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



                  RETURN ON UNPRECEDENTED INVESTMENT:
               AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S
                  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IIJA, THE IRA,
                     AND THE CHIPS AND SCIENCE ACT

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

                                     

                             JOINT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
                             AND OVERSIGHT

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                              MAY 10, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-12
                               __________

                                    
 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology


                                     
               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                     
                                     
                                     

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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

52-180PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024     
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
















       
       

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                  HON. FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking 
RANDY WEBER, Texas                     Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
MIKE GARCIA, California              DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee         VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California             KEVIN MULLIN, California
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas              JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
RYAN ZINKE, Montana                  MAXWELL FROST, Florida
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida              YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
DALE STRONG, Alabama                 SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
MAX MILLER, Ohio                     JENNIFER McCLELLAN, Virginia
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              TED LIEU, California
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia                SEAN CASTEN, Illinois,
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York             Vice Ranking Member
TOM KEAN, New Jersey                 PAUL TONKO, New York
VACANCY
                                 ------                                

                         Subcommittee on Energy

               HON. BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York, Chairman
RANDY WEBER, Texas                   JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York 
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                     Ranking Member
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee         DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
MAX MILLER, Ohio                     ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
TOM KEAN, New Jersey                 VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina

                                 ------                                

              Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

                HON. JAY OBERNOLTE, California, Chairman
BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina, 
MAX MILLER, Ohio                       Ranking Member
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              KEVIN MULLIN, California
VACANCY                              JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina 



























                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              May 10, 2023

                                                                   Page

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

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Brandon Williams, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and 
  Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................     8
    Written Statement............................................     9

Statement by Representative Valerie Foushee, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..    10
    Written Statement............................................    11

Statement by Representative Jay Obernolte, Chairman, Subcommittee 
  on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, 
  and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..................    12
    Written Statement............................................    13

Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Chairman, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..    14
    Written Statement............................................    15

Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    16
    Written Statement............................................    16

Written statement by Representative Jamaal Bowman, Ranking 
  Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, 
  and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..................    17

                               Witnesses:

Dr. Geraldine Richmond, Under Secretary for Science and 
  Innovation, U.S. Department of Energy
    Oral Statement...............................................    18
    Written Statement............................................    22

Dr. Kathleen Hogan, Principal Deputy Under Secretary and Acting 
  Under Secretary for Infrastructure, U.S. Department of Energy
    Oral Statement...............................................    20
    Written Statement............................................    22

Discussion.......................................................    36

              Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Geraldine Richmond, Under Secretary for Science and 
  Innovation, U.S. Department of Energy..........................    60

Dr. Kathleen Hogan, Principal Deputy Under Secretary and Acting 
  Under Secretary for Infrastructure, U.S. Department of Energy..    73

 
                  RETURN ON UNPRECEDENTED INVESTMENT: 
                     AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEPARTMENT 
                       OF ENERGY'S IMPLEMENTATION 
                         OF THE IIJA, THE IRA, 
                     AND THE CHIPS AND SCIENCE ACT

                              ----------                              

                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2023

        House of Representatives,  Subcommmittee on  En-
          ergy joint with the Subcommittee on Investiga-
          tions  and  Oversight, Committee  on  Science,
          Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in 
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brandon 
Williams [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy] presiding.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Williams. I think we'll get started. The joint 
hearing will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is 
authorized to declare recesses of the hearing at any time. 
Welcome today. Today's hearing is entitled ``Return on 
Unprecedented Investment: An Analysis of the Department of 
Energy's (DOE's) Implementation of the IIJA, the IRA, and the 
CHIPS and Sciences Act.'' I recognize myself for five minutes 
for an opening statement.
    Good afternoon. Today the Energy Subcommittee and the 
Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee are holding a joint 
hearing on the Department of Energy's implementation of 
recently passed R&D (research and development) legislation, 
including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the IIJA, 
the Inflation Reduction Act, IRA, and the CHIPS and Science 
Act. With the passage of the IIJA and the IRA, the Department 
of Energy received an astonishing $97 billion in additional 
funding outside of the regular appropriations process, of which 
$45 billion falls under this Committee's jurisdiction.
    According to the Department, this massive infusion of 
taxpayer dollars will be used to stand up over 70 new 
Department of Energy programs and hire over 1,000 new 
employees. To facilitate this, the Department of Energy 
recently completed a Department-wide reorganization, which 
included the creation of the Office of the Under Secretary for 
Infrastructure to manage this expansion of programs. With this 
massive and historic public investment in our Energy future, 
and with an overhaul of the Federal department tasked with 
administering these funds, I personally am astonished and 
concerned that the leader of this office has yet to be 
confirmed by the Senate.
    The Department of Energy's recent facelift has rightfully 
received criticism from both industry and lawmakers. As Members 
of Congress, we have a responsibility to conduct oversight of 
these immense new activities. I believe that we have a 
responsibility to question whether DOE has the protections, 
personnel, and expertise in place to carry out the IIJA and IRA 
appropriately.
    Just last year the DOE announced a $200 million IIJA award 
to Microvast, a company with over 80 percent of its assets in 
China. Microvast is even listed on the SEC (Securities and 
Exchange Commission) watchlist of foreign companies not in 
compliance with the Holding Foreign Companies Accountability 
Act. I think we can all agree the Department's failure to 
adequately vet this company before making this $200 million 
award is unacceptable and deeply alarming. The Committee is 
also seriously concerned about DOE's recent reorganization. 
Through the IIJA, the Department created the new Office of 
Clean Energy Demonstrations, which received $27 billion in 
appropriations. Last week Chairman Lucas and I sent a letter to 
the Secretary highlighting our concerns with this new office 
and the Department's lack of clear guidance for its 
coordination with existing DOE demonstration activities. Since 
tens of billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake, I look 
forward to receiving a response from the Department soon on 
this letter.
    We're not just here to talk about the IIJA and IRA. We're 
also here to review the DOE's implementation of the CHIPS and 
Science Act, a House Science Committee product which correctly 
prioritizes fundamental and basic research carried out through 
the DOE Office of Science. Unlike applied research, which the 
private sector is capable of funding and conducting on its own, 
the Office of Science supports the kind of fundamental research 
and specialized research infrastructure that is uniquely 
stewarded by the Federal Government. Over the years, Office of 
Science research in areas like nuclear physics, basic energy 
sciences, and advanced scientific computing have been 
instrumental to our competitiveness--to our Nation's 
competitiveness and economic growth.
    The CHIPS and Science Act authorization is critical--sorry, 
is a critical program to direct these essential activities, and 
includes robust funding profiles for user facilities such as 
the Electron Ion Collider (EIC) at Brookhaven National 
Laboratory in my State of New York, and I look forward to 
visiting that this summer. Very cool to be able to get eyes on 
that. Set to be completed in 2034, the EIC will answer 
fundamental questions regarding the inner workings of protons, 
neutrons, and electrons, and much more. The innovations and 
discoveries gained from this facility may unlock a new age in 
computing, energy, and medicine, just as the discovery of the 
atom did for the last 100 years. CHIPS and Science also 
leverages DOE's groundbreaking R&D capabilities to accelerate 
innovation in microelectronics and domestic chip production, 
and the work that has the potential to create tens of thousands 
of jobs in my district in New York. We are trying to prioritize 
our taxpayer dollars on all of these programs.
    So today, despite the impact of the Office of Science, many 
of the programs of the CHIPS and Science Act have yet to 
receive adequate support in the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 
2024, and I find this odd, given our recent IRA and IIJA 
windfall. So the DOE looks like it's more concerned with 
doubling down on well-funded applied energy programs than 
supporting the Office of Science, and these are the kind of 
misplaced priorities that could jeopardize our leadership in 
science and technology for decades to come.
    I want to thank our witnesses for the testimony. I 
appreciate gathering of the Committee, and I look forward to 
your answers.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Williams follows:]

    Good afternoon. Today, the Energy Subcommittee and the 
Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee are holding a joint 
hearing on the Department of Energy's implementation of 
recently-passed R&D legislation, including the Infrastructure 
Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA), the Inflation Reduction Act 
(IRA), and the CHIPS and Science Act.
    With the passage of the IIJA and the IRA, the Department of 
Energy received an astonishing $97 billion in additional 
funding outside of the regular appropriation process, of which 
$45 billion falls under this Committee's jurisdiction.
    According to the Department, this massive infusion of 
taxpayer dollars will be used to stand up over 70 new DOE 
programs and hire over 1,000 new employees. To facilitate this, 
DOE recently completed a Department-wide reorganization, which 
included the creation of the Office of the Under Secretary for 
Infrastructure to manage this expansion of programs. With this 
massive and historic public investment in our Energy future and 
with an overhaul of the Federal department tasked with 
administering these funds, I am astonished and concerned that 
the leader of this office has yet to be confirmed by the 
Senate.
    The Department of Energy's recent facelift has rightfully 
received criticism from both industry and lawmakers. As members 
of Congress, we have a responsibility to conduct oversight of 
these immense new activities. I believe that we have a 
responsibility to question whether DOE has the protections, 
personnel, and expertise in place to carry out the IIJA and IRA 
appropriately.
    Just last year, the DOE announced a $200 million IIJA award 
to Microvast, a company with over 80% of its assets in China. 
Microvast is even listed on an SEC (SEC) watchlist of foreign 
companies not in compliance with the Holding Foreign Companies 
Accountability Act. I think we can all agree the Department's 
failure to adequately vet this company before making this $200 
million award is unacceptable and deeply alarming.
    The committee is also seriously concerned about DOE's 
recent reorganization. Through the IIJA, the Department created 
the new Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), which 
received $27 billion in appropriations. Last week, Chairman 
Lucas and I sent a letter to the Secretary highlighting our 
concerns with this new office and the Department's lack of 
clear guidance for its coordination with existing DOE 
demonstration activities. Since tens of billions of taxpayer 
dollars are at stake, I look forward to receiving a response 
from the Department soon.
    But we're not just here to talk about the IIJA and IRA. 
We're also here to review DOE's implementation of the CHIPS and 
Science Act, a House Science committee product, which correctly 
prioritizes fundamental and basic research carried out through 
the DOE Office of Science.
    Unlike applied research, which the private sector is 
capable of funding and conducting, the Office of Science 
supports the kind of fundamental research and specialized 
research infrastructure that is uniquely stewarded by the 
federal government. Over the years, Office of Science research 
in areas like nuclear physics, basic energy sciences, and 
advanced scientific computing, has been instrumental to U.S. 
competitiveness and economic growth.
    The CHIPS and Science Act authorizes critical program 
direction for these essential activities and includes robust 
funding profiles for user facilities such as the Electron Ion 
Collider (EIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory in my state of 
New York, which I look forward to visiting this summer.
    Set to be completed in 2034, the EIC will answer 
fundamental questions regarding the inner workings of protons, 
neutrons, and electrons. The innovations and discoveries gained 
from this facility may unlock a new age in computing, energy, 
and medicine, just as the discovery of the atom did for the 
last 100 years.
    CHIPS and Science also leverages DOE's groundbreaking R&D 
capabilities to accelerate innovation in microelectronics and 
domestic chip production--work that has the potential to create 
tens of thousands of jobs in my district. It is critical that 
we prioritize our taxpayer dollars on these types of programs.
    Yet, despite the impact of the Office of Science, many of 
the programs in the CHIPS and Science Act, have yet to receive 
adequate support in the President's Fiscal Year 2024 request. I 
find this odd, given DOE's recent IRA and IIJA windfall. It 
appears DOE is more interested in doubling down on extremely 
well-funded applied energy programs than supporting the Office 
of Science. These are the kind of misplaced priorities that 
could jeopardize our leadership in science and technology 
innovation.
    I hope today's hearing will serve as one step in the right 
direction towards rebalancing these priorities. I look forward 
to hearing from our witnesses about their plans to respond to 
the committee's inquiries and how the Department intends to 
carry out congressional direction in a way that maximizes 
return on investment for the taxpayer.
    I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony and look 
forward to our conversations.

