wind issue, other climate-minded 
Democrats downplayed concerns.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said there's ``no evidence'' of wind 
activities affecting whales.

``I think this is another evidence-free effort to try to interfere with 
[energy] competition for their fossil fuel overlords,'' he said.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a senior member on the House Natural 
Resources Committee, argued that for the last decade Democrats have 
authored bills to protect marine mammals, particularly the right 
whale--with little Republican support.

``But this interest in whales just suddenly springs up when offshore 
wind is starting to take off and threaten fossil fuels,'' he said.

Just this week, the White House put out a fact sheet detailing its 
advances on offshore wind. President Joe Biden has set a goal of 
deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind electricity by 2030.

Still, Democrats are beginning to press the administration on the whale 
deaths. In a letter this week to NOAA, five senators raised concerns on 
the matter, though they did not mention the offshore wind industry.
About-face for some

Republicans were more inclined to support offshore wind when it was 
still a futuristic energy source, said Dave Anderson of the Clean 
Energy Policy Institute, which advocates for renewables. Now that it 
stands to seriously compete with oil and gas, he argued, they oppose 
it.

``It's easy to say nice things about renewables when they are not 
actually happening,'' he said.

In 2019, when the Trump administration delayed the Vineyard Wind 
project off the coast of Massachusetts and ordered more environmental 
reviews, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) joined Northeast Democrats to urge 
the administration to move ahead.

``We believe it is possible for multiple industries to coexist in mixed 
use regions offshore,'' the bipartisan group of lawmakers wrote in 
their letter.

But this week, the now-House majority leader was singing a different 
tune: ``I mean, there are whales that are showing up dead on the 
beach,'' he told reporters.

Industry sources do acknowledge they have a public relations problem.

``We can complain all we want that it's not us, but there's a huge 
constituency out there, both on the left and the right, that believes 
that sound kills whales in the oceans,'' said one industry lobbyist, 
granted anonymity to speak candidly. ``And we have not spent nearly 
enough to fight that dynamic.''

Reporters Timothy Cama and Heather Richards contributed.
                                 ______
                                 
    Dr. Van Drew. Mr. Chairman, can I enter this into the 
record, please: ``Pentagon Sounds Alarm Over Biden Plan for 
Offshore Wind.'' It is Green Politics.

    Mr. Stauber. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

Pentagon Sounds Alarm Over Biden Plan for Offshore Wind

Bloomberg, April 17, 2023 by Jennifer A Dlouhy

Updates with details from a senior Defense Department official from 
seventh paragraph.

 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-17/pentagon-calls-
biden-wind-farm-plans-problematic-for-us-military#xj4y7vzkg

                                 *****

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Photographer: Eric Thayer/Bloomberg

    The Orsted Block Island Wind Farm off Rhode Island, the first 
offshore wind farm in the US, pictured in 2016.

The Pentagon is sounding alarms over Biden administration plans to 
advance offshore wind projects along the central Atlantic US coast, 
warning that almost all of the new terrain eyed for development 
conflicts with military operations.

Maps shared with industry stakeholders and seen by Bloomberg News show 
vast red areas that the Navy and Air Force have deemed ``highly 
problematic,'' covering prime real estate the Interior Department last 
year earmarked for leasing off the coasts of North Carolina, Virginia, 
Maryland and Delaware.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


The Defense Department's concerns, which come on top of other 
conflicts identified by the US Coast Guard, have spooked renewable 
power developers and US East Coast states counting on mid-Atlantic wind 
farms to meet clean energy and climate goals.

The breadth of the Pentagon's opposition could imperil President Joe 
Biden's bid to install 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power--equivalent 
to 30 nuclear reactors--by the end of the decade, newly bolstered state 
goals for the development and planned manufacturing facilities in 
Maryland and Virginia tied to the nascent US industry.

The clash represents the latest threat to the fledgling industry that 
is already grappling with supply chain challenges, inflation-stoked 
prices and opposition from coastal communities.

Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management emphasized in an emailed 
statement that the US ``is well positioned to satisfy state and federal 
offshore wind goals as we develop the clean energy economy.''

A senior Defense Department official stressed that the maps represent 
an initial stage of discussions with the ocean energy bureau and that 
the Pentagon is committed to finding ways to accommodate leasing in the 
region.

