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






 UNLEASHING AMERICAN ENERGY, LOWERING ENERGY COSTS, AND STRENGTHENING 
                             SUPPLY CHAINS

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

                             JOINT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, CLIMATE, AND GRID SECURITY

                                AND THE

   SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, MANUFACTURING, AND CRITICAL MATERIALS

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            FEBRUARY 7, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-6




    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy 
                        energycommerce.house.gov 
                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
52-299 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2024 
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                   CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
                                  Chair
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                  Ranking Member
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              ANNA G. ESHOO, California
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KATHY CASTOR, Florida
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                PAUL TONKO, New York
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          TONY CARDENAS, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              RAUL RUIZ, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
GREG PENCE, Indiana                  ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota, Vice  LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
    Chair                            DARREN SOTO, Florida
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               KIM SCHRIER, Washington
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
KAT CAMMACK, Florida
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                      NATE HODSON, Staff Director
                   SARAH BURKE, Deputy Staff Director
               TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
           Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security

                      JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
                                 Chairman
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                  Ranking Member
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              SCOTT H. PETERS, California
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               PAUL TONKO, New York
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah, Vice Chair     KIM SCHRIER, Washington
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona                KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREG PENCE, Indiana                  JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        TONY CARDENAS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                    officio)
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
    (ex officio)

   Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials

                           BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
                                 Chairman
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    PAUL TONKO, New York
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama                Ranking Member
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    Chair                            JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               RAUL RUIZ, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa           officio)
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
    (ex officio)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  South Carolina, opening statement..............................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Colorado, opening statement.................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Hon. Bill Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Ohio, opening statement........................................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................    16
    Prepared statement...........................................    18
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    23
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    26
    Prepared statement...........................................    28

                               Witnesses

Mark W. Menezes, Former Deputy Secretary, Department of Energy, 
  and Former Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment, House 
  Committee on Energy and Commerce...............................    30
    Prepared statement...........................................    33
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   253
Jeff Eshelman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Independent 
  Petroleum Association of America...............................    40
    Prepared statement...........................................    42
Raul Garcia, Legislative Director for Healthy Communities, 
  Earthjustice...................................................    47
    Prepared statement...........................................    49
Katie Sweeney, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, 
  National Mining Association....................................    60
    Prepared statement...........................................    62
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   256
Tyson Slocum, Energy Program Director, Public Citizen, Inc.......    77
    Prepared statement...........................................    79
Bernard McNamee, Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory 
  Commission.....................................................    94
    Prepared statement...........................................    96
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   259

                            Legislation \1\

H.R. ___, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of 
  Natural Gas Pipelines Act
H.R. ___, To amend the Toxic Substances Control Act with respect 
  to critical energy resources, and for other purposes
H.R. ___, the Critical Electric Infrastructure Cybersecurity 
  Incident Reporting Act

----------

\1\ Submitted legislation has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=115306.
H.Con.Res. ___, Expressing the sense of Congress that the Federal 
  Government should not impose any restrictions on the export of 
  crude oil or other petroleum products
H.R. ___, To require the administrator of the Environmental 
  Protection Agency to authorize the use of flexible air 
  permitting with respect to certain critical energy resource 
  facilities, and for other purposes
H.R. ___, To repeal section 134 of the Clean Air Act, relating to 
  the greenhouse gas reduction fund
H.R. ___, To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to treat the 
  owner or operator of a critical energy resource facility as 
  having been issued an interim permit for the treatment, 
  storage, and disposal, of hazardous waste, and for other 
  purposes
H.Con.Res. ___, Expressing disapproval of the revocation by 
  President Biden of the Presidential permit for the Keystone XL 
  pipeline
H.R. 150, the Protecting American Energy Production Act
H.R. 484, the Natural Gas Tax Repeal Act
H.R. ___, To require the Secretary of Energy to direct the 
  National Petroleum Council to issue a report with respect to 
  petrochemical refineries in the United States, and for other 
  purposes
H.R. ___, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act
H.R. ___, the Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act of 2023
H.R. ___, To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the phase out of 
  gasoline and prevent higher prices for consumers and for other 
  purposes
H.R. ___, To prohibit the importation into the United States of 
  unirridated low-enriched uranium that is produced in the 
  Russian Federation, and for other purposes
H.R. ___, To authorize the administrator of the Environmental 
  Protection Agency to waive application of certain requirements, 
  sanctions, or fees, with respect to processing or refining of 
  critical energy resources at a critical energy resource 
  facility, and for other purposes
H.R. ___, the Promoting Cross-border Energy Infrastructure Act

                           Submitted Material

Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
Letter of February 6, 2023, from Amanda E. Eversole, Executive 
  Vice President and Chief Advocacy Officer, American Petroleum 
  Institute, to Mrs. Rodgers.....................................   178
Slide presentation, ``API/OMB Meeting--EPA's Risk Management 
  Plan,'' American Petroleum Institute, June 23, 2022............   180
Executive Summary, ``Commercializing Innovative Chemical 
  Products,'' Coalition for Chemical Innovations, October 2022...   187
Letter of February 7, 2023, from Chet Thompson, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, American Fuel & Petrochemical 
  Manufacturers, to Mr. Johnson, et al...........................   191
Report, ``Critical Considerations and Factors for US Refiners to 
  Address as Part of an HF Alkylation Technology Conversion,'' by 
  Becht, October 28, 2022\1\
Letter of February 6, 2023, from Charlie Riedl, Executive 
  Director, Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, to Mr. Duncan and 
  Ms. DeGette....................................................   195
Letter of February 6, 2023, from Rich Powell, Chief Executive 
  Officer, ClearPath Action, to Mrs. Rodgers and Mr. Pallone.....   198
Report of the National Fire Protection Association, ``Home 
  Cooking Fires,'' by Marty Ahrens, July 2020\1\
Letter of February 3, 2023, from Maria Korsnick, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, to Mrs. 
  Rodgers and Mr. Pallone........................................   199
Commentary, Geoff Moody, Senior Vice President, Government and 
  Policy, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, 
  Hydrocarbon Engineering, September 2022........................   201
Letter of April 6, 2022, from Rep. Elissa Slotkin, et al., to 
  Michael Regan, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency..   202
Letter of February 6, 2023, from Jon Indall, Counsel, Uranium 
  Producers of America, to Mrs. Rodgers and Mr. Pallone..........   204