    Chairman Williams. As--I would now like to recognize the 
Ranking Member of the Investigations and Oversight Committee, 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina, for her opening statement.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Chairman Williams, and Chairman 
Obernolte, for holding this joint Subcommittee hearing today. I 
appreciate this opportunity to discuss the transformational 
investments made by the 117th Congress in research, 
development, and demonstration programs overseen by the 
Department of Energy. DOE is poised to play a vital role in 
addressing our most pressing energy challenges of the 21st 
century. From battery storage and solar technology to grid 
efficiency and nuclear fusion, DOE's research portfolio 
represents a vast and multifaceted investment in America's 
economy, its workers, and its energy security.
    Districts all across America benefit from this investment. 
For example, a consortium of four research universities in my 
district, North Carolina's Fourth, jointly host the Triangle 
Universities Nuclear Laboratory, a DOE Center of Excellence. I 
have no doubt that many of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle can cite similar initiatives in their own districts, and 
I hope to learn more about them today.
    Laws like the CHIPS and Science Act, the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act will 
strengthen the impact of DOE's science programs many times 
over. These laws are empowering DOE to support basic energy 
research, develop energy-related technological breakthroughs at 
scale, and accelerate America's transition to clean energy 
sources. I support these laws wholeheartedly, and I believe 
that they will make America stronger, and more prosperous. I 
also support good faith congressional oversight of the 
implementation of these laws. Congress has directed significant 
funding increases to DOE science in recent years. Assessing the 
Department's management of those funds is appropriate, and 
necessary to ensure that the agency is using taxpayer dollars 
wisely and acting consistently with congressional intent.
    At the same time, I would caution against any unnecessary 
politicization of DOE's research and development activities, 
rather. DOE science is primed to support critical investments 
that will bolster emergency--emerging, rather, energy sector 
industries and create tens of thousands of good paying jobs for 
people all across this country to participate in for years to 
come. Congressional scrutiny of these programs should be 
rigorous, but we must also be cautious not to undercut these 
essential investments and jeopardize the jobs and economic 
activity poised to emerge from them. Our constituents are 
counting on these investments, and we need to deliver them. The 
goal of our oversight should always be to improve the research 
programs that we look at, not to tear them down. That is why I 
intend to approach my oversight of the Department. I want a DOE 
that is more capable and more effective in implementing the 
vision Congress has set forth.
    I am also excited to use today's hearing to highlight DOE's 
incredible scientific and technological capabilities. DOE's 
scientific infrastructure is a crown jewel in the Federal 
research enterprise. The Department's National Laboratories, 
its scientific offices, and its partnerships with public/
private and academic institutions stand at the frontier of 
breakthrough research and the energy technologies of tomorrow. 
I am eager to learn more from our witnesses about how DOE 
intends to maximize these resources at its disposal in support 
of a stronger, safer, and more equitable energy future.
    Congress has set forth lofty goals, and now we are counting 
on DOE to deliver. I am confident that you can do it, and I am 
grateful to both of you, as well as all of the scientists who 
work at and with the Department for your commitment and your 
dedication to public service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 
yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Foushee follows:]

    Thank you, Chairman Williams and Chairman Obernolte, for 
holding this joint subcommittee hearing today.
    I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the 
transformational investments made by the 117th Congress in 
research, development, and demonstration programs overseen by 
the Department of Energy.
    DOE is poised to play a vital role in addressing our most 
pressing energy challenges of the 21st Century. From battery 
storage and solar technology to grid efficiency and nuclear 
fusion, DOE's research portfolio represents a vast and 
multifaceted investment in America's economy, its workers, and 
its energy security.
    Districts all across America benefit from this investment. 
For example, a consortium of four research universities in my 
district--North Carolina's Fourth--jointly hosts the Triangle 
Universities Nuclear Laboratory, a DOE Center of Excellence. I 
have no doubt that many of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle can cite similar initiatives in their own districts, and 
I hope to learn more about them today.
    Laws like the CHIPS and Science Act, the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act will 
strengthen the impact of DOE science programs many times over. 
These laws are empowering DOE to support basic energy research, 
develop energy-related technological breakthroughs at scale, 
and accelerate America's transition to clean energy sources. I 
support these laws wholeheartedly and I believe they will make 
America stronger and more prosperous.
    I also support good faith congressional oversight of the 
implementation of these laws. Congress has directed significant 
funding increases to DOE science in recent years. Assessing the 
Department's management of those funds is appropriate and 
necessary to ensure that the agency is using taxpayer dollars 
wisely and acting consistently with congressional intent.
    At the same time, I would caution against any unnecessary 
politicization of DOE's research and development activities. 
DOE science is primed to support critical investments that will 
bolster emerging energy-sector industries and create tens of 
thousands of good-paying jobs for people all across the country 
to participate in for years to come.
    Congressional scrutiny of these programs should be 
rigorous. But we must also be cautious not to undercut these 
essential investments and jeopardize the jobs and economic 
activity poised to emerge from them. Our constituents are 
counting on these investments, and we need to deliver for them.
    The goal of our oversight should always be to improve the 
research programs that we look at, not to tear them down. That 
is how I intend to approach my oversight of the Department. I 
want a DOE that is more capable and more effective at 
implementing the vision Congress has set forth.
    I am also excited to use today's hearing to highlight DOE's 
incredible scientific and technological capabilities.
    DOE's scientific infrastructure is a crown jewel in the 
federal research enterprise. The Department's National 
Laboratories, its scientific offices, and its partnerships with 
public, private, and academic institutions stand at the 
frontier of breakthrough research into the energy technologies 
of tomorrow.
    I am eager to learn more from our witnesses about how DOE 
intends to maximize the resources at its disposal in support of 
a stronger, safer, more equitable energy future.
    Congress has set lofty goals, and now we are counting on 
DOE to deliver. I am confident that you can do it, and I am 
grateful to both of you, as well as all of the scientists who 
work at and with the Department, for your commitment and your 
dedication to public service.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

    Chairman Williams. Thank you, Ms. Foushee. And I would say 
to our guests, and also to my fellow Members on the Committee, 
that Ms. Foushee and I could sit so close together is a good 
sign, because she represents the Tarheels, and I represent the 
Syracuse Orange. That was a very dangerous look there, but--
anyway, thank you for your comments. I now recognize the 
Chairman of the Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee, the 
gentleman from California, for his opening statement.
    Chairman Obernolte. Well, thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for this very 
important hearing.
    Three weeks ago the Subcommittee on Investigation and 
Oversight held a Subcommittee hearing in which we heard 
testimony from nearly all of the Offices of Inspector Generals 
within the jurisdiction of this policy Committee, including the 
Energy IG. One of the things that came out of that hearing that 
was really alarming to me was testimony from them, almost 
universally, saying that they didn't have the resources in 
their departments to conduct oversight of the many hundreds of 
billions of dollars of additional funding under IIJA and IRA 
that were being provided to these agencies. Obviously, this, I 
think, is an oversight of Congress that funding was not 
specifically appropriated for the IGs to conduct oversight of 
the extra funding that we're awarding these agencies.
    Now, of the billions of dollars that Congress has 
appropriated to specifically the Department of Energy, the vast 
majority has yet to be spent, and so one of the things that I 
would like to discuss in this hearing is my hopes that some of 
the funding that has been appropriated can be allocated to the 
OIG (Office of Inspector General) within Energy to make sure 
that some of the problems that have occurred in the past in 
departments across our Federal bureaucracy do not occur when we 
are spending the money that's been appropriated here, because I 
think we're all united in our desire to make sure that this 
money is wisely and appropriately spent, and that we're doing 
the good science that was intended with it.
    Also, I'm going to be interested today in hearing answers 
to some of the questions posed in a letter that Chairman 
Williams and I sent at the beginning of April to the Department 
regarding what we consider the clear conflicts of interest 
exhibited by Department employees in owning stock in some of 
the same energy companies that they regulate. Now, in a--an 
amazing coincidence of timing, we did finally receive a 
response to our letter late last night, however, I would 
consider the response to be wholly insufficient. Unfortunately, 
I think this is part of an ongoing trend. Two weeks ago Senator 
Hawley asked Secretary Granholm questions on this same matter, 
and also did not receive adequate responses.
    And let me just say that I think we're all on the same team 
here. We are trying to do our duty as Members of the 
legislative branch in providing oversight, and I know the OIGs 
in the Departments are trying to do exactly the same thing, so 
we should be unified in our interests in getting to the bottom 
of this. So I would--I'll be asking questions about that today.
    I think it's still very important that Congress know why 
the Department has not provided substantive responses to the 
questions that we posed in our letter, and I also am interested 
in talking to you about how anyone could possibly conclude that 
having Department employees own stock in the same companies 
that they regulate is not a conflict of interest. So we'll be 
talking about that a little bit later in the hearing, but thank 
you again for your testimony today, and for appearing in the 
hearing. I'm looking forward to the rest of the hearing and 
your testimony. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Obernolte follows:]

    Good afternoon, I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining 
us for today's important hearing.
    Three weeks ago, the Committee held a hearing with many of 
the inspectors general in our jurisdiction to review their 
ongoing important work. Though I was impressed by much of the 
testimony, I was concerned to hear that the Energy IG, as well 
as the other IGs, felt as though they were not receiving the 
financial support necessary to conduct adequate oversight of 
the billions of dollars distributed from the IIJA and IRA, 
despite their parent agencies being well funded. In the hearing 
today, I hope to focus on specific oversight goals as well as 
discussing how Congress can utilize some of the funds already 
appropriated to these programs for oversight by the Energy OIG.
    Of the billions of dollars that have recently been 
appropriated to the Department the vast majority have yet to be 
spent. My hope is that the Department is working closely with 
the OIG and others to ensure that mistakes in the planning 
process do not create significant problems when this money 
begins to be spent. We have seen time and time again that when 
the federal government feels the need to spend money quickly it 
often forgoes thoughtful internal controls. I hope to hear 
today that the Department of Energy is bucking this historical 
trend and working hard to ensure that doesn't occur here.
    Additionally, I am particularly interested to hear answers 
to the questions posed in the letter that Chairman Williams and 
I sent at the beginning of April regarding the clear conflicts 
of interest exhibited by Department employees owning stock in 
some of the energy companies they regulate. We did finally 
receive a response late last night, however it was wholly 
insufficient. This seems to be an ongoing trend, as two weeks 
ago Senator Hawley asked Secretary Granholm questions on this 
matter, and he also did not receive adequate responses. It is 
still important for Congress to know why the Department has not 
provided substantive responses to our letter and how the 
Department could conclude that Department employees holding 
individual stocks of the energy companies they regulate is not 
a conflict of interest.

    Chairman Williams. Thank you, Mr. Obernolte. We are also 
joined by the Chairman of the Full Committee, my colleague, Mr. 
Lucas. I now recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee for 
an opening statement.
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good 
afternoon, and I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining us 
for today's important hearing.
    Last Congress the Science Committee worked together on a 
historic achievement, passing the first comprehensive 
authorization of the DOE Office of Science in the CHIPS and 
Science Act. A decade in the making, this bipartisan bill was 
painstakingly vetted by stakeholders and the scientific 
community. It provides DOE with a bold, yet responsible, and 
realistic policy roadmap for its greatest asset, the Office of 
Science. It prioritizes the kind of work that industry is 
unable to support, fundamental research in high priority areas 
like fusion energy sciences, materials science, and advanced 
scientific computing, and the research infrastructure needed to 
make that happen. Today, I'm eager to receive an update on the 
implementation of this important law.
    But as we all know, CHIPS and Science was not the only DOE 
bill that became law last Congress. Today, in addition to 
carrying out our Science Committee direction provided by CHIPS 
and the Science Act, DOE is also continuing to implement the 
Biden Administration's Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act 
and the Inflation Reduction Act. In carrying out the IIJA and 
the IRA, DOE faces the daunting task of allocating nearly $50 
billion in additional spending for a wide range of R&D programs 
within the Science Committee's jurisdiction. To put this in 
perspective, that is roughly three times the size of DOE's 
annual budget for corresponding programs. The alarming 
magnitude of the IIJA and the IRA spending is arguably too much 
for any agency to effectively absorb. And the manner of their 
passage, without adequate process of feedback from the 
Committees of jurisdiction, should give us all pause. This is 
an unprecedented time for DOE, and the agency has a lot to 
answer for.
    So far, DOE's implementation of these laws, we've seen the 
Department award hundreds of millions dollars to a company with 
known ties to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), stand up major 
program offices without--offices under unconfirmed leadership, 
and chase after 1,000 new applied energy employees while losing 
essential career staff in the Office of Science. It's our job 
on the Science Committee to provide critical oversight of the 
implementation of both substantial research funding and 
comprehensive program direction. With the rapid injection of 
funding from the IIJA and the IRA, the significant investments 
authorized in CHIPS and Science, it is important we ensure DOE 
has effective plans to place--in place to implement these laws 
in a way that maximizes the return for--on taxpayers' 
investments.
    While today's hearing will provide critical oversight of 
recently authorized activities and new spending, we also intend 
to conduct a broader review at the Full Committee of the 
Department's operations and how it plans to contribute to 
America's scientific and technological competitiveness in the 
coming Fiscal Year and beyond. I look forward to arranging that 
hearing soon.
    And I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony 
today, and I look forward to a productive discussion. And I 
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Lucas follows:]

    Good afternoon, I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining 
us for today's important hearing.
    Last Congress, the Science Committee worked together on a 
historic achievement--passing the first comprehensive 
authorization of the DOE Office of Science in the CHIPS and 
Science Act.
    A decade in the making, this bipartisan bill was 
painstakingly vetted by stakeholders and the scientific 
community. It provides DOE with a bold yet responsible and 
realistic policy roadmap for its greatest asset, the Office of 
Science.
    It prioritizes the kind of work that industry is unable to 
support--fundamental research in high priority areas like 
fusion energy sciences, materials science, and advanced 
scientific computing, and the research infrastructure needed to 
make that happen. Today, I am eager to receive an update on the 
implementation of this important law.
    But as we all know, CHIPS and Science was not the only DOE 
bill that became law last Congress. Today, in addition to 
carrying out Science Committee direction provided by the CHIPS 
and Science Act, DOE is also continuing to implement the Biden 
Administration's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the 
Inflation Reduction Act.
    In carrying out the IIJA and IRA, DOE faces the daunting 
task of allocating nearly $50 billion in additional spending 
for a wide range of R&D programs within the Science Committee's 
jurisdiction. To put this in perspective--that is roughly three 
times the size of DOE's annual budget for corresponding 
programs.
    The alarming magnitude of IIJA and IRA spending is arguably 
too much for any agency to effectively absorb. And the manner 
of their passage--without adequate process or feedback from the 
committees of jurisdiction--should give us all pause.
    This is an unprecedented time for DOE, and the agency has a 
lot to answer for.
    So far, in DOE's implementation of these laws, we've seen 
the Department award hundreds of millions to a company with 
known ties to the CCP, stand up major program offices under 
unconfirmed leadership, and chase after a thousand new applied 
energy employees while losing essential career staff in the 
Office of Science.
    It's our job on the Science Committee to provide critical 
oversight of the implementation of both substantial research 
funding and comprehensive program direction.
    With the rapid injection of funding from the IIJA, and IRA, 
and the significant investments authorized in CHIPS and 
Science, it is important we ensure DOE has effective plans in 
place to implement these laws in a way that maximizes the 
return on taxpayer investment.
    While today's hearing will provide critical oversight of 
recently authorized activities and new spending, we also intend 
to conduct a broader review at the Full Committee of the 
Department's operations and how it plans to contribute to 
America's scientific and technological competitiveness in the 
coming fiscal year and beyond. I look forward to arranging that 
hearing soon.
    I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today, I 
look forward to a productive discussion.