The Pentagon has identified challenges operating around wind turbines 
that would be installed into the seabed in Atlantic waters near many of 
its operations and facilities, including North Carolina's Dare County 
bombing range, used for training fighter jet crews, and a weapons 
station in Yorktown, Virginia. They are documented vividly on a map of 
Navy and Air Force concerns, dated Oct. 6, 2022, and circulated with 
industry and state stakeholders this month.

Four of six potential wind lease areas outlined by the ocean energy 
bureau last November are completely shaded red, including two deep-
water parcels that might require floating turbines. The remaining two 
tracts, in yellow, are identified as requiring further study. The areas 
deemed highest priority by the Pentagon span a large portion of 
potential lease areas off the Maryland and North Carolina coasts.

The Defense Department official said the representations were designed 
to pinpoint areas that present the most challenges--generally where the 
Pentagon would be unable to continue its mission as currently conducted 
in the space. The focus going forward is on finding ways to accommodate 
wind development, including by adjusting operations to allow the 
activity, the official said. That could take the form of shifting the 
location of military exercises and other steps--such as optimizing 
radar processing systems--to minimize interference from turbines.

The two tracts marked in yellow are the least problematic, with 
concerns the Pentagon views as solvable, the Defense Department 
official said.

Similar Defense Department concerns helped derail plans for offshore 
oil leasing in waters near Virginia's coast roughly a decade ago. And 
after the Pentagon warned the Interior Department against offshore wind 
leasing near the California coast in 2019, it took roughly three years 
to resolve the matter. The Interior Department had been on track to 
sell new offshore wind rights in the mid-Atlantic early next year--and 
significant delays could make it harder for developers to claim newly 
expanded tax credits for the multibillion-dollar ventures that can take 
years to permit and build.

The ocean energy bureau expressed confidence it could resolve the 
dispute. The agency ``has a long working relationship'' with the 
Defense Department ``and together we have successfully deconflicted and 
identified areas that have resulted in 27 leases along the Atlantic 
coast, covering over 2.1 million acres,'' it said in its statement. 
``We will continue this collaboration as we seek to identify new lease 
areas in the central Atlantic.''

When asked for comment, JC Sandberg, the American Clean Power 
Association's chief advocacy officer, said that the industry is ``fully 
committed to national security'' and co-existing with other ocean 
users.

``Leasing in the central Atlantic is critical to growing the offshore 
wind industry to meet state and federal clean energy goals,'' and to 
sustaining supply chain investments in the region, Sandberg said. ``The 
Department of Defense staff's maps serve as a stark reminder that 
there's work to do. We need a coordinated, all-of-government approach 
to offshore wind to ensure that the industry can grow while protecting 
national security interests at the same time.''

The maps have inspired a frenzy of calls and meetings as alarmed 
offshore wind advocates ask top administration officials to referee the 
dispute and broker a compromise. Just last week, Maryland lawmakers 
passed legislation setting a state goal to derive 8.5 gigawatts of 
power from offshore wind by 2031--but under the Pentagon's vision, the 
state could struggle to find roughly half of that.

Already, most of Maryland's congressional delegation had implored the 
Defense Department, Coast Guard and other government agencies to 
``maximize the acreage available for offshore wind development in the 
central Atlantic'' and work to expand the potential areas for leasing.

Robust offshore wind leasing along the US mid-Atlantic is seen as 
essential to filling a pipeline of projects that can support planned 
investments in manufacturing facilities in the region, including the 
planned Sparrows Point Steel factory near Baltimore.

Supporters argue the work is also critical to hitting the nation's 
climate targets. Because of its massive scale and high generating 
capacity, offshore wind is viewed as a particularly important source of 
renewable power.

And now, offshore wind advocates are throwing the military's own 
warnings back at the Pentagon. A shift to renewable power sources helps 
shrink US reliance on volatile commodities for energy, thereby 
strengthening national security, they say. The Defense Department and 
US intelligence agencies also have repeatedly cast climate change as a 
threat to American military assets and global security.

``Offshore wind can enhance national security,'' Sandberg said, ``by 
providing a clean and affordable source of energy protected from the 
whims of global commodity prices.''