----------

\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=115306.
Letter of February 6, 2023, from Todd Abrajano, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Nuclear Industry Council, to Mrs. 
  Rodgers and Mr. Pallone........................................   205
Advertisement, ``The Torrance Refinery Has Been Using MHF 
  Safely,'' United Steelworkers..................................   207
Article of June 16, 2023, ``Gov. Whitman, Retired Generals Call 
  on EPA to Protect Against Chemical Plant Disasters,'' by David 
  Halperin, Republic Report\1\
Letter of February 5, 2023, from Coming Clean, et al., to Mrs. 
  Rodgers, et al.................................................   208
Letter of February 2, 2023, from Paul N. Cicio, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, Industrial Energy Consumers of 
  America, to Mr. Duncan and Ms. DeGette.........................   213
Letter of February 6, 2023, from Steven Goldsmith, President, 
  Torrance Refinery Action Alliance, to House Committee on Energy 
  and Commerce...................................................   216
Press release of April 13, 2021, Chevron and Honeywell...........   220
Report by the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation 
  Board, ``ExxonMobil Torrance Refinery: Electrostatic 
  Precipitator Explosion, Torrance, California,'' May 2017\1\
Report by the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation 
  Board, ``Fire and Explosions at Philadelphia Energy Solutions 
  Refinery, Hydrofluoric Acid Alkylation Unit,'' October 11, 
  2022\1\
Report by the Government Accountability Office, ``Chemical 
  Accident Prevention: EPA Should Ensure Regulated Facilities 
  Consider Risks from Climate Change,'' February 2022\1\
Report by United Steelworkers, ``A Risk Too Great: Hydrofluoric 
  Acid in U.S. Refineries,'' April 2013\1\
Article of June 14, 2022, ``Natural gas plummets as Freeport 
  delays facility restart following explosion,'' by Pippa 
  Stevens, CNBC..................................................   223
Letter of February 7, 2023, from 350 New Orleans, et al., to Mrs. 
  Rodgers, et al.................................................   226
Brief of August 5, 2022, ``Inflation Reduction Act's Proposed 
  Methane Fee Would Have Negligible Impact on Natural Gas 
  Prices,'' by Brian C. Prest, Resources for the Future..........   230
Report, Clean Jobs America: Nearly 3.3 Million Clean Energy Jobs, 
  by E2 and Clean Jobs Count.....................................   231
Letter of February 6, 2023, from Center for Biological Diversity, 
  et al..........................................................   237
Letter of February 7, 2023, from Daniel Rosenberg, Director of 
  Federal Toxics Policy, Natural Resources Defense Council, et 
  al., to Mrs. Rodgers and Mr. Pallone...........................   239
Letter of January 25, 2023, from Senator Cory A. Booker, et al., 
  to Michael S. Regan, administrator, Environmental Protection 
  Agency.........................................................   243
Letter of February 7, 2023, from Earthjustice, et al., to Mrs. 
  Rodgers, et al.................................................   251

----------

\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=115306.

 
 UNLEASHING AMERICAN ENERGY, LOWERING ENERGY COSTS, AND STRENGTHENING 
                             SUPPLY CHAINS

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security,
                             joint with the
   Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and 
                                Critical Materials,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. Jeff Duncan (chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, 
Climate, and Grid Security) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Johnson (Subcommittee on 
Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials chairman), 
Burgess, Latta, Guthrie, Griffith, Bucshon, Walberg, Palmer, 
Curtis, Lesko, Pence, Armstrong, Weber, Balderson, Pfluger, 
Rodgers (ex officio), DeGette (Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, 
and Grid Security ranking member), Tonko (Subcommittee on 
Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials ranking 
member), Matsui, Castor, Sarbanes, Cardenas, Peters, Veasey, 
Kuster, Blunt Rochester, Schrier, Fletcher, and Pallone (ex 
officio).
    Also present: Representative Dingell.
    Staff present: Sarah Burke, Deputy Staff Director; Michael 
Cameron, Professional Staff Member, Innovation, Data, and 
Commerce; Jerry Couri, Deputy Chief Counsel for Environment; 
Lauren Eriksen, Clerk, Oversight and Investigations; Nate 
Hodson, Staff Director; Tara Hupman, Chief Counsel; Peter 
Kielty, General Counsel; Emily King, Member Services Director; 
Elise Krekorian, Professional Staff Member, Energy; Mary 
Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Jacob McCurdy, 
Professional Staff Member, Energy; Brandon Mooney, Deputy Chief 
Counsel for Energy; Kaitlyn Peterson, Clerk, Energy and 
Environment; Carla Rafael, Staff Assistant; Peter Spencer, 
Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; Michael Taggart, 
Policy Director; Timia Crisp, Minority Professional Staff 
Member; Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director and 
General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; 
Anthony Gutierrez, Minority Professional Staff Member; Caitlin 
Haberman, Minority Staff Director, Environment, Manufacturing, 
and Critical Materials; Mackenzie Kuhl, Minority Digital 
Manager; Kris Pittard, Minority Professional Staff Member; 
Kylea Rogers, Minority Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall, Minority 
Director of Communications, Outreach, and Member Services; 
Medha Surampudy, Minority Professional Staff Member; Isaac 
Velez, Minority Intern; and Tuley Wright, Minority Staff 
Director, Energy, Climate, and Grid Security.
    Mr. Duncan. The Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid 
Security and the Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, 
and Critical Minerals will now come to order.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF DUNCAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
           CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