    Chairman Williams. Thank you, sir. I now recognize the 
Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Representative Lofgren 
from California, for a statement.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Chairman has 
mentioned, we have made huge advances in investments in science 
over the last few years. The Energy Act of 2020, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, Inflation Reduction Act, CHIPS and Science, 
and I do think it's important that we oversee the 
implementation of those bills. I know we all want the 
implementation to go well, and I am eager to join with the 
majority to sort through it and make sure that we're all on the 
same page and getting the investments we anticipated.
    I just want to note that two days ago I had the distinct 
pleasure of visiting the Lawrence Livermore National Lab to 
celebrate the National Ignition Facility's (NIF's) landmark 
achievement of ignition last December. It was really a 
wonderful time, to see all the scientists I've worked with 
since 1995 celebrating this moment. As the Chairman has 
mentioned, there is a substantial investment in fusion, in 
CHIPS and Science, and I'm especially interested in how that is 
going.
    With that, so we can hear from the witnesses sooner rather 
than later, I'll ask unanimous consent to put the balance of my 
statement into the record. And you say without objection.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

    Good afternoon and thank you to both Chairmen and Ranking 
Members for holding this joint hearing today.
    The Science Committee has the responsibility to oversee our 
nation's scientific research enterprise. And like my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle, I certainly do not take this 
responsibility lightly. As I have stated before, good 
Congressional oversight is simply good governance. The past few 
years have seen once-in-a-generation, bipartisan investments in 
our scientific research capabilities, and ensuring that those 
investments are implemented to the letter of the law is a 
bipartisan issue. The Energy Act of 2020, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the 
Inflation Reduction Act are all examples of what Congress can 
do when we work together for the common good. These landmark 
investments are already leading to numerous exciting new 
research efforts and scientific infrastructure improvements 
across the nation, and I look forward to hearing more from our 
witnesses about the progress being made because of their 
passage.
    The Energy Act of 2020 was a bipartisan and bicameral 
effort to update and revitalize our nation's innovation 
policies for advanced clean energy technologies. This was a 
comprehensive undertaking that included significant guidance 
for developing the next generation of renewables, fusion, 
energy storage, advanced nuclear, grid modernization, carbon 
capture, and many other technologies that will be needed to 
build our clean energy future as quickly as possible. In the 
next year, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law followed up on 
that effort by providing substantial, direct support for a 
broad portfolio of major clean energy demonstration projects 
authorized in the Energy Act.
    I was also, of course, proud to work with my Science 
Committee colleagues to pass the bipartisan CHIPS and Science 
Act. This landmark legislation has ignited domestic 
semiconductor manufacturing in so many of our districts, helped 
untangle supply chains, reaffirmed our economic and scientific 
place on the world stage, and provided the first-ever 
comprehensive authorization of DOE's Office of Science, which 
is the single largest supporter of research in the physical 
sciences in the country. The CHIPS and Science Act was truly a 
landmark accomplishment of our Committee, and I remain 
committed to working in a bipartisan fashion to build off those 
investments.
    Lastly, the Inflation Reduction Act made critical 
investments to address one of our nation's most pressing 
issues--the climate crisis. This law is the largest such 
investment in our nation's history, and is delivering amazing 
results already, including creating tens of thousands of good-
paying jobs across the country according to the World Economic 
Forum. IRA also invested greatly needed resources into 
modernizing and improving our nation's research infrastructure, 
particularly at DOE's national laboratories.
    Two days ago, I had the honor to visit Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory to celebrate and learn more about their 
monumental achievement of fusion ignition in December. The good 
news is that the work that this Committee has carried out in 
recent years has really laid a solid foundation for many more 
breakthrough achievements in the years ahead. And as Ranking 
Member of the Committee, I remain committed to working with 
Chairman Lucas and all of my colleagues to ensure that these 
laws are having the greatest and most positive impacts possible 
for our citizens. That said, like many of my colleagues, I am 
also concerned with how Speaker McCarthy's proposed budget cuts 
will undermine these critical efforts to shore up U.S. 
competitiveness and address the climate crisis. So I look 
forward to our robust conversation today and our ongoing work 
to oversee all of these vitally important activities.
    Thank you and I yield back.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bowman follows:]

    I thank Chairman Williams and Chairman Obernolte for 
convening this hearing, on a subject that is of crucial 
importance for the future of our country and planet. Dr. 
Richmond and Dr. Hogan, thankyou for joining us to discuss the 
Department of Energy's implementation of the landmark climate 
and energy bills that we advanced in the last Congress: the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction 
Act, and the CHIPS and Science Act.
    My colleagues know that I am passionate about harnessing 
the full brilliance of this country, and all of its people, to 
solve the climate crisis. Since I arrived in Congress, in 
almost every hearing, Members on both sides of this Committee 
have talked about the importance of strong research and 
development to tackle the problems of the 21st century. And 
with the laws we passed last Congress, we are actually starting 
to make good on those words. There is much more to do, but we 
needed a breakthrough at the federal level, and we got one.
    In my home state of New York alone, these new laws are 
rapidly expanding electric vehicle infrastructure, including 
clean school buses; they are providing investments for safer 
homes, schools, and communities, protecting them from extreme 
weather; and they are helping retrofit the state's buildings to 
efficiently run on solar, heat pumps, and battery storage. The 
Inflation Reduction Act's opportunities are already enabling 
innovation in the public sector, influencing my state's 
decision to allow the New York Power Authority to build, own, 
and operate clean energy projects in the public interest. And 
the efforts of this Committee have resulted in New York's 
Brookhaven National Laboratory receiving close to $200 million 
to advance world-leading physics and provide state-of-the-art 
equipment to nanoscience centers across five national labs. 
These historic investments are also attracting billions in 
private sector support for quantum computing and the 
semiconductor ecosystem and battery manufacturing, just in my 
state alone. While there are big challenges involved in making 
sure the benefits of these investments flow to all communities, 
including historically marginalized areas like those in my 
district, we are working hard across agencies, branches, and 
governments to make it happen. This is the real deal.
    I cannot overstate the significance of this trio of laws. 
And we would be remiss not to include a fourth: the Energy Act 
of 2020. The Energy Act is a significant bipartisan product of 
the Science Committee, and the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act funds many of the provisions authorized in this bill. 
The CHIPS and Science Act is also a bipartisan product of many 
years of work from past and present Science Committee Members 
and staff. And the provisions from the Inflation Reduction Act 
under this Committee's jurisdiction largely originated right 
here. We have a lot to be proud of.
    Dr. Richmond and Dr. Hogan: We are working with communities 
in our districts to maximize the benefits of these laws, and to 
demonstrate their full impact to the country and world. At this 
hearing, we put on our oversight hats to discuss what we can do 
to support your efforts to implement these laws. We understand 
that historic and unprecedented mandates have been established. 
We know there will be growing pains. But it has been past time 
to act, and we won't be slowing down any time soon. We must 
continue to aggressively address the climate crisis, and I look 
forward to working with both of you this Congress to help lead 
our country into our clean energy future. I also want to take a 
moment to thank you both for the FY24 budget request for the 
Department. It is promising to see that this Administration is 
bullish on critical investments in protecting the planet and 
ensuring a brighter future for us all.
    I look forward to this discussion, and I yield back.

    Chairman Williams. Without objection, and with appreciation 
for the help. OK. Yes, so let me introduce our witnesses. Our 
first witness is Dr. Kathleen Hogan, who is the Principal 
Deputy Under Secretary, and Acting Under Secretary for 
Infrastructure at the U.S. Department of Energy. I now 
recognize Dr. Richmond for five minutes to present her 
testimony.

              TESTIMONY OF DR. GERALDINE RICHMOND,
          UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND INNOVATION,
                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Dr. Richmond. Well, thank you. Thank you all for having us 
here today, and good afternoon, for working together with you 
to see us go forward. It is an opportunity for us to share with 
you what--how we're doing. And I'll discuss the BIL and IRA 
first, and then I'll talk about CHIPS and Science.
    I'm going to start by thanking you for your attention to 
research and development in recent legislation. Can't thank you 
enough. In addition to their important implications for clean 
energy deployment and commercialization at scale, BIL and IRA 
also invest in the critical research, development, and 
demonstration which have long been at the heart of the 
Department's mission. These investments will position the 
United States to continue to lead the world in the--in this--
these particular areas.
    The Inflation Reduction Act provided a much needed, a much 
needed, $2 billion for National Laboratory infrastructure 
investments, which I'll tell you more about. These funds are 
being used to infrastructure--to support infrastructure 
projects across the National Lab complex, encompassing a wide 
range of significant improvements that were so desperately 
needed, and scientific upgrades. The funding is also being 
invested in cutting edge scientific tools that will support 
scientists across the Nation, while also training the next 
generation of scientists, the next generation of needed 
scientists, in critical and emerging technologies associated 
with these new cool tools.
    About $230 million is being used to upgrade our world-class 
X-ray, light, and neutron sources at our DOE laboratories, that 
are used by thousands of researchers from companies and 
universities, and from every State in the country. Equally 
impactful is the $190 million for the Electron Ion Collider at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory, that, once built, will lead the 
world in understanding how our universe works at its most 
fundamental level. And additional facilities, I could go on and 
on, but these are being developed to deliver more isotopes--
critical isotopes for applications, including in research, 
medical diagnostics and treatment, enhanced cellular imaging, 
and deep space missions.
    So other IRA funds have been invested to help make our 
laboratories safer, and this is really important. More--make 
them safer, and more efficient and productive places to work, 
such as upgrading water, power, HVAC (heating, ventilation, and 
air conditioning) services, some of which have been in service 
for over seven decades. And may I just say that attracting 
young people to work at a laboratory that looks like it's 70 
years old rather than brand new is a challenge. So these 
investments will make sure the Nation's crown jewels of science 
and innovation continue to lead the world in scientific 
advances that will impact our Nation's future economy and 
national security.
    The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, or 
EERE, is using BIL investments to accelerate research in 
recycling critical minerals and materials used for electric 
vehicle (EV) batteries, solar cells, wind turbines, hydrogen 
fuel cell technologies. EERE has already announced a selection 
of $73 million in projects for recycling of battery materials, 
and in December EERE released the first funding opportunity for 
$45 million of the $225 million bill investments to support 
States, local building code agencies, and others in updating 
energy codes at the State and local level. These efforts have 
been coordinated with our work to implement the $1 billion IRA 
provisions on the latest codes. More energy efficient buildings 
will save money for Americans, for American homes and 
businesses, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and enhance 
our grid resiliency. And in March EERE announced the 
availability of $750 million for research, development, and 
demonstration efforts to dramatically reduce the cost of clean 
hydrogen. This funding will play a critical role in achieving 
commercial-scale hydrogen deployment this decade.
    And the CHIPS and Science Act is a historic bill, designed 
to revitalize America's scientific research and technological 
leadership, and strengthen America's economic and national 
security. This Committee, I know, was instrumental in the 
passage of this CHIPS and Science Act, for which we are very, 
very grateful, both to Members, and to the staff. And it is a 
tribute in particular to Jennifer Wickre, who I know 
contributed so much to CHIPS and Science, and to the caliber of 
science policy in this country.
    CHIPS and Science was the first-ever comprehensive 
authorization of the DOE Office of Science, authorizing $50 
billion over five years to enable cross--cutting edge research 
and development in clean energy, to fight the climate crisis, 
and advance computing to boost American competitiveness. We 
have not yet received full appropriations to implement the 
activities authorized in CHIPS and Science, but we are working 
with the resources we have today to implement important CHIPS 
programs, such as the Foundation for Energy Security and 
Innovation, and to integrate its policy directives on research, 
security, and other matters.
    The President's Fiscal 2024 budget request for the Office 
of Science supports key activities authorized in CHIPS and 
Science Act, including establishing up to four new 
microelectronic science research centers. These centers will 
perform mission-driven research and train the needed future 
workforce to address foundational challenges in the design, 
development, characterization, prototyping, demonstration, and 
fabrication of these microelectronics. Additionally, the 
request proposes major increases in Fusion Energy Sciences 
Program within the Office of Science, growing the program to 
over a billion dollars. This increase will accelerate fusion 
development, and--in support of the administration bold decadal 
vision for commercial fusion energy.
    Even with recent advances in fusion, significant research 
and innovation is needed, fundamental level and applied level, 
to support the development of a fusion pilot plant to meet our 
clean energy goals. The Department is committed to quickly 
establishing these and other important programs authorized in 
CHIPS and Science Act once funding is appropriated. Thank you 
again, and I do look forward to your questions.
    Chairman Williams. Thank you, Dr. Richmond. And I just will 
comment the activity at Brookhaven, and the discovery of new 
isotopes, you'll have to come and update my chart of nuclides 
that hangs in my office with some of these discoveries, and I 
would just also note that you're a member of the U.S. National 
Academy of Sciences, and privileged to have you here, so thank 
you.
    Our--our next witness today is Dr. Kathleen Hogan, 
Principal Deputy Under Secretary, and Acting Under Secretary 
for Infrastructure at the U.S. Department of Energy. I 
recognize you, Dr. Richmond, for five minutes to present your--
I'm sorry----
    Dr. Hogan. It----
    Chairman Williams [continuing]. Dr. Hogan----
    Dr. Hogan. It's OK.
    Chairman Williams [continuing]. For five minutes to----
    Dr. Hogan. We work like this too.
    Chairman Williams. I always say I've been called worse. 
Many cases a lot worse. I apologize, Dr. Hogan, for five 
minutes. Thank you.
    Dr. Hogan. It's all good.