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. The Chair will now recognize Mr. Graves from 
Louisiana for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Graves. I just didn't know why my friend from 
California decided to UC right before I spoke. I feel like that 
was intentional. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I want to thank 
my friend from California.
    Thank you all for being here today. Here is what I want to 
understand. In the President's budget request, you are showing 
revenue in FY24 from OCS production, right? Let me clarify: 
bonus bids, which would mean from new leases in FY24.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Graves. Can I get an amen?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for the question. I think that is 
accurate, although I would have to go back and have my staff 
confirm.
    Mr. Graves. Well, it is. So, you all are showing bonus bids 
in FY24. But as the Chairman noted earlier, there is a lead 
time that is required to actually go to lease sale. You can't 
just make it pop up. You actually have to do a good bit of lead 
work in order to move toward lease sale. And when I look at the 
activities that the Department has taken thus far, I don't see 
you hitting an FY24 lease sale--which, I will make note, is 
actually mandated--so I am curious if you can help me 
understand how you are going to hit an FY24 target on a lease 
sale when you haven't taken pre-leasing activities that are 
necessary to actually lease.
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for the question. At BOEM we are 
working very hard to get the proposed final program out in 
September, which, as you know, identifies lease sales that may 
happen over the next 5-year period. The Secretary expects to 
make a decision before the end of the year.
    I am not in a position to predict at this point what the 
Secretary will decide before the end of the year. But, 
certainly, whatever is in the program, we will move forward to 
implement it and follow the law.
    Mr. Graves. So, when you talk about the Secretary's 
discretion that she may or may not exercise, where do you view 
her authority to exercise discretion whenever the law mandates 
a lease sale?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you. If I am understanding the question 
correctly, certainly in the 5-year program, which is a schedule 
of lease sales, we are working hard to put out the next version 
of that, the proposed final. We put out the proposed program in 
2022. The proposed final program is the next step in the 
development of the OCS national program. She expects to issue 
the final decision on that program before the end of the year.
    Mr. Graves. So, just for clarification purposes for the 
Committee, are you suggesting that the Secretary may decide to 
not move forward with the lease sale that is mandated under 
law?
    Ms. Klein. Thank you for the question. The national 
program, of course, identifies whatever lease sales will take 
place in a 5-year period. I can't predict what her decision 
will be in terms of the next national program for the next 5 
years, but we expect her to make that decision before the end 
of the year.
    Of course, part of my job as Director of BOEM is to 
implement the President's priorities and follow the law.
    I was just in the Gulf of Mexico last month during Lease 
Sale 259, and we are on track to have Lease Sale 261 in 
September.
    Mr. Graves. OK. I am going to take that as a yes, maybe.
    So, last question for you. Under the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
Security Act, the Gulf states share in revenues from offshore 
energy production. And under my home state's constitution in 
Louisiana, we require that those funds be used for coastal 
restoration, for hurricane protection-type activities. So, 
whenever the Administration decides unilaterally that they are 
not going to issue lease sales, as this Administration has 
done--and reminding you, the first 20 months of the 
Administration, you would have to go back to the Carter 
administration to get anywhere even close in terms of proximity 
to leasing, and Jimmy Carter leased 100 times more acres of 
lands and waters for energy production, so it really isn't even 
close, how much production is not happening under this 
Administration, new production is not happening.
    But Walter Cruickshank came here, sat right exactly where 
you are a few years ago, and testified that whenever we stop 
producing domestically, it doesn't have any impact on demand, 
all it does is make us get supply from foreign sources.
    So, I guess I am watching as the actions this 
Administration is taking: (1) you are cutting off a critical 
revenue stream to protect our citizens from hurricanes; (2) you 
are taking actions that actually make us more dependent upon 
foreign energy sources; and (3) as we sit here and deal with a 
debt ceiling, it actually takes money away that could be a 
revenue stream for the United States Treasury.
    And I just ask, as you move forward and potentially plan to 
exercise discretion contrary to what law says, that you all 
please take those things into consideration, because I don't 
know what in the world you all would say if we have another 
hurricane and you have effectively cut off revenue streams for 
resiliency for our coastal communities.
    So, thank you, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. The Chair thanks the 
Representatives and their questions, and I also thank the 
witnesses for your valuable testimony this afternoon.
    The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on Friday, March 3. The hearing record will be open for 10 
business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]