    First of all, I want to thank you all for being here. And I 
thank all of our witnesses for being here, as well. I 
preemptively want to say that we all appreciate your patience, 
as this might be a long day.
    I am excited that we are holding our first legislative 
hearing, a joint hearing with the Energy, Climate, and Grid 
Security Subcommittee and the Environment, Manufacturing, and 
Critical Minerals [sic] Subcommittee. Our goal is to enact 
policy that delivers affordable, reliable, and clean energy to 
all Americans, a goal I believe we all share on this committee, 
regardless of party.
    In our hearing on restoring American energy dominance last 
week, we heard how the Biden administration's energy policies 
are making energy unaffordable and less reliable for American 
consumers. The aggressive Rush to Green agenda is compromising 
our security by creating vulnerabilities in our energy supply 
chain, making us more reliant on our adversaries for energy and 
critical minerals.
    I believe in unleashing all sources of American energy, 
from nuclear, oil, and gas to hydropower, renewables, 
hydrogen--a truly all-of-the-above approach. We also believe in 
unleashing innovation by creating a regulatory structure that 
encourages investment and growth in the private sector.
    We have said it before: American energy production and 
reducing emissions are not mutually exclusive. We produce 
energy cleaner than anywhere in the world.
    Unfortunately, many of our energy policies coming out of 
the Biden administration prioritize climate goals over reliable 
and affordable energy. They compromise the ability for 
Americans to afford their power bills and keep on the lights. 
They also fail to address the significant permitting barriers 
to bringing more clean energy online.
    The bills we are reviewing today offer solutions. They will 
bring down the cost of energy, reduce emissions, strengthen our 
energy supply chains, and pave the way for restoring American 
energy dominance. We did invite the FERC Commissioners, 
Secretary of Energy, and the EPA administrator, all who, 
unfortunately, were unable to attend. I am hopeful that we can 
have them in front of this committee soon to give the 
administration's perspective.
    I am, however, pleased we are moving this legislation 
through regular order, with a full committee hearing last week 
to inform us of the state of American energy. The legislation 
in front of us today will address some of the issues and propel 
the United States into American energy dominance.
    For example, my bill protects American energy production by 
prohibiting the President from declaring a moratorium on 
hydraulic fracturing. This is necessary because President Biden 
has repeatedly stated that he would end fossil fuel production 
in the United States.
    Representative Pfluger's bill repeals the costly natural 
gas tax created in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Promoting 
Cross-border Energy Infrastructure Act encourages the 
construction of energy infrastructure across the borders of the 
U.S., Canada, and Mexico, helping us secure Western hemispheric 
energy security.
    Several bills also address the importance of American 
energy exports in the global markets. The world is safer when 
America is energy dominant, and Representative Johnson's bill 
to unlock our domestic LNG would make it easier for FERC to 
approve export terminals to deliver clean energy to our friends 
and allies.
    We also will be taking up a resolution that expresses 
support for the free trade and export of crude oil and 
petroleum products. This is necessary because President Biden 
and the Democrats on this committee have advocated for 
reinstating the crude oil export ban. Lifting the export ban in 
2015 has lowered prices while also increasing our leverage 
globally. It would be shortsighted to reverse this.
    We will also focus on securing our nuclear supply chain 
with a bill to wean off reliance on Russian uranium. Our grid 
and energy infrastructure increasingly have come under attack. 
The critical Electric Infrastructure Cybersecurity Incident 
Reporting Act will increase transparency between critical 
electric infrastructure owners and the Department of Energy to 
strengthen our systems.
    Just over 2 years ago, America was energy dominant for the 
first time since 1952. We were the largest energy producer in 
the world, while also leading the world in emissions 
reductions. We can and should be a world leader, and these 
bills will help get us there. It is time to stop handing over 
leverage to the CCP, Iran, and the OPEC cartel. Not only 
leverage, but American dollars.
    Every American should have access to reliable energy. The 
most recent blizzards underscore the need for resilient energy 
infrastructure and a diversified generation mix capable of 
responding to storms. It is time to flip the switch, unleash 
American energy production. These bills are the first step in 
achieving energy dominance.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these 
bills.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Duncan follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Duncan. And I now recognize Ranking Member DeGette.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to 
be here today, and I would humbly suggest if we want to reduce 
our reliance on OPEC and other bad actors internationally, we 
should reduce our reliance on oil, since it is an international 
market.
    And when I looked at these bills, they don't just unleash 
America's energy potential. They tether us more fully to a 
global commodity that strains our budgets and also causes real 
harm to our environment. They expand oil and gas drilling 
throughout the country, and they undo many of the bedrock 
environmental laws that we have put in place to ensure every 
American has access to the clean air, clean water, and a clean 
environment.
    The bills that we are considering today bolster an industry 
that is already reporting record profits. Last year the United 
States produced an average of 11.9 million barrels of crude oil 
a day. Now, that is the second highest level in U.S. history. 
And the oil and gas industry is on track to produce even more 
in the years to come. According to the Energy Information 
Administration, the U.S. is on pace to produce 12.4 million 
barrels a day this year, which is an all-time record, and up to 
12.8 million barrels a day in 2024.
    So I am not really sure why the majority thinks we need to 
give even more incentives for big oil to produce more oil. So 
if--and the title of this hearing, ``Unleashing American 
Energy,'' it really means--is giving big oil unfettered access 
to do as they please, well, I guess that is what these bills 
do.
    But again, they do nothing to unleash our Nation's true 
energy potential. They don't do anything to protect the 
American people from the volatility of the global oil market 
and the skyrocketing prices we saw last summer. They don't do 
anything to combat the climate crisis or deliver environmental 
justice to some of the most vulnerable communities across this 
country.
    So if we really, really want to unleash America's energy 
potential and drive down the cost of energy, then we need to 
break our addiction to oil and we need an orderly transition to 
cleaner, renewable energy sources. Not only will doing so help 
continue to reduce the harmful emissions that are driving the 
climate crisis, but it reduces our dependance on the global oil 
market, and it will reduce energy bills that many Americans are 
struggling to afford.
    Clean energy is now one of the cheapest sources of energy, 