                TESTIMONY OF DR. KATHLEEN HOGAN,
                PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
         AND ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE,
                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Dr. Hogan. No, I too would like to thank you for this 
opportunity to provide an update on the Office of the Under 
Secretary for Infrastructure's progress to date in implementing 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation 
Reduction Act, known as IIJA and IRA. We truly recognize these 
laws as historic investments in renewing American 
infrastructure for decades to come, and know that we are 
together rebuilding American manufacturing, and increasing 
American competitiveness. We're creating millions of lasting, 
good paying jobs throughout our country, and we're reducing 
energy costs for our fellow Americans, and improving our energy 
security. We also know that the IIJA was the culmination of 
years and years of this Committee's work and vision, including 
the critical bipartisan Energy Act of 2020, and on the behalf 
of the Department, we really do thank you all and your staffs 
for your leadership and ongoing partnership in this work.
    You know, through IIJA and IRA, as you pointed out, 
Congress has committed to invest more than $90 billion over 
multiple years for the Department of Energy to administer, and 
in the 18 months since the IIJA was signed into law, DOE has 
already made more than $38 billion available, and in the nine 
months since the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act, we 
have made more than $7 billion available so that communities 
across the country, and your districts, can benefit as quickly 
as possible. But we're also doing--and what we need to do to do 
this work right. So that is why, last year, we completed a 
major realignment at the Department to ensure that we could 
have maximum impact, strong oversight, and integrity throughout 
our work. The creation of this new office, the Office of the 
Under Secretary for Infrastructure, helps us concentrate 
expertise and focus on the demonstration and deployment of 
cutting-edge energy technologies, and it completes an 
organizational change that the Department of Energy long 
contemplated.
    We also, I would like to point out, have very regular 
check-ins with our Office of Inspector General to learn about 
the steps we can take to protect against fraud, waste, and 
abuse, and we have hired hundreds of new team members, merging 
the knowledge of dedicated career civil servants with the 
expertise of industry veterans, connecting every corner of the 
country with the historic opportunities that we have through 
grants, formula funding, rebates, and loan programs.
    Just a few highlights of our work to date, with the 
historic resources for hydrogen, we've developed a National 
Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap. Our applications just 
closed for the $7 billion in regional clean energy--clean 
hydrogen hubs, with selections slated for later this year, and 
we have issued announcements for another $750 million for 
electrolyzer manufacturing R&D. On game-changing grid 
resiliency and power generation programs, we've made a $1.1 
billion conditional commitment to Diablo Canyon Nuclear 
Generating Station in California so they can keep the doors 
open, and have low carbon, zero carbon power. We've made $2.3 
billion available to States and tribes to strengthen our 
Nation's power grid against wildfires, extreme weather, and 
other natural disasters, and just earlier this week opened 
applications for enhanced hydroelectric production incentives 
included in the IIJA.
    We've also invested in our domestic battery manufacturing 
capabilities and capacity, with $3 billion made available for 
battery manufacturing and recycling grants, and we expect 
another $3 billion funding opportunity to be available soon. 
And then, by working with the private sector to launch 
demonstration projects and deploy new technologies, we have 
seen more than $435 billion in private investment in the United 
States since 2021. These investments are coming in the 
semiconductor, clean energy, EV and battery technology, 
biomanufacturing, and heavy industry sectors, showing that the 
investment that Congress has made through the IIJA and IRA are 
really having cascading effects across our economy.
    So, you know, as the Department continues our 
implementation of the IIJA and IRA, we really do look forward 
to the continued guidance of this Committee while we work to 
bring about a clean and secure energy future that is made in 
America and creates hundreds of thousands of American jobs. And 
I also, on behalf of the Department, really do appreciate the 
Committee's interest, the opportunity to provide this testimony 
today, and, again, as well as my colleague, look forward to 
answering your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared joint statement of Dr. Richmond and Dr. Hogan 
follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Williams. Thank you, Dr. Hogan, and thank you both 
for your testimony. I would like to just keep things moving, 
and I now recognize myself for five minutes of questions.
    The Office of Science is charged with maintaining the--our 
country's competitiveness in a lot of different fronts, and one 
of those is fusion. I really believe in public/private 
partnerships and have met with many of the fusion companies 
that are privately funded. In fact, there have been billions of 
dollars of private investment that have gone into a number of 
different approaches to fusion technologies. So my question for 
both of you, in the IIJA and the IRA, it appears to me that the 
commercial partners, the private partners, seem to have been 
left behind in the fusion industry, and have received an 
inadequate amount of Federal funds compared to other energy 
sources, some of which, Dr. Hogan, you just listed. How does 
the administration plan to support this commercial pursuit of 
fusion? I've heard boasts of fusion power on the grid in 10 
years, love to see that, but how do we--you know, given the 
recent accomplishments that you both have talked about with the 
ignition demonstration, where do we go from here, in terms of 
getting commercial fusion in the market?
    Dr. Richmond. Well, I'll take that one. There couldn't be a 
more exciting time than now for fusion, there's no question 
about it. And we have a decadal goal for fusion, in which we 
have milestone programs in order to get to that point, 
particularly a milestone-based fusion development program, and 
we'll be launching that very soon. But the point is that there 
are successes, and NIF is a huge success. And let me just say 
we are here with NIF, with this success, because of 40 years of 
funding of basic science, right? Plasma physics--I'm half 
physicist, half chemist, so I get this. This kind of science--
this kind of investment, we're finally seeing pay off.
    That said, we have yet to determine which of the different 
types of models, whether it be accelerator, or a Tokamak, or a 
NIF, or any new ones coming down the line really are the ones 
to go, but the companies are investing in these now, putting 
forth--there's a press release that came out this morning 
that's just very exciting, promising to have a fusion pilot 
plant I think by 2028, 2029? Anyway--but the point is that 
companies are investing in this now, and they're going forward, 
but what they're not investing in is the really fundamental 
science, the plasma physics, that needs to be done. So what 
we're doing in the Office of Science is to have both the 
fundamental science going on as well as putting the apply--put 
the applications in there too, and all the computer modeling 
that goes with that, while we're also then funding projects 
like ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) 
and--in France, and also D3D in Southern California.
    So we have this mix of basic and applied, but it's really 
to de-risk this going forward so companies feel more 
comfortable going forward. But I think it's a good model. I 
think it's a good model, because of the fact that we haven't--
we're not at the point where we would say it's a TRL 
(Technology Readiness Level) level of seven or eight. There's a 
whole lot of uncertainty that resides there, and that's where 
the fundamental science comes in.
    Chairman Williams. If I may just follow up with that, and I 
very much appreciate investment in fundamental science, and 
of--you have thousands of hours supervising the operation of 
nuclear power plants. But the--our meeting here today is really 
about this extraordinary amount of money that we're putting 
forth, and we have some promise, particularly around fusion. We 
have, as you mentioned, an announcement this morning, which 
I've not seen, so thank you for that. It does concern me that, 
with all of this money, we seem to be focused elsewhere, and 
starting 70 new programs, instead of really refining and 
investing in the ones that are going to make a difference in 
the cost, reliability, resiliency, and affordability of power 
for average Americans. So I look forward to learning more about 
that.
    Just one last question, if we can, in the few seconds 
remaining. When it comes to China, and when you--and when it 
comes to the amount of money that we're spending, how do you 
see this as being critical to our competition with China, 
specifically in the fusion--in the area of fusion, or other 
advanced technologies?
    Dr. Richmond. Thank you for that question, and thank you 
also for--you know, for sharing your concerns about the--about 
the amount of funding going into fusion and so forth, because 
it's something we look forward to working with you on. We don't 
know how much money China is putting into fusion right now, and 
so at this point we don't know that. But all--what we do know 
is that with NIF as an example, it--we have the tools here to 
do it, but if you took any other country and gave them these 
tools, they would not have the kind of scientists that we've 
had to pull this off. So that's where we compete, having the--
--
    Chairman Williams. A deep bench?
    Dr. Richmond. Yes, a----
    Chairman Williams. OK.
    Dr. Richmond [continuing]. Deep bench.
    Chairman Williams. Thank you. I----
    Dr. Richmond. Yes. Yes.
    Chairman Williams [continuing]. Want to respect Ms. 
Foushee's time. I now recognize you for five minutes.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you 
both for appearing before the Committee today. I don't think I 
need to sell either of you, or anyone else here, on the 
importance of manufacturing to both our clean energy future and 
our global economic competitiveness. I'd like to talk about 
DOE's Clean Energy Manufacturing Institutes. One of these 
institutes, Power America, is located at North Carolina State 
University, and has been very successful over the past decade 
in advancing semiconductor manufacturing. But today, despite 
the importance of this technology to our Nation, Power America 
is only able to support a small fraction of the work, compared 
to its peak, because its initial Federal funding period has 
lapsed.
    This Committee did work to reauthorize the Manufacturing 
U.S.A. Program writ in 2019, which included language that would 
allow renewal of funding for existing institutes. I have been 
pleased to see the Department's commitment to realizing the 
full potential of these institutes by providing the framework 
last summer for these institutes to apply for renewal. I was 
also encouraged to see the announcement last month from the 
Department that one of the institutes has received renewal 
funding for the first time. This follows a few years of 
appropriations and budget requests, which have further 
highlighted the importance of these institutes.
    So this question is for both witnesses. Will you please 
provide an update on how effective the framework process has 
been thus far, and if you have any plans to renew any other 
existing institutes?
    Dr. Richmond. Well, thank you very much for that question. 
Let me give you a little bit of where we're going with this. So 
we've initiated the renewal process with four of our six 
institutes, including Power America. The process itself takes 
about six months to complete, and, as you mentioned, we've 
already completed the process with one of the institutes, the 
Composites Institute. Power America is the next closest to 
reaching the end of the process, with the other two, the Rabbit 
Institute and CESMII (Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing 
Innovation Institute), not far behind.
    As part of our framework for renewal, we evaluate the 
alignment of future work and institute purposes with national 
needs and the missions and objectives of the Department. We 
also assess the efficacy of the institute in achieving its 
goals and tradeoffs between dedicating funds to continued 
institute operations versus other mechanisms. Experts with--
both within the Department and the academic and industrial 
communities in which we work participate in this assessment, 
and we believe that the framework has been effective at 
assessing the benefits of the continued institute investment, 
while also identifying opportunities for improvement of the 
institute's next phase, should they be renewed. Kathleen, is 
there anything you'd like to add?
    Dr. Hogan. I think this is----
    Dr. Richmond. OK.
    Mrs. Foushee. Well, does the Department have any plans to 
solicit funding for any new institutes, and if so, on what 
topic?
    Dr. Richmond. So the Department is not currently requesting 
funding for new institutes. As we prioritize the work that is 
needed for the clean energy transition, and to meet our climate 
goals, Manufacturing U.S.A. institutes are an important tool in 
our toolkit and will be applied to areas where institutes would 
prove benefits above and beyond what other funding mechanisms 
could. So that's where we see it right now.
    Mrs. Foushee. This question also is for both or either of 
you. I'd like to switch topics and focus on the Department's 
broader funding management. DOE's grant and loan programs are 
essential to the development of new energy sources and the 
expansion of America's domestic energy infrastructure. These 
programs have been supercharged by the landmark achievements of 
the 117th Congress, to the benefit of our economy, our energy 
security, and our environment. In order to fully realize these 
benefits, DOE must be careful--must be a careful steward of the 
funding that has been directed to it. I would--want to learn 
more about the safeguards that DOE has put in place to ensure 
that grant and loan programs spend money wisely and 
conscientiously. So can either of you, again, describe how DOE 
manages the funds being awarded to grant and loan recipients, 
and how DOE evaluates those funds over time to affirm that they 
are advancing the policy priorities of the Department?
    Dr. Hogan. Yes, and I'll take this one, and thank you for 
the question. And I think I'll use the example of our Office of 
Clean Energy Demonstrations. You know, one of the reasons we 
really leaned in on this office, that was really created 
through our--in 2021 was because of the competencies that we 
believe are essential to managing large-scale demonstrations. 
And, as we've pointed out, there is a lot of the money, through 