and it is why countries around the world are already making the 
transition to expand the use of new technologies that will 
serve as a foundation for them to continue to grow their 
economies into the future. And we cannot fall behind in that 
effort. We can either be the leaders of a global clean energy 
transition or our adversaries will, because they understand the 
risk as much as we do.
    So, instead of furthering our dependance on oil, we should 
actually be fueling the innovation of new technologies that can 
provide clean, renewable energy that is both reliable and 
affordable, and also by increasing our grid security. We need 
to build the foundation and we need to invest in training for 
the energy workforce so they can take on the jobs of the 
future. This is how we unleash America's energy potential.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I want to say this again, because I think 
there is some confusion. People seem to think that if we 
produce more oil and gas domestically, even though we are 
producing record amounts, this is going to make us independent 
from international energy levels or from OPEC price increases. 
That is simply not the case, because it is an international 
market. And we saw that last year when oil and gas prices went 
up so much, even though there was the ability to have increased 
domestic production.
    So I think that, by working together, we could find 
bipartisan solutions. We all have the same goal: a solid energy 
source, transition to renewable energy, and combating the 
climate crisis, and building the foundation to make sure that 
can happen.
    I don't think these bills are the solution, so I think we 
should go back to the drawing board and get that right.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. DeGette. And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. The Chair now recognizes the chair of the 
Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical 
Minerals, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good 
morning, everyone. I, too, want to thank our panelists for 
being with us this morning.
    You know, my constituents back at home in Ohio know 
firsthand the importance of affordable American energy and that 
abundant, affordable energy is vital to economic growth, and it 
is a key factor in ensuring our national security. Last week we 
heard about some of the domestic problems we face in meeting 
these challenges.
    Today we will discuss thoughtfully removing some of the red 
tape and delays that can prevent constructing new critical 
energy projects, keep capital on the sidelines, and--that are 
killing innovation dead in its tracks. I am eager to get going 
on proposals to streamline the process for building essential 
energy projects in America. Producing more American energy will 
help reduce global emissions, improve energy reliability, and 
lower costs for American consumers.
    President Biden's war on affordable and reliable energy--
and the problems that war creates--is not limited to killing 
the use of oil, natural gas, and coal. His administration's 
policies are blocking progress on the President's own stated 
goal to develop domestic resources essential for the very 
energy alternatives he prefers, such as wind, solar, and 
batteries.
    For example, the supply of minerals necessary to build 
these alternative energy sources is insufficient to meet some 
of this administration's climate goals, including a carbon-free 
power sector by 2035 and ensuring widespread use of zero-
emission vehicles.
    In addition, many of these critical minerals and the 
refining and processing capacity for them is controlled by 
adversaries like China and Russia. We cannot stake our future 
on certain technologies that then rely upon our enemies for the 
minerals and mineral processing needs to develop them.
    This administration must stop promising Utopia while 
prohibiting our own mineral production, like canceling leases 
for new nickel and copper mines in Minnesota, blocking new 
lithium mines in Nevada, and rescinding a land swap necessary 
for a copper mine in Arizona.
    Fortunately, the legislation we are considering today would 
reorient the law to reestablish America's energy dominance 
without weakening America's global leadership in advancing our 
higher environmental and labor standards.
    So today we will consider a bill amending the Toxic 
Substances Control Act to require EPA to review and make timely 
decisions on the manufacturing of a new chemical or a new use 
of an existing chemical that is a critical energy resource. 
This bill still emphasizes risk protection but will prevent the 
marketplace from waiting an excessive amount of time for 
critical materials needed to meet our emissions, climate, and 
energy expectations.
    We will also review legislation directing the EPA 
Administrator to allow more regulatory flexibility in enforcing 
air quality permits for critical energy resource facilities 
like processing and refining facilities.
    Another measure amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to 
allow for critical energy resources engaged in mineral 
processing to receive interim permit status for the treatment, 
storage, or disposal of their waste, a permit that the EPA must 
still review.
    There is also a bill which authorizes EPA only during 
national security and energy security emergencies to waive 
certain regulations necessary for processing or refining of 
critical energy resources.
    Additionally, we will look at legislation preventing EPA 
from imposing expensive design analysis requirements on already 
constructed gasoline refineries, which would elevate the EPA's 
view of what makes sense above what industry experts and best 
practices prove makes sense.
    Staying on refineries, we will examine a bill to have the 
Department of Energy and the National Petroleum Council assess 
and report on the importance of petrochemical refineries in the 
United States, including a review of opportunities to expand 
capacity of such facilities, risk of such facilities, and an 
assessment of Federal and State regulations or policies that 
have contributed to a decline in the capacity of such 
facilities.
    Finally, we will review a bill repealing the wasteful 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which was established in the 
Inflation Reduction Act.
    So, as you can see, a lot of work needs to be done to 
establish an energy strategy that encourages innovation, that 
drives investment, and benefits our economic and national 
security while we remain good stewards of our environment.
    I want to also note that we are moving these in regular 
order. It is really good to be back to legislating through 
regular order.
    I believe the new Republican majority on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee is leading with solutions to our Nation's 
energy and critical resource challenges, and I look forward to 
hearing from each of you as we talk today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Johnson. And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. I will now recognize the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment, 
Manufacturing, and Critical Materials, Mr. Tonko, for 5 
minutes.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I strongly support this 
committee's efforts to examine and legislate ways to enhance 
our long-term energy security, affordability, and 
sustainability for the American people.
    But, unfortunately, nearly all of the bills before us today 
continue to look backwards toward the energy needs of our past 