IIJA and IRA, that are being managed through this office.
    So what have we done there? We have coalesced a workforce 
that is highly skilled in large scale project management, and 
we have also brought forth a team for--inside of that group, 
but separate, for independent technical reviews as we proceed 
over time. And in addition to that, we are establishing a new 
capability within the Department for a Demonstration and 
Deployment Advisory Board (DDAB). We are--we're the government, 
so we had--gave it the acronym the DDAB, so if you hear DDAB, 
you'll know what that stands for. So a multilayered approach to 
ensure that we have the best tools in the Federal Government 
being brought to bear on what we all acknowledge is a lot of 
money, but money that, if managed well, can have an amazing 
impact across our country around things like clean hydrogen, 
long-duration energy storage, and other very advantageous-type 
technologies.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for that response. That's my time, 
Mr. Chair. Yield back.
    Chairman Williams. I now recognize Mr. Obernolte for five 
minutes for questions.
    Chairman Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Richmond, in 
my opening statement I talked about my concerns about the fact 
that the OIG within the Department of Energy is so under-
resourced. Recent legislation has awarded over $128 billion in 
newly appropriated funding to the Department, as well as $350 
billion in new loan authority. And of that, my reading of the 
budget is that the OIG was given less than .1 percent of that 
funding to oversee that. When we had our hearing several weeks 
ago, Teri Donaldson, the Inspector General for the Department 
of Energy, testified, and I wrote it down because it had such 
an impact on me, she said the Department is so dramatically 
under-resourced that she is compelled to mention it anytime 
she's on the Hill. So I find that pretty alarming. What is the 
Department doing to ensure that the OIG has the resources that 
they need to oversee this new funding?
    Dr. Richmond. Well, thank you very much for raising that 
concern, because we want to make sure that we're doing 
everything right and legally. So, you know, I think DOE is 
committed to maintaining the public trust in the government, 
committed to transparency and accountability in the operations 
of the government. And so what we're working very hard on is to 
make sure that we achieve the ethics that are necessary. We're 
working diligently to ensure that staff is aware of and 
following the letter of--the spirit of ethics laws and 
regulations to ensure the American----
    Chairman Obernolte. I'm sorry, Dr. Richmond, I was asking 
about these--we'll get to the letter. We could----
    Dr. Richmond. All right.
    Chairman Obernolte [continuing]. Do that first, if you 
want----
    Dr. Richmond. OK.
    Chairman Obernolte [continuing]. But I was asking about 
funding for the OIG.
    Dr. Richmond. Well, in that case, we'll certainly take it 
under consideration, because that's not one that I'm as 
familiar with, but Kathleen is certainly more familiar.
    Chairman Obernolte. Dr. Hogan?
    Dr. Hogan. And certainly we are aware of the issues with 
that funding. I had the opportunity to testify in front of an 
Oversight Committee with our Inspector General, and certainly 
that was a major topic there. And, you know, we're looking at 
that in the Department. We certainly support everybody having 
the resources that they need to do their work around oversight. 
You know, the other things that we are doing in the Department, 
around oversight, is very active engagement with our Inspector 
General. You know, they have an amazing history of knowing 
where to look for fraud, waste, and abuse from, you know, past 
things that they've looked at. They are sharing all of that 
with the current team, they're training up our new people.
    Chairman Obernolte. They were very--I was very impressed in 
the hearing at the level of effort. I'm just concerned that 
there aren't enough eyeballs. So will you commit to looking for 
ways to try and steer some additional funding to the OIG to 
make sure that oversight can occur?
    Dr. Hogan. We will look throughout the Department to see 
what we can do now.
    Chairman Obernolte. Great. I appreciate that. Dr. Richmond, 
getting back to the issue of the letter that Chairman Williams 
and I sent regarding the----
    Dr. Richmond. Yes. I----
    Chairman Obernolte [continuing]. The recent letter that we 
had sent on the large number of trades in energy company----
    Dr. Richmond. Yes.
    Chairman Obernolte [continuing]. Stocks that were made by 
DOE employees, I mean, you understand that this is an 
allegation of wrongdoing? I understand what Department policy 
says. The problem is we are all public servants----
    Dr. Richmond. That's right.
    Chairman Obernolte [continuing]. And the public perception 
when a third of the senior management at DOE has been trading 
in the same stocks that they oversee, that's very bad public 
perception. So what should policy be in this perception?
    Dr. Richmond. Well, in this case, DOE's most recent Ethics 
Program review conducted by the Office of Government Ethics 
disclosed absolutely no issues with the quality of the ethics 
advice given to the employees. Ethics advice is readily 
available to any----
    Chairman Obernolte. Sure, sure, I--no, I understand all of 
this----
    Dr. Richmond. Yes.
    Chairman Obernolte [continuing]. And you've provided this 
in your response to us----
    Dr. Richmond. Yes.
    Chairman Obernolte [continuing]. But I'm asking you what do 
you think--because we have a perception problem here. The 
average American is not going to agree that this is a good look 
for the DOE.
    Dr. Richmond. Yes. I hear you, I hear you, and I understand 
it. And we'll work on this and get back to you.
    Chairman Obernolte. OK.
    Dr. Richmond. Because this is really important. Sometimes 
impressions are more important than what's actually happening, 
and we can't possibly lose the trust of our taxpayers in----
    Chairman Obernolte. Sure.
    Dr. Richmond [continuing]. This important area.
    Chairman Obernolte. And history has shown that when we 
don't have these safeguards in place----
    Dr. Richmond. Yes.
    Chairman Obernolte [continuing]. That opens the door for 
abuses to occur. And if I could further ask you to do 
something, the response that the DOE gave to Chairman Williams 
and I late last night, to our letter, I found really inadequate 
and disappointing. And not because of the content of it, I 
understand what you're saying, but because we had asked a 
series of very specific questions about this activity within 
the DOE that the letter did not address. And we're all on the 
same team here. No one's trying to light it--each other up. 
We're trying to make sure that we set a framework, you know, 
for fruitful collaboration between branches, and for trust with 
the American public. So if I could ask you to give us a 
response that gives us detailed answers to all the questions we 
ask, would you please do that?
    Dr. Richmond. That's my promise.
    Chairman Obernolte. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Williams. I now recognize Ms. Lofgren for five 
minutes of questions.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple 
of questions for you, Dr. Richmond, and thanks to both of you 
for being here. First, I was really excited to see the 
President's request for fusion research. It is largely 
consistent with the authorizations in CHIPS and Science and the 
Energy Act of 2020, and I think it's the biggest request for 
fusion ever, so that--of course, we still need to appropriate 
the funds, but it was very cheering to see that. Having said 
that, there were no specific funds to establish an alternative 
fusion energy concepts program that was authorized in 2018. And 
this, as far as I'm aware, and you can correct me, there's 
currently no ongoing DOE program to support research and 
assessment of innovative fusion energy concepts outside of the 
public/private partnerships funded by the Milestone Problems 
Program. So I'm wondering, Dr. Richmond, what might be done 
about that, about that gap.
    I also want to raise the issue--a number of people have 
suggested to me that we ought to have an Applied Energy Office 
for fusion, just as we do for nuclear energy, and solar, and 
other technology areas. I'm wondering what you think of that 
idea. And, finally, as I mentioned in my opening statement, it 
was a delight to be at the NIF on Monday. CHIPS and Science and 
the Energy Act of 2020 authorized $25 million per year----
    Dr. Richmond. Uh-huh.
    Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. In inertial fusion, but that was 
before we got ignition. DOE is now proposing a $15 million 
program for inertial fusion in 2024, which the secretary 
announced, actually, at NIF. And I'm just wondering whether we 
ought to think bigger on this, in terms of R&D, now that we've 
got ignition, and I think you're right. I mean, certainly we 
don't know which of the very many alternatives are going to be 
successful in the end, and it would be very premature to choose 
one over the other, but we also don't want to neglect this 
element, especially given the success. And, you know, there's 
so much private sector money going into these companies. 
Actually, I think there's more money going to the 
implementation by VCs (venture capitalists) than there is by 
the government into science, and I think, you know, the science 
is actually going to be necessary for those private sector 
efforts to succeed. I mean, they can't do the basic science 
that we need to do. The return on investment just isn't there. 
So I don't know if you could answer those questions?
    Dr. Richmond. You know, thank you for those questions, and 
for--and it is a huge success for NIF, and, you know, who 
would--ever expected a rapper, M.C. Hammer, to show up at NIF, 
right? And ask good questions in the tour, so I understand, 
too. You know, I think it's--what's really important is that--I 
agree with you that it's really important to have other things 
going on so that we don't cement ourselves into one 
particular--whether the Stellarator or the Tokamak, before we 
really understand, because there may be something really cool 
out there that just hasn't made it yet, but they don't have the 
investments yet because we--the basic science isn't behind 
there.
    So to that end, we're sent--we've proposed about 125--$120 
million for five new R&D centers, and these R&D centers are 
really to think more wildly about what we could do in fusion, 
and not with the constraints that might be imposed by everybody 
having to go to one facility or the other, so I think that's 
very promising. We'd love to do more, but we have budget 
constraints, but fusion, we're still excited to see how much 
money from the private sector is going into this.
    Now, to your question about creating now--because in--of 
course, in my world, I have the fusion energy, and then I also 
have nuclear energy over here, but we don't have fusion energy. 
We have fusion sciences. And, you know, this is something I've 
been thinking an awful lot about, and where I land right now is 
let's just give it a little more thought, because I think 
there's still--I don't want to get people's expectations so 
high, because there's so much fundamental work to be done, but 
I have a senior advisor, Scott Hsu, in my office----
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes. I met with him.
    Dr. Richmond [continuing]. Yes, that really ties us over, 
and is always pushing to make sure that we're not----
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, maybe we can discuss this further----
    Dr. Richmond. I would like----
    Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. Off agenda, but, you know, I 
looked up how much does America spend on diet soda every year, 
and it's, like, $20 billion, which we could replace it with a 
glass of water. It--those----
    Dr. Richmond. Yes.
    Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. Pale in----
    Dr. Richmond. Yes.
    Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. Comparison to the investment 
we're making in fusion, which could save the planet. So, Mr. 
Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back.
    Dr. Richmond. Good example.
    Chairman Williams. I now recognize Mr. Lucas for five 
minutes for----
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Williams. Sir.
    Chairman Lucas. Dr. Hogan, over the last six months I've 
sent three letters to the Department seeking additional 
information about a $200 million award to Microvast, a company 
with well-documented ties to the Chinese Communist Party, yet 
the Department continues to provide only vague details. 
Recently both you and Secretary Granholm have testified before 
other congressional Committees that Microvast has yet to 
receive any money, but they are still in the running to receive 
this award. Can you confirm that Microvast, or any other entity 
with improper ties to the Chinese Communist Party, will not 
receive any Federal funding from the Department?
    Dr. Hogan. Yes, I can confirm that.
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you. Is the Department reviewing its 
processes to ensure that this sort of confusion around the 
selection and awarding of receipts does not happen again?
    Dr. Hogan. We are doing a number of things here. One, you 
are pointing out that when we do a press release to say that a 
set of applicants have been selected, that what that does mean 
is they have been selected for negotiation, and that is our 
opportunity to really double down on due diligence. And that's 
not to say we don't do due diligence before the selection. We 
vet before, and we vet after, and--but that negotiation process 
is actually an extensive process of its own. Those of you that 
follow the battery work would--may note that we said who the 
selectees were in October 2022, and we sit here today soon to 
announce who the actual recipients are that we will have solid 
contracts with. But, as you can see, there's an extensive 
process that goes on to further vet and nail down many of the 
details that go with providing this funding to recipients.
    Chairman Lucas. I very much appreciate that, Doctor. And, 
in those letters that the Committee sent out, responding 
affirmatively and thoroughly would be appreciated too.
    Dr. Richmond and Dr. Hogan, as you know, the IIJA and the 
IRA authorize the DOE--isn't that amazing how that works--to 
establish the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations and 
appropriated more than $27 billion to this office. DOE placed 
the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations under the authority 
of the Under Secretary for Infrastructure, but kept most of the 
Department's other demonstration activities and core R&D 
programs under the authority of the Under Secretary for Science 
and Innovation. The massive influx of funding for an entirely 
new office under a siloed management structure raises concerns 
about DOE's ability to administer and coordinate the 
demonstration projects appropriately.
    While robust procedures in place--without robust, I should 
say, procedures in place to ensure coordination, taxpayers' 
dollars will be at risk. That's why I joined my colleague on 
the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee, Chairman Williams, on a 
letter to the secretary last week, requesting more detailed 
information on DOE's energy demonstration coordination 
activities. So, Dr. Richmond, Dr. Hogan, can you each describe 
the specific process or procedures your offices have developed 
to ensure that coordination this--between OCED and the relevant 
programs across the department--like, what metrics, if any, 
exist for determining--coordination between the enterprises? 
Now's your chance to shine.
    Dr. Hogan. You know, thank you so much. And I'll start, and 
hand it back to Geri--over to Geri, and then maybe close at the 
end, because we coordinate in many ways across what we know as 
S3, the Office of Infrastructure ,and S4, which is the Office 
of Science and Innovation. We coordinate in long term strategy. 
We coordinate in what we need to do around our annual budget 
cycles, and what the challenging problems are, and we 
coordinate in--when we get into the IIJA and IRA. We coordinate 
provision by provision throughout the--every phase of the 
project, from the design phase through the review--technical 
review and selection and negotiation phase, and we will be 
coordinating when we get to the point of project management, 
bringing in the technical expertise across the programs. And, 
again, at all those levels. And, really, Geri's been managing a 
lot of the cross-cutting coordination work, which I'll turn 
over to Geri.
    Dr. Richmond. Well, Kathleen's right, maybe you could call 
us the Under Secretaries 3.5, because we really are connected, 
and we have daily meetings. Our staff have daily meetings with 
each other. And you can imagine that there might be some kind 
of impedance mismatch between the two, because this is a new 
setup, and my area's been there for a while, but it's not. 
It's--people really understand the mission to be carried out, 
and so it's--we really are highly coordinated in ways I haven't 
seen at other agencies. So this siloing just isn't there, and I 
think it's partly because we're starting up a whole new 
section, which is--and a whole new part of DOE, which is 
exciting, and it provides an exciting opportunity for people in 
my team to coordinate with the--their team with a lot of the--
because a lot of the technical expertise is in our area, and we 
don't want to be making decisions that may not have the 
technical guts behind it. And that's why we both agree that 
it's so important to stay connected.
    Chairman Lucas. If the Chairman will indulge me, I've been 
here for a while, and my name's not John Dingle, and this is 
not the famous Committee he had, but the magnitude of resources 
that you've been entrusted with at the Department are such we 
have a very strong obligation to be very focused in our 
oversight, because there are going to be other big, bold things 
we need to do in the near future, and we have to demonstrate 
success here before we trust it again to make these steps 
forward. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
the indulgence.
    Chairman Williams. Sir. Move on to the rest of the 
Committee, and--starting with Ms. Ross. Recognize you for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to you, 
and the--Chairman Obernolte, and the two Ranking Members for 
holding this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for being 
here today. And the reason why we're here today is because last 
Congress we passed landmark research and development 
legislation, including the IIJA and the CHIPS and Science Act, 
and also the Inflation Reduction Act, which affects the 
Department of Energy. And communities across this country, 
including in Wake County, North Carolina, which I represent, 
and the Research Triangle Park, already have started to 
benefit, and move our country forward, thanks to many of the 
programs created in these laws. And I'm very excited to hear 
your report on what's been going on.
    I'd like to focus my remarks today on the topic of 
technology transfer. We spend a lot of time on this Committee 
debating the Federal Government's role in supporting scientific 
research and development, but we spend less time talking about 
how we can ensure the investments we make in research have an 
impact on the everyday lives of Americans outside of the labs. 
I know you both are very familiar with this concept, and I'm 
proud that the Energizing Technology Transfer Act, a bill I led 
last Congress, was signed into law as part of the CHIPS and 
Science Act. This bill authorized sweeping technology transfer 
mechanisms at the Department of Energy. Can you speak to how 
the Department of Energy is implementing these tech transfer 
provisions, and let us know what resources you might need to do 
even more?
    Dr. Richmond. Well, thank you for that question. Kathleen 
and I can both go after that one, but the--we've got the OTT 
office, which is the Office of Technology Transfer, if I got 
the last T right. We do do acronyms quite well. And OTT is 
really out there, in terms of working on both of our sides, but 
also--and in the communities, working with industry, working 
with entrepreneurs. We have huge entrepreneur programs at all 
of our National Laboratories, and so they're pulling those 
together also in order to get this out to things to be 
commercialized, while also creating the next generation of 
entrepreneurs at all levels, from laboratories, and also at 
universities, so--Kathleen, if you want to add?
    Dr. Hogan. Yes. Since----
    Ms. Ross. Well----
    Dr. Hogan. Yes.
    Ms. Ross [continuing]. Are there any concrete differences 
that the CHIPS and Science Act made to help you do that?
    Dr. Richmond. Absolutely. So, in particular, in the area of 
microelectronics and advanced computing, in those area, the 
emerging technologies areas, you know, these are ones that DOE 
has had equity in--equities in for decades. We have the largest 
hyper--I--high performance computing, and the only exa-scale 
computers in the world, and all of these are really folded into 
what we do in our laboratories, but also then can be--that--
have to do with the CHIPS and Science Act, but they are part of 
what OTT is pushing forward with too.
    So all the microelectronics areas, all of the user 
facilities that we have, they're doing--out there, letting 
people know that we've got these so that people can take 
advantage of them, and a lot of that is the science that's 
funded by the CHIPS and Science Act. That's authorized, I 
should say, in the CHIPS and Science Act. And--so we're ready 
to go if that--if the money gets appropriated with both. But 
OTT is funded at this point.
    Ms. Ross. OK. On a different topic, the U.S. needs to have 
a viable battery material processing industry to enable our 
clean energy future, and I'm encouraged to see this 
administration making headwinds in this area. Can you speak to 
the status of the program, and others related to the battery 
supply chain?
    Dr. Hogan. Absolutely. So, you know, there'll be a number 
of opportunities that we have to, you know, execute on the 
direction from Congress around the battery supply chain. One of 
the best known provisions is the $6 billion provision around 
battery material manufacturing and processing, et cetera. 
That's the one that we've already been talking about a little 
bit, where we have advanced a FOA (funding opportunity 
announcement) for $2.8 billion, and we're in the process of 
negotiating the first set of awards, with very good attention 
to ensuring that that work is for companies--it--that will be 
doing that work here in this country, and without exposing us 
to any type of unnecessary risks. We expect that there will be 
a next solicitation in a matter of months for the other, you 
know, big part of that funding.
    We've also been doing a fair amount of work in this space 
through the Loan Programs Office, leveraging increased scope 
that Congress gave us in the last few years as well, with a 
number of important new projects being stood up across the 
country in that area. So those are the ones I'll profile for 
you, unless you have other questions.
    Ms. Ross. No. Thank you. My time's expired, and I yield 
back.
    Chairman Obernolte. Thank you, Congresswoman Ross. Now 
recognize my colleague from Texas, Congressman Babin, for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
ladies for being here. Excuse me. Dr. Richmond, America's 
largest utilities, energy producers, agricultural companies, 
financial institutions, and other leaders are increasingly 
making carbon capture a fundamental pillar of their long term 
business strategy. Companies like Exxon-Mobil and Occidental 
Petroleum have made significant investments in this technology, 
and have estimated the global industry could create $3-$5 
trillion of market by 2050. Just last week, in my own district, 
I visited the NET Power facility in Houston, Texas, a carbon 
capture pilot project, and the world's first large-scale 
supercritical carbon dioxide power plant, that plans to make, 
and is making, a clean power using natural gas, while producing 
zero emissions. And it's amazing.
    And, as mentioned earlier in your--some of my predecessors' 
questioning, fusion is certainly an exciting, game changing 
potential energy producing technology, but this energy 
technology, with zero emissions, is already happening. We just 
need upscaling to make sure that happens. And so, Dr. Richmond, 
how can DOE support private industry in these endeavors?
    Dr. Richmond. Well, you should be a proud Texan indeed for 
what--for this, because it's an amazing--amazing how the field 
is going, and so quickly in this area.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am.
    Dr. Richmond. In my area of which I oversee, the carbon 
capture area, there are a lot of fundamental challenges yet to 
be solved. Nevertheless, companies like this taking it to run 
and--that go further are really important, so, of course, our 
role in my area, and then I can turn it over to Kathleen, is to 
make sure that for other companies--not just the biggest ones, 
but for other companies, so that we de-risk--we are able to do 
some demonstration projects that de-risk some of the hardest. 
And the hardest is really just to pull CO2 out of 
the ambient air, as opposed to next to some factory that is 
putting out a lot of CO2.
    So our--with our demonstration projects, in conjunction 
with--then with OCED, over in Kathleen's area, is really to be 
able to get it more into the private sector. But we've just got 
to get that moving a little bit faster. Kathleen?
    Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am, thank you.
    Dr. Hogan. Yes, and this is another area where Congress has 
given us some really powerful tools to do that next step, the 
demonstration and deployment step, and we do have solicitations 
in process, largely to do what's critical in this space, which 
is called these fund and engineering designs, right? Let's get 
in, let's do the engineering around the carbon streams, that 
are somewhat different from location to location, just to know 
what you really need costed out, and take it the next step.
    We've got very active engagement from industry, because, 
you know, everything that we're doing in the Office of 
Infrastructure has a really substantial cost share from the 
private sector, a lot of skin in the game from the private 
sector, so you know they're coming to the table believing it's 
going to work, and we'll be there to do that with them.
    Mr. Babin. Exciting to think. I appreciate both of you very 
much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Williams. Thank you. I recognize Ms. Salinas from 
Oregon for five minutes.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the 
Chairs and Ranking Members for holding this hearing today. So--
and thank you to Dr. Hogan and Dr. Richmond for being with us. 
So, as you know, distribution system transformers are critical 
to the National Electrical Grid's reliability, but they are in 
extremely short supply. The shortage is impeding efforts to 
modernize aging electrical grid infrastructure in Oregon, and 
is leading to delays, and even cancellations, of some 
electrification projects. Notably, procurement times for new 
distribution-level transformer have reportedly risen to more 
than a year, up from about three months in 2020, and average 
costs have at least doubled. So, Dr. Hogan, this question is 
for you. What can the Department do to address the transformer 
shortage, and are there existing IRA or bipartisan 
infrastructure law authorities the agency could leverage, or 
are new programs and/or funding mechanisms needed?
    Dr. Hogan. So we're using all the tools that we have. 
Certainly we've been involved in these conversations now, you 
know, just like you have for many, many, many months, if not 
years. So we're looking at all the tools that we have, you--
engaging with the industry. We--as we look at the bill, in IRA, 
that we have, one of the provisions that we think could help 
here is the work we are doing in support of the IRS (Internal 
Revenue Service) around the 48(c) tax credit. That's something 
that will be hitting the streets in the next few months, so 
that's one thing to look for. Another thing is, you know, we'll 
just go back to our FY '24 budget request. We have advanced 
funding requests in there, a funding proposal that we also 
think could help.
    This is a hard problem. You know, we keep saying, is there 
a silver bullet here? There really isn't a silver bullet, but I 
do think there is additional tools we could bring to the table 
as we try to leverage what we have. And, again, there's the 
Fiscal Year 2024 budget.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. Dr. Richmond, I also just briefly 
want to discuss how DOE is helping U.S. entrepreneurs innovate 
and scale up new clean energy technologies. As you know, the 
CHIPS and Science Act directed DOE to establish a Clean Energy 
Incubator Program to competitively award grants to clean energy 
incubators. Clean energy incubators and accelerators across the 
U.S., including the Cascadia Clean Tech Accelerator in my home 
State of Oregon, are helping to bring innovative technologies 
to market, and really catalyzing the development of new 
industries. So, Dr. Richmond, can you outline the Department's 
plan for standing up the Clean Energy Incubator Program and the 
need for congressional funding for it?
    Dr. Richmond. This is really an important issue, and it's 
one that sits both in the Office of Technology Transfer, the 
OTT Office, and the strategies that they're doing to develop 
liftoff reports to really get further in getting people advised 
and--individuals advised, as well as companies advised, in how 
to do more in terms of the transfer of knowledge to the private 
sector. And so all of that is tied together with what's 
happening at OTT, but we also have a lot of--as I mentioned 
before, we have a lot going on at our National Laboratories 
with regards to the entrepreneurship programs. That's been a 
high priority for the Science Advisory Board for the Secretary, 
to figure out how we could make sure that all of our 
entrepreneurial activities are coordinated together so that not 
everybody's all running off in a lot of different directions. 
So we have a number of different ways that we're going forward 
with this. Kathleen, is there anything you'd like to add? Yes.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you both.
    Dr. Richmond. Yes.