rather than embracing the energy opportunities of the future. 
And those opportunities are overwhelmingly about positioning 
the United States to become the global leader in the clean 
energy technologies and supply chains that will dominate the 
energy system over the next several decades.
    We need our national energy policy to have vision, and that 
vision cannot solely be how to further enrich oil and gas 
companies, which are raking in record profits. That is why we 
should be celebrating the Inflation Reduction Act's nearly $370 
billion in clean energy and climate investments, which are 
already beginning to support the deployment of new clean energy 
resources, commitments in domestic manufacturing, and a 
significant reduction in climate pollution.
    But, sadly, two of the bills being considered today would 
repeal critical sections of the IRA, which were developed and 
enacted by the Democrats of this committee in the 117th 
Congress. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is going to 
facilitate historic investments to decarbonize our grid, our 
transportation system, and buildings by supporting well-paying 
jobs and guaranteeing benefits in disadvantaged communities. 
And the Methane Emissions Reduction Program provides industry 
with significant funding to adopt emission-reducing 
technologies before using a market-based approach to 
incentivize pollution reductions. This is a sensible program 
that provides certainty for industry while incentivizing the 
reduction of superpollutants from the oil and gas sector.
    I am also concerned that several of the bills under 
consideration would create new loopholes and--in important 
environmental laws, allowing a broad and inadequately defined 
group of polluting industries to get fast-tracked for approval 
with little consideration for the potential harms they may pose 
to Americans' air, water, and safety. This is not the way to 
achieve our shared goals of a more secure, affordable, and 
cleaner energy system.
    But there are steps that we could take together that would. 
We could have focused hearings to wrestle with complex energy 
issues. How should hydrogen pipelines be regulated? What 
reforms are needed to the hydropower licensing processes? How 
can we build more interstate and interregional transmission 
lines to improve the reliability and affordability of our 
electricity system while enabling greater deployment of cost-
effective, clean energy resources?
    I suspect these questions may interest Members on both 
sides of the aisle, and each of those topics could be the 
subject of a narrow, largely bipartisan hearing. This approach 
would certainly require work and negotiations, but that is 
surely true of any serious effort to enact bipartisan energy 
legislation.
    Unfortunately, the approach being offered today will not 
achieve this goal. We are considering 17 Republican bills 
covering a wide range of topics and amending numerous statutes. 
Several of these draft bills were seen for the first time just 
a little over a week ago.
    During the Democrats' time in the majority, we often tried 
to give our minority counterparts an opportunity to contribute 
to legislative hearings' agendas. As far as I am aware, that--
there were not discussions of potentially Democratic-sponsored 
bills that could have fit this hearing's theme.
    I also expect we will hear criticisms of the administration 
for failing to attend today. I agree with my Republican 
colleagues that we should seek and expect to hear from the 
agencies at legislative hearings, but we should also make 
efforts to accommodate their participation, including by 
providing legislative texts well in advance and being flexible 
with the hearing calendar.
    When the Republicans were last in the majority during the 
Trump administration, EPA did not testify at any legislative 
hearings in 2017 and only twice in 2018. We should be 
consistent both in our expectations that the administration 
provide witnesses and technical assistance on legislation, and 
that we need to be flexible to accommodate schedules to ensure 
that their participation is well informed and instructive to 
the development of legislation.
    So, while I am disappointed in the process that has led us 
here today, I still believe there are bipartisan policies that 
we can and should work on together to achieve the goals of this 
hearing's title. And with that said, I look forward to the 
discussion on the 17 bills before us today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. It is now my honor to 
recognize the chair of the full committee, Mrs. McMorris 
Rodgers, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Duncan, 
Chairman Johnson. It is great to be kicking off our legislative 
agenda with you.
    Our goal on Energy and Commerce is to ensure reliable, 
secure, and affordable energy, and that it is available to 
power homes and businesses across this country.
    America has been blessed with abundant natural resources. 
We should be looking toward developing a predictable regulatory 
landscape across the board that inspires innovation, 
entrepreneurship, and technological leadership. Hydropower, 
nuclear, fossil energies, wind, solar, and batteries: we need 
all of them in order to secure a stronger, more prosperous 
America, reduce costs and emissions, address climate issues, 
and create more robust and resilient communities.
    Rush-to-green energy policies, both at the State and 
Federal level, have curtailed reliable energy and 
infrastructure, resulting in everything from blackouts to 
spiking prices. We have seen the devastating impact these 
policies have had on people in Europe, where forced government 
transition away from reliable energy sources resulted in more 
dependance upon Russia. These policies are unsustainable and 
lead to greater reliance on countries like Russia or, in our 
case, China.
    If we cede our energy leadership to countries like Russia 
and China, they will always leverage that influence to advance 
their own authoritarian agenda. This is not the future that any 
of us want. The best way to address future risks, whether they 
be climate change or global price shocks, is with a strong 
economy and a more secure, abundant energy supply here at home. 
We need to put energy security back at the center of energy 
policy.
    The solutions we are discussing today reflect key steps to 
return from the path of shortages and high prices to a path of 
prosperity. We have several bills that will help unlock 
American natural gas and its delivery systems. To provide 
reliable, affordable, and clean natural gas is essential for 
heating our homes and businesses and strengthening America's 
global standing, all while continuing to lead the world in 
reducing carbon emissions.
    These solutions build on the lessons of the shale 
revolution, which proved energy expansion can be unprecedented 
and bring energy security while also helping drive down 
American emissions.
    We also need to restore America's leadership in clean 
nuclear energy. I am leading a bill that aims to eliminate our 
reliance, which is currently 24 percent, on Russian nuclear 
fuels for our nuclear reactors. Expanding our leadership and 
developing and expanding nuclear energy is going to be one of 
the top priorities of this Congress. And addressing our 
reliance on Russian fuel is just the beginning.
    To unleash American energy, we also need a regulatory 
environment that doesn't hamper industry. Several measures 
improve regulatory flexibility to assist with the reshoring of 
industries that manufacture and process critical energy 
materials. These bills strengthen existing regulations, and 
provide new authorities to enable the EPA and States, working 
together, to permit new and expand existing manufacturing--
manufacturing that is key for strengthening our energy 
security, national security, and ending our reliance on China. 
It is also a necessary step as we incorporate technologies like 
electric vehicles and renewables into our energy mix.
    Additionally, we will consider bills that make sure the EPA 
focuses on its core mission, which does not include forcing a 
transition to more expensive, less reliable energy sources and 
systems.
    Many of these issues have been bipartisan in the past, and 
I do hope and expect us to come together. This hearing is an 
opportunity to provide feedback as we work through regular 
order.
    And I should note that it is disappointing representatives 
from the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency declined to 
appear. Appearing before this committee is an important part of 
their obligation to Congress, and we expect them to fulfill it.
    In closing, I look forward to our discussion today on how 
this committee can improve American energy leadership, 
security, and people's lives. It is time to get to work.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Rodgers. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the chairwoman.
    I want to pause and just say that Congress's thoughts and 
prayers are with the folks in Syria and Turkey after the 
devastating earthquake.
    And I now recognize the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Duncan.
    Committee Republicans are showing today that their top 
energy and environmental priorities are to do the bidding of 
Big Oil, and to undermine our Nation's bedrock environmental 
laws. And these are not the same priorities of committee 
Democrats.
    Over the last 2 years, Democrats delivered historic wins 
for the American people. We enacted laws that are already 
creating good-paying jobs, cutting costs for working families, 
and advancing homegrown clean energy, all while tackling the 
worsening climate crisis. And while we want to build upon these 
successes for the American people, House Republicans are stuck 
in the past and failing to address the energy challenges and 
opportunities we face today.
    I would like to start by highlighting my serious concerns 
with some of the fossil-focused bills that we are discussing 
today. The Cross-border Energy Infrastructure bill is nothing 
more than a shadow approval of the Keystone Pipeline 
masquerading as legislation. It establishes that every single 
cross-border energy project is in the public interest, a 
radically higher bar than exists now. And this is not serious 
legislation.
    Representative Burgess's bill would put the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission in charge of permitting reviews that it 
doesn't have the expertise or the time to lead, and the 
Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act would eliminate the 
requirement that the Department of Energy determine that 
exporting natural gas from a U.S. facility is in the national 
interest. This legislation would effectively greenlight sending 
unrestricted amounts of LNG to adversaries like China. It is 
just more proof that committee Republicans are more interested 
in doing the bidding of their fossil fuel friends than actually 
protecting our energy security.
    And I am also deeply disappointed with the legislative 
proposals being considered in the Environment Subcommittee's 
jurisdiction. Two of the bills would revoke programs enacted as 
part of the Inflation Reduction Act that are projected to cut 
climate pollution, reduce the deficit, and leverage private-
sector investment in clean energy projects across the Nation.
    H.R. 484 targets the Methane Emission Reduction Program, 
which establishes a suite of incentives to drive down excess 
methane pollution and remediate the effects of the pollution 
that does occur. This program fundamentally ensures polluters 
pay for wasted methane, and not customers.
    Republicans also target the Greenhouse Gas Reduction 
Program, which invests $27 billion in non-State and local 
climate finance institutions that support the rapid deployment 
of low- and zero-emission technologies. My Republican 
colleagues claim to support all-of-the-above policies, yet they 
oppose a program that invests in clean energy projects.
    We are also considering bills that allow so-called critical 
energy sources to bypass commonsense environmental protections. 
One bill would circumvent consideration of safer technologies 
to avoid chemical disasters under the risk management program, 
while another bill would undercut protective health policies 
that were developed and passed on a bipartisan basis by this 
committee in the Frank Lautenberg Act. And we should not be 
putting polluters over people by waiving critical public health 
and environmental protections that keep American communities 
safe.
    Now, if Republicans really want to unleash American energy, 
I invite them to stop trying to tear down critical climate and 
environmental programs, and work with us to build a better 
future for all by investing in clean energy and bolstering our 
environmental safeguards.
    I can't find much value in the legislation before us today, 
which is unfortunate, since many Members are interested in 
working on clean energy permitting. And instead, my majority 
colleagues scheduled a hearing on 17 Republican bills or 
discussion drafts without even asking Democrats if we have any 
bills that would address the underlying topic. If they truly 
want to enact legislation that addresses energy security and 
affordability, this is not the path. The American people 
deserve better.
    Finally, I must set the record straight about why the 
administration could not testify at today's hearing. The 
majority claims they gave the administration 2 weeks' notice 
and that the administration said this was not enough time to 
secure witnesses.
    What they left out is that the 2 weeks' notice came in an 
email right before midnight on January 24th. It did not contain 
the list of bills for the hearing, the legislative text of the 
bills, or any information about other invited witnesses. How 
were the agencies supposed to prepare for a hearing when they 
have not been told what bills they are supposed to be 
commenting on?
    And to be clear, only 2 of the 17 bills had been introduced 
when this hearing was noticed 1 week ago. If the bills were not 
ready to share with the administration or with Democratic 
Members, then this hearing should have been postponed until a 
later date.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Pallone. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. This now concludes with 
Member opening statements.
    The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to 
committee rules, all Members' opening statements will be made 
part of the record.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today and 
taking time to testify before the subcommittees.
    Each witness will have the opportunity to give a 5-minutes 
opening statement, followed by a round of questions from 
Members.
    There are some lights in front of you. Green means go, 
yellow means you have got 1 minute, a 1-minute warning, and red 
means you need to wrap up.
    Our witnesses today are the Honorable Mark Menezes, Mr. 
Jeffrey Eshelman, Mr. Raul Garcia, Ms. Katie Sweeney, Mr. Tyson 
Slocum, and the Honorable Bernard McNamee.
    We appreciate you being here today. I will now recognize 
Mr. Menezes for 5 minutes to give an opening statement.

    STATEMENTS OF MARK W. MENEZES, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY, 
  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, AND FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL, ENERGY AND 
   ENVIRONMENT, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE; JEFF 
 ESHELMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INDEPENDENT 
  PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; RAUL GARCIA, LEGISLATIVE 
DIRECTOR FOR HEALTHY COMMUNITIES, EARTHJUSTICE; KATIE SWEENEY, 
 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL MINING 
  ASSOCIATION; TYSON SLOCUM, ENERGY PROGRAM DIRECTOR, PUBLIC 
   CITIZEN, INC.; AND BERNARD McNAMEE, FORMER COMMISSIONER, 
              FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

                  STATEMENT OF MARK W. MENEZES

    Mr. Menezes. Good morning. Madam Chair McMorris Rodgers, 
Ranking Member Pallone, Subcommittee Chairmen Duncan and 
Johnson, Ranking Members DeGette and Tonko, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify on 
legislative solutions designed to promote U.S. energy 
production, lower energy costs, and to strengthen our supply 
chains of critical minerals and energy resources. Today's 
hearing features bills designed to achieve these important 
goals.
    Now, in order to unleash American energy, it is important 
that Congress ensures the legislative will of the people is 
carried out by the President and the executive branch. 
Frequently, the executive branch is at odds with the laws of 
Congress, and takes actions without clear congressional 
authority. Several of the bills under consideration today make 
congressional intent clear to the executive branch.
    The Protecting American Energy Production Act clarifies 
that States have primacy regulating hydraulic fracturing. 
Congress made this clear in the overwhelmingly bipartisan 
Energy Policy Act of 2005. Our global friends and allies are 
grateful for our production and export and have come to rely on 
U.S.-produced oil and natural gas as a reliable source of 
energy and an alternative to Russian supply. This bill 
prohibits the President from issuing any moratoria on hydraulic 
fracturing, thus preserving States' rights.
    Similarly, the sense of Congress resolution opposes the 
executive branch placing restrictions on the export of oil and 
petroleum products. This makes clear the congressional intent 
that the President and all Federal agencies follow the law as 
written when a bipartisan Congress lifted the oil export ban in 
2015.
    The Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act removes 
redundant reviews and the need for multiple Federal permission 
slips to produce and liquefy LNG for export. The bill makes 
clear that it is FERC and not the Department of Energy which 
has the exclusive authority to approve or deny requests to 
export natural gas to a foreign country.
    The Promoting Cross-border Energy Infrastructure Act makes 
clear that it is the DOE and FERC, the Federal agencies with 
expertise in energy, that have the authority to grant or deny 
the interconnections and modifications of cross-border 
electricity lines and pipelines without the need for a 
presidential permit.
    Turning now to lowering energy costs, it is important that 
the Members appreciate that, with the shale revolution, the 
U.S. now has an abundance of cheap natural gas which is 
replacing baseload coal, complementing the increased deployment 
of wind and solar, and is the primary reason why the U.S. leads 
in actual emission reductions.
    The Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of 
Natural Gas Pipelines Act ensures increased access and delivery 
of supply to lower natural gas costs by authorizing FERC to be 
the lead agency to coordinate other agencies, establish 
reasonable timelines, and keep track of progress of the 
permitting and environmental reviews required under NEPA and 
other laws.
    Reducing costs of government can save taxpayers dollars to 
offset the cost of energy. The repeal of the Greenhouse Gas 
Reduction Fund repeals the $27 billion appropriated to EPA to 
provide grants and financial assistance to States, 
municipalities, Tribal governments, and nonprofits for zero-
emission technologies. While laudable and generous, there is 
little oversight of EPA required by Congress to administer this 
fund. Remember, EPA's requested budget in 2022 was only $11.4 
billion.
    Another bill to lower energy costs is the Natural Gas Tax 
Repeal Act, which repeals the methane waste fee and statutory 
methane regulations included in the nonbipartisan Inflation 
Reduction Act. EPA has proposed a supplemental rule to regulate 
methane emissions open for public comment now, which 
essentially does the same thing without the methane waste fee 
but with Clean Air Act penalties.
    Turning now to strengthening our supply chains, we know the 
U.S. relies on imports for 31 of 35 of our critical minerals 
necessary for the U.S. defense and our clean economy, 14 of 
which we are totally dependent on imports. To ensure critical 
energy resources, Congress should designate DOE with the 
responsibility to do this. That is what Securing America's 
Critical Mineral Supply Act does. It amends the DOE 
Organization Act to give DOE the responsibility of securing our 
supply of critical energy resources.
    Congress should ensure our critical energy facilities 
produce our critical energy resources during emergencies and 
threats to our energy security. Several of the bills under 
consideration here today do just that.
    The National and Energy Security Waiver bill authorizes the 
EPA Administrator, in consultation with DOE and the Governor, 
to waive certain requirements, sanctions, or fees during times 
of threats to our national or energy security to maintain an 
adequate supply of gasoline and diesel and other critical 
refined resources.
    Another bill addresses EPA's backlog of pending 
applications to complete risk assessments of chemical 
substances necessary today to produce our critical energy 
resources. EPA's backlog is so great that U.S. companies are 
hesitant to make capital investments to produce critical 
battery components necessary for the deployment of EVs. This 
inexplicable delay is a problem China and our global 
competitors simply do not have.
    Likewise, the interim permit bill for safe storage and 
disposal of critical energy resources allows temporary onsite 
storage and disposal similar to past practices and, like other 
bills, a commonsense approach to accelerate U.S. development of 
critical mass----
    Mr. Duncan. I am going to ask the gentleman to wrap up his 
opening.
    Mr. Menezes. [continuing]. Our transition to battery 
technologies, EV use, and grid scale battery storage.
    I will. I am in the course of wrapping up.
    Since 2009, EPA has had the use of its flexible air 
permitting rule. EPA limits its use, and so we have a bill to 
allow that.
    Congress also needs to ensure that interstate electric 
transmission infrastructure----
    Mr. Duncan. I am sure a lot of this will be covered in the 
question-and-answering, so I am going to ask you to wrap up.
    Mr. Menezes. It is. Well, with that, I will, in fact, thank 
you for the opportunity to testify today.
    I ask that my written statement be included in the record, 
and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Menezes follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you for that, and I apologize, but we do 
have a broad panel. So the Chair will go to Mr. Eshelman.

                   STATEMENT OF JEFF ESHELMAN

    Mr. Eshelman. Good morning, and thank you for having me 
here today. It is a pleasure to be here. I am Jeff Eshelman, 
president and CEO of the Independent Petroleum Association of 
America.
    I would like to thank Chairman Duncan and Chairman Johnson 
for gathering this hearing today. We really appreciate being a 
part of it.
    As you know, the American natural gas and oil industry is 
very diverse and consists of many sectors. My organization, 
IPAA, represents the exploration and production part of the 
industry. The independent companies who don't have refineries 
or gasoline stations, these companies specifically search for 
and produce the Nation's gas and oil wells.
    There are about 6,000 independent producers exploring and 
producing for the Nation's energy supply each day. They are 
spread across 33 States. And here is the kicker that a lot of 
people don't recognize: Collectively, these small businesses, 
the 6,000 of them, are responsible for developing 91 percent of 
the Nation's natural gas and oil wells, accounting for 83 
percent of America's oil supply and 90 percent of our domestic 
natural gas supply.
    Through good times and bad, our companies invest billions 
in new projects, searching for America's energy. So the 
characterization that this industry is Big Oil is actually a 
big myth. It is the independent, smaller companies that are 
drilling most of the wells and providing for most of the energy 
in this country.
    Through the effort of independent producers, today America 
is a world leader in natural gas and oil production. And we are 
doing it responsibly. In this time of continuing uncertainty, 
one thing is certain: A healthy oil and natural gas industry is 
good for America. It is good for our economic and national 
security, as well as for our allies across the globe.
    Let me take a few minutes to address some of the strengths, 
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that we see at IPAA.
    Strengths. Natural gas is actually good for the 
environment. Today the Nation has its cleanest air in 20 years. 
In fact, total greenhouse gas emissions continue to decline, 
despite production and consumption of natural gas increasing.
    Our industry is committed to reducing leaks and improving 
pipeline infrastructure. American producers are taking the 
right, responsible approach to these issues.
    Other strengths of our industry include that we have 
America's vast natural gas supply right under this ground, 
about 100 years' worth. Oil and gas will remain America's 
largest fuel source through 2050. And coupled with wind, solar, 
hydro, nuclear, coal, batteries, America has a strong, reliable 
energy portfolio.
    The weaknesses we see. Inflation, which affects all 
Americans. Our industry is not just producing energy, but it is 
also consuming it. A weak economy results in a weakened 
industry.
    Labor and service costs--for example, purchasing tubular 
goods--have driven up the costs of drilling and completing 
wells by 30 percent year over year. It is often difficult for 
us to find a new workforce, to even find trucks.
    And the need for a takeaway capacity through pipelines and 
gas storage are essential.
    But there are some good opportunities to keep in mind. 
America's natural gas and oil production are vital here at 
home.
    On the legislation being discussed today, IPAA strongly 
supports H.R. 150, the Protecting American Production Act, 
sponsored by Congressman Duncan. This legislation prohibits the 
President from declaring a moratorium on the use of hydraulic 
fracturing unless Congress authorizes such a prohibition.
    IPAA also supports H.R. 484, the Natural Gas Tax Repeal 
Act, sponsored by Congressman Pfluger. This legislation would 
strike language designed to establish a tax on natural gas 
imposed on America's independent oil and natural gas producers.
    IPAA recognize that the importance of managing our 
emissions of methane and other volatile organic compounds, and 
we are committed to working diligently to comply with State and 
Federal agencies.
    Now the threats. And mostly it is about uncertainty in our 
industry. Uncertainty breeds inaction, and that is not an 
option for us. So what are the threats that create uncertainty 
for our businesses?
    Well, we have lawsuits, we have new permitting 
infrastructure regulation threats, we have