    Ms. Salinas. I yield back.
    Chairman Williams. Thank you. We're going to stay on your 
side of the aisle there, and I now recognize Ms. Lee from 
Pennsylvania for five minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, a pleasant surprise. And 
thank you, Dr. Hogan and Dr. Richmond, for your attendance 
today. I'm really proud my district in western Pennsylvania is 
home to one of three Department of Energy National Energy 
Technology Laboratory (NETL) sites. NETL conducts 
groundbreaking research--several fields that our Nation's clean 
energy future relies on. I was pleased to see that DOE's Office 
of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management will provide $150 
million in funding through the IRA to improve a lot of the 
infrastructure. This critically needed funding will support 
infrastructure upgrades, enhance resource capabilities, and 
expand two research and development programs at the Pittsburgh 
site. These programs will work to convert carbon to combat 
climate change and develop critical materials products and 
processes for our major industries. The economy of western PA 
has been re-invigorated by the expansion of our technology 
sector, and I'm interested to hear more about how my district, 
PA-12, and this region can be essential to the development of 
our Nation's renewable and clean energy economy.
    So, Dr. Richmond, how can we, as Members of Congress, help 
to translate what new clean energy technologies will mean in 
our communities on a day to day basis?
    Dr. Richmond. Well, thank you very much for that question, 
and we are very proud of NETL. We're very proud of what NETL 
does for the Nation, and that--we're also--I'm just really 
excited about the money that's going from--into your 
infrastructure and laboratory modernization upgrades. This 
money has not only been essential for NETL to be competitive, 
but also our other laboratories too.
    You know, a lot of what we're doing in the Department of 
Energy with all of the funds that we've got is to make sure 
that no one is left behind, no region is left behind. No rural 
region, no inner city region is left behind, and we take that 
into account every time that there's any kind of a FOA that's 
sent out. Kathleen can expand on this too.
    I actually grew up in--on a farm in Kansas, a rural area, 
so I know--and I was just back there last week, and I know what 
it feels like to be left behind, and we've got to make sure 
that we are hitting all parts of the country when we have these 
buildouts of the funding and opportunities. And Kathleen could 
say a little bit about the FOAs, with regards to the 
information that we send out that we're requesting from 
companies, if they're going to ask for money, that they have to 
be paying attention to this.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Please.
    Dr. Hogan. Yes, thank you for that. You know, one of the 
innovations we believe we brought to the table through the work 
that we're doing at the Department of Energy in these major 
solicitations that we're putting out the door include something 
called the Community Benefits Plan, that the applicants need to 
provide to really show how the work that they will be doing 
will engage the community, and benefit the community, bring 
jobs to the community, and really get to some of the hardest 
hit parts of our country. So we're excited to see what 
applicants are bringing forward, committing to, and then seeing 
it be stood up.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. The CHIPS and Science Act has 
emphasized regional innovation hubs. Why is it critical that we 
continue to diversity the socioeconomic makeup of where 
innovation happens? Yes, ma'am.
    Dr. Richmond. Why is it important? Well, because we need 
the help. We need the workforce. We need the--I mean--and they 
need to come from everywhere. They need to come from 
everywhere. And we--you know, I have to say, right now, having, 
you know, been, you know--and teaching at universities for 
nearly 40 years, I have to admit, I have never seen young 
people so excited about being involved in something that's 
going to make the difference in their communities, in the--
especially on climate. We're getting incredible applications in 
for people that--young people that--really interested in 
changing their jobs to come over to DOE and work because they 
want to make a difference, and we can't leave anybody behind 
that's in an area that they felt left out before.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Really quickly, for either, how has the 
Office of Clean Energy Demonstration helped streamline the 
commercialization process of hydrogen derived from renewable 
energy sources? And quickly, if you could--either you can 
provide an update on the selection process of hydrogen hubs 
authorized by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law?
    Dr. Hogan. Yes. So first, just a theory of the case for the 
hydrogen hubs, right? Because we use this word demonstration, I 
think, in a few different ways, right? So you can demonstrate 
to de-risk technology? What are we doing with the hydrogen 
hubs, following on the direction that we got from Congress? 
We're de-risking a business ecosystem to produce and use 
hydrogen. So that is a way to, you know, rapidly commercialize 
what is there to do in this country around hydrogen. So we're 
very excited about what the hydrogen hub effort can do, and we 
are right now in the throes of reviewing the applications. So 
they're in the door, and expect to be at a point of saying who 
the selectees are for negotiation by early fall.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. I yield back. That's my time.
    Chairman Williams. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Tenney 
from New York for five minutes of questions.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Chairman Williams, and co-Chairman 
Obernolte, Ranking Members Bowman and Foushee, for holding this 
hearing. Thank you to the witnesses. Sorry I missed some of 
your testimony, but this is an important issue for me, as all 
of the nuclear power plants contained within the State of New 
York are now in my district, New York-24, home to Nine Mile 
Point, Ginna, and Fitzpatrick, all along the shoreline of 
Ontario--Lake Ontario.
    And I just have a question--as New York rushes to its 100 
percent clean energy by 2040 goal, the fact remains that only 
one carbon-free energy source can currently support our 
baseload electricity needs, and that's nuclear. However, we 
continue to unfairly prop up wind and solar with all kind of 
subsidies, which haven't proven that they can get beyond 
intermittent power. They've destabilized many of our power 
grids, and we end up with this patchwork approach to energy 
which allow these sources to win in the marketplace, but not on 
their own merits. And anyone that comes to upstate New York and 
sees their beautiful farmland can understand that. If these 
energy sources cannot currently compete, we must allow further 
research and development, not prematurely push adoption of 
technologies that are unready, and our communities are not 
ready to go to 100 percent electrification at this--at the pace 
that New York State is imposing.
    My first question is for Dr. Hogan, and it's, 
unfortunately, politics about energy policy. Three clean Indian 
Point reactors in New York were shut down prematurely. The 
Department of Energy has a program funded by the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law to try and prevent future permanent closures 
for plants that are not profitable due to bad market 
conditions. However, my understanding is that only one plant in 
California received funding, and there are currently no other 
plants that are anticipated to shut down. Do you anticipate 
future plants that will receive this funding?
    Dr. Hogan. Yes, thank you for asking that question. As we 
have stood up the program, again, authorized--provided to us by 
Congress, the Civil Nuclear Credits Program, we have stood it 
up in phases, and the first phase really was for a set of 
reactors that had already announced that--a planned closure. We 
are going to have additional rounds of the Civil Nuclear 
Credits Program.
    Ms. Tenney. OK.
    Dr. Hogan. $6 billion were provided, and we actually have a 
second round, I believe, out for solicitation now. And--again, 
with more flexible conditions under which they can apply, and 
there will be future phases as well, so----
    Ms. Tenney. OK, great. Thank you. And so we'll--we tend 
to--we'll be consuming a fair amount of that funding, or--and 
the credits on that funding, right? We'll be consuming those, 
hopefully----
    Dr. Hogan. Yes. And----
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. In that project.
    Dr. Hogan. This--well, it--the----
    Ms. Tenney. Yes.
    Dr. Hogan [continuing]. Funding for the Civil Nuclear 
Credits Program stays available, until expended, through 2030-
ish----
    Ms. Tenney. OK.
    Dr. Hogan [continuing]. And--again, so we have 
conditionally awarded $1.1 billion of the $6 billion, so there 
is a substantial additional amount of funding. We also do 
understand that some of the nuclear facilities will avail 
themselves of the tax credits that have also been provided by 
Congress, so there's a few tools that are out there for nuclear 
facilities.
    Ms. Tenney. OK, great. Another quick question, on the Nine 
Mile Point Hydrogen Department of Energy Pilot Project, there's 
been a debate emerging on whether--among clean energy producers 
and the academic community about what should qualify as clean 
hydrogen for the purposes of the IRA tax credit included in 
Section 45(e). Would you agree that projects like the Nine Mile 
Point Energy Pilot using existing nuclear power are clean, and 
should qualify for the highest credit under law?
    Dr. Hogan. I'm going to look for a lifeline.
    Ms. Tenney. Be quick, because I've got more questions.
    Dr. Hogan. So the--this is actually something that IRS 
needs to comment on. Certainly we can advise technically, but 
we really need to leave this to----
    Ms. Tenney. It is a--more an energy issue that could 
provide guidance to the IRS, so then we can know that that's a 
legitimate----
    Dr. Hogan. So----
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. That's what I'm--we're----
    Dr. Hogan. Yes. So this is all being worked through, and we 
do hope that there'll be clarity around this soon.
    Ms. Tenney. OK. And this could go to either Dr. Richmond or 
Dr. Hogan. According to U.S. Energy Information Administration, 
biomass energy can be a carbon-neutral energy source, as the 
carbon dioxide captured during the biomass's lifespan is almost 
the same as the carbon dioxide released when it's burned. 
However, New York State no longer counts biomass as a carbon-
neutral energy source, which has led to Fort Drum's biomass 
energy plant to close. Do you agree with New York State that 
biomass should not qualify as a carbon-neutral energy source? 
Either one of you can answer that. Or, actually, both would be 
great.
    Dr. Richmond. You know, that's new to me. I would have to 
look into it and get back to you on it. Kathleen?
    Ms. Tenney. All right. Thank you.
    Dr. Richmond. Yes.
    Dr. Hogan. Yes. Yes.
    Dr. Richmond. Same, yes.
    Ms. Tenney. OK. Thank you. I mean, Fort Drum was--there's 
30,000--ecosystem--there are people with--17,000 soldiers 
looking for an expansion, 100 dependent--100 percent using the 
biomass plant, forced shutdown by New York State, and now 
they're pushed onto our energy grid. This is a significant 
energy expenditure. I just would love to get an answer on that. 
If you could maybe provide me with an opinion, or an answer 
through an expert, we'd really appreciate that.
    Dr. Richmond. You know, thanks, because that's concerning. 
I can understand why that's concerning to you, so we'll get 
back to you.
    Ms. Tenney. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. I yield back.
    Chairman Williams. I now recognize Ms. McClellan of 
Virginia for five minutes of questions.
    Mrs. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to--
for--to the witnesses for being here with us today. The 
historic investments made by the Biden-Harris Administration 
and the 117th Congress through IIJA, the IRA, and the CHIPS and 
Sciences Act are already having a huge impact in the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, and in my district, and I want to 
focus some of my questions around those specific investments.
    Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Thomas 
Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, which is a DOE Office 
of Science National Lab that conducts groundbreaking research 
around using the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility 
(CEBAF) to really understand the smallest particles of matter. 
And I learned more about nuclear--you--quirks, and all of that. 
I was having flashbacks back to high school physics. I was 
pleased to see the Jefferson Lab receive $76.5 million in 
Federal funding through the IRA, a portion of which will be 
used to help understand electron scattering and unleash 
scientific advancements as a result.
    Dr. Richmond, could you provide an update on the deployment 
of this funding to Jefferson Lab, and how the IRA funds are 
supporting the critical infrastructure needed to advance our 
understanding of nuclear physics?
    Dr. Richmond. Absolutely. First of all, we are very proud 
of J Lab, and--T.J. Lab, and we're really excited that the IRA 
has been--allowed, really, some of the upgrades that they 
critically needed, in addition to the renovation and expansion 
of CEBAF. And it really goes into--you know, whether it be 
quirks, or muons, whatever it is, you know, we may think 
they're kind of funny names, sort of like cartoon characters, 
but they are the essence of understanding the universe. And 
the--with this accelerator facility at J Lab, they really are--
they are a huge asset to the other 17 National Laboratories 
that we have, because, you know, the accelerators are the--just 
the basis behind how we do a lot of different discoveries.
    And so--I know that we have money going into that 
expansion, but I also have just a list of the other things that 
are going in, but I don't need to read to you, but they're 
going to J Lab, but let me tell you that we're really proud 
that the--that IRA has been able to step up, and what--and help 
fund what we see as one of our most promising emerging 
laboratories.
    Mrs. McClellan. Yes, and part of that funding is also going 
to support expanding the main building and conference space to 
house staff, students, and visiting scientists. I would say 
that supporting the National Lab staff is critical to ensuring 
that we maintain a robust scientific enterprise for future 
generations.
    For both of you, can you talk about how Federal funding 
from IRA supporting the National Lab workforce--or how it's 
being used to support the workforce both at Jefferson Lab, and 
the other labs in the country?
    Dr. Richmond. Well, the IRA money isn't really for 
workforce, as much as the Office of Science money goes for 
workforce. It's more for infrastructure. But we know that if we 
don't get these labs built up, and the highest quality, we will 
not be able to attract the best scientists.
    Mrs. McClellan. Well, I think that's the point, is that, 
unless you are offering them state-of-the-art labs----
    Dr. Richmond. Right.
    Mrs. McClellan [continuing]. Where they can do the work 
that they need to do, they're not going to come.
    Dr. Richmond. That's right.
    Mrs. McClellan. Yes.
    Dr. Richmond. You got it. And--they'll go to other 
countries, and we can't afford to have them go to other 
countries.
    Mrs. McClellan. That's exactly right. Switching topics, 
Dominion Energy, which is a large electric utility serving more 
than 7 million people in 16 States, including Virginia, the 
investment spurred by these bills have spurred billions of 
dollars in private investment in Virginia, particularly in grid 
modernization, and security efforts, and offshore wind. Dr. 
Hogan, how is the Department of Energy supporting national grid 
modernization efforts like those made in Virginia?
    Dr. Hogan. You know, in many ways you--what the IIJA and 
IRA brought us are a number of tools to expand our grid, 
including through a bundle of provisions that we've rolled out 
as our Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership Program, or 
GRIP, which is a $10 billion program that allows us to partner 
with utilities, industry, and others to implement a whole 
variety of things to smarten the grid, harden the grid, and do 
other things to boost resiliency and reliability. So excited 
about that, as well as other tools that help us build out 
transmission spines for the country.
    Mrs. McClellan. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chairman Williams. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Carsten 
of Illinois for five minutes. Sorry? Mr. Casten, I'm sorry. I 
just--I--no, I just threw in a couple of extra syllables.
    Mr. Casten. Someone from Illinois, yes, now is recognized. 
Thank you both so much for being here. I especially appreciate 
that you're here, given how timely it is, given the 
announcement from Mr. Podesta yesterday, and some of the 
transmission permitting reform bills, which I am partial to not 
least because Mike Levin and I have been working on a fairly 
comprehensive transmission reform package. A lot of what was in 
the White House's recommendation is consistent with what was 
there, not everything, so we're going to work with the White 
House to figure out the missing pieces. But a lot of what's 
there, at least in the request to Congress, I think affects 
agencies that are under both of your control, so I'm going to 
sort of focus on that point.
    The first question is for you, Dr. Hogan. The--there seems 
to be an intimation, which I'm refreshed to see, of--that the--
of the intent to use your authority under 216(h) for the DOE to 
be the permitting authority, sort of a sole source permitting 
authority for new transmission. I'm wondering, do you have the 
resources to carry that out, given how much transmission is in 
the queue right now that needs to be built out, and should we 
be thinking about that when we get to budgeting?
    Dr. Hogan. We'd be happy to have that conversation. 
Certainly we have a good down payment on those resources, but 
we'd be happy to have a fuller conversation.
    Mr. Casten. OK. For the rest of my colleagues here, there's 
about 2,000 gigawatts of generation in the queue, of which 86 
is fossil fired, and the rest is zero carbon that needs 
transmission, so the beginning, middle, and end of permitting 
is transmission.
    The second one to you, Ms. Richmond. The--NREL did this 
seam study back in 2020, identifying all the parts of the grid 
that are, you know, bottlenecks, and need to connect these 
various regions. I have heard from my friends in the private 
sector that here has been some less than fulsome cooperativity 
between the ISOs (Independent System Operators) and the RTOs 
(Regional Transmission Organizations) in getting those in. I 
just wonder if you can speak to how good a job are we doing at 
deploying the capital to de-bottleneck those parts of the grid 
that were identified in that 2020 seam study?
    Dr. Richmond. That's a great question, and trying to 
unstick the bottlenecks is something that we worry a lot about. 
With regards to NREL--and, in fact, NREL is not only doing 
studies like that, but it's also doing a lot of work with 
regards to making sure that we have the innovations necessary 
to get through some of those bottlenecks. There's still much 
more than we can do in this area, but, you know, I'd be happy 
to work with you more to figure out----
    Mr. Casten. OK.
    Dr. Richmond [continuing]. How we can go----
    Mr. Casten. Well, I guess the concern--and this goes to my 
jokey part at the start about things that Congressman Levin and 
I have put in that I'd like to see in the White House----
    Dr. Richmond. OK.
    Mr. Casten [continuing]. Package, is that, to the extent 
that we are failing to make those upgrades just because we're 
lacking the dollars, or the technical resources, that's all 
within the remit of DOE.
    Dr. Richmond. Yes.
    Mr. Casten. To the extent that they're not going forward 
because, as we know, you know, the governing structure of RTOs 
and other matters are--I say this as someone who used to spend 
my time in the power industry, you make a lot of money when 
you're sitting on a congested power node. The incentives are 
wrong.
    Dr. Richmond. Yes.
    Mr. Casten. And, to the extent there's an economic 
incentive problem, I think it's important that we address that. 
And--so my question for you is, is this a problem that is 
solvable surely within DOE's jurisdiction, or do we need to 
take more of a whole of government approach if we're actually 
going to de-bottleneck our grid?
    Dr. Richmond. Let me turn it over to Kathleen.
    Dr. Hogan. Again, I think we'd be happy to come up and have 
that conversation with you. One of the things I can also add, 
though, is, through our GRIP Program that I spoke about a few 
moments ago, we are seeing some very interesting inter-regional 
transmission connectivity that we do think can address some of 
these issues, so there's some good starting pieces there.
    Mr. Casten. OK. Well, related to that--and I'm trying to 
figure out how much time I have left here--the Grid Deployment 
Office has, you know, famously fantastic resources on the 
technical side for, you know, power systems modeling and 
interconnection, and it--I have a lot scars on my back from 
trying to interconnect assets on the utilities grid, where an 
economic problem manifests as a technical problem, and it's 
hard when the person who has the economic incentives is using 
technical justifications.
    And so I'm wondering, and this is a big picture question, 
are there ways that we might better use the Grid Deployment 
Office to provide a technical resource on the interconnection 
and the system analysis, and take the--take that process out of 
the jurisdiction of people who may have some economic conflicts 
until such time as you, or FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission), or the Congress can fix the economic conflicts?
    Dr. Richmond. You know, I think we're happy to explore the 
tools that we have, and better understand the scars that you 
have as well. You know----
    Mr. Casten. You don't, trust me.
    Dr. Richmond. Yes, I know. You know--yes. So we're happy to 
have this conversation and figure out how our tools can help 
address----
    Mr. Casten. OK.
    Dr. Richmond [continuing]. Addressing----
    Dr. Hogan. Yes----
    Dr. Richmond [continuing]. Issues.
    Dr. Hogan [continuing]. Including the Office of 
Electricity, which is in my area----
    Mr. Casten. Yes.
    Dr. Hogan [continuing]. Too.
    Mr. Casten. Yes.
    Dr. Hogan. Be happy to work with you on this.
    Mr. Casten. Happy to do that. I mean--well, my--you know, 
my general sense is that we have this enormous opportunity, 
because every time you bring cheap energy onto the grid, people 
are happy because they pay less for energy, except for the fact 
that people who get paid to sell energy would--you know, like--
--
    Dr. Richmond. Yes.
    Mr. Casten [continuing]. Every widget manufacturer in the 
world, they want widgets to be expensive. Right?
    Dr. Richmond. Right.
    Mr. Casten. And----
    Dr. Richmond. That's right.
    Mr. Casten [continuing]. You've got the technical 
resources. I think we--with some creative legislation we can 
fix it, but we don't have time to wait 10 years for another 
energy bill.
    Dr. Richmond. No, no, let's figure out a way to get forward 
with this.
    Mr. Casten. OK.
    Dr. Richmond. Yes.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you very much. Yield----
    Dr. Richmond. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Casten [continuing]. Back.
    Chairman Williams. Thank you. Staying with Illinois, Mr. 
Sorensen, I recognize you for five minutes.
    Mr. Sorensen. I want to thank the Subcommittees on Energy 
and Investigations and Oversight for holding this hearing. I'd 
also like to thank our witnesses for their willingness to 
testify before us this afternoon. And before I go any further, 
I'd like to offer Dr. Hogan a few seconds. Would you like to 
clarify an earlier response to Mr. Lucas's question on 
Microvast?
    Dr. Hogan. Yes. Thank you for that opportunity. I think Mr. 
Lucas asked me to confirm that the Department of Energy would 
not award dollars to any potential awardee that would put 
dollars at risk relative to a foreign entity of concern, and 
that's what I was confirming. I was not trying to make a 
comment on any particular award, so I--hopefully there was no 
confusion on that point. But thank you.
    Mr. Sorensen. Thank you for the clarification. The 117th 
Congress passed three landmark pieces of legislation, the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, CHIPS and Science, and 
the Inflation Reduction Act. These bills made a once in a 
generation investment in sectors of our economy, including 
infrastructure, energy, climate resiliency, which, being a 
meteorologist, is important to me, and technology. But we've 
got to focus on the implementation, which is why I'm excited to 
have both of you here today.
    As we know, making the news cycle today, we are rapidly 
approaching the debt ceiling. There are proposals to address 
the debt ceiling by freezing funding back to the 2022 level. 
So, for both of you, how would this decision impact these three 
signature pieces of legislation that are already having the 
positive impact in our communities?
    Dr. Richmond. Wow. Well, I have some numbers. I have some 
numbers, because we did some calculations on this. If we go 
back, for example, to a level at which we're at the FY '22 
levels, in the weatherization area, it would be a $62 million 
cut, which would mean 12,000 less low income families that 
could take advantage. In the rebate--in rebates--this is all 
for consumers--it's really--Americans--consumers would be hit, 
by our calculations, of about a billion.
    The Office of Science, this is a really--this is--we--just 
a travesty for the Office of Science. And if we go to the 2022 
level, it would be a seven--it would get to a significant 
reduction and--what the Office of Science can do, and 
particularly the laboratories. It would be a huge hit on the 
laboratories, going from what we're putting in the 2024 budget 
of 8.8 back to 7.5. That would reduce the scientists that we 
fund by 5,200. We can't afford 5,200 loss of scientists when we 
need them so desperately. And also that would mean--we have 
30,000 users that use our laboratory facilities every year, 
from all States. That means that those users--we would cut back 
on those facilities, so 2,600 users would have to go overseas 
to use light sources, and the--and different other 
possibilities.
    It puts us--I think what's most concerning to me is that, 
just when I think we're starting to--we've seen China rise with 
regards to its--what it's putting into its facilities. They're 
trying to build laboratories like ours, modeled after ours. 
Just at a point we're able to update our laboratories, and have 
the workforce that--at least is getting it closer, they're just 
going to leapfrog right over us if we do that, both in emerging 
technologies, as well as in this area too.
    And so I think, with the IRA tax incentives, it would be a 
huge blow to competitiveness just as we have this momentum to 
go forward. And, overall, we see that--we calculate about 
780,000 jobs lost by 2024. But those are our calculations. It 
would just be--and this is your job to do this, but it's----
    Mr. Sorensen. Right.
    Dr. Richmond [continuing]. Our job to worry about people, 
and the workforce, and competitiveness.
    Mr. Sorensen. Dr. Hogan?
    Dr. Hogan. Yes, no, I think, you know, it's--to sit here at 
this point in time with the IIJA and IRA in front of us, and 
really why are--they're here. It's because of this amazing 
opportunity we have right now to regain manufacturing and build 
jobs. And--you know, so it's great to be working on this, but 
that is today's time, and it's the time to take advantage of 
this opportunity, right, which only comes around every now and 
again.
    So what would be the impact of our offices in this new 
Office of Infrastructure if we went back a couple years? We 
would undo some of the capabilities we're trying to build out 
around securing the clean energy supply chain for so many of 
the technologies that are the technologies of the next--coming 
decades. So it's, you know, very important capabilities like 
that. It's the improvements we've been able to make to our 
Tribal Energy Program, which has grown substantially in its 
budget over this period of time. And it also will affect our 
ability to do the types of things we've just been talking about 
in this Committee to address interconnection-type issues, 
permitting issues. Again, we hope there's a congressional 
solution on permitting, but, until there is, you know, we're 
using the tools we have to make progress there, and these types 
of budget cuts would not allow us to do that.
    Mr. Sorensen. Well, we--it--we have to make sure that 
America is leading the way.
    Dr. Richmond. Yes.
    Mr. Sorensen. And I hope that we could find the consensus 
to believe in that. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Williams. Thank you. I think we have covered a lot 
of ground today, and I--we're going to be winding up for the 
day. On behalf of Chairman Obernolte, and Ranking Member 
Foushee, and myself, I want to thank you very much for your 
valuable testimony. I want to end where we started, which is an 
unprecedented amount of money that will be flowing through DOE, 
and the incredible responsibility of the future of energy in 
our Nation, and how that impacts everybody. Every place in 
America, at every stage of life, and every economy.
    So, again, thank you for your time. I also want to thank my 
colleagues for their questions. The record will remain open for 
10 days for additional comments and written questions from 
Members. And this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the Subcommittees were 
adjourned.] 

















                               Appendix

                              ----------                              

                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions



                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Geraldine Richmond

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Responses by Dr. Kathleen Hogan

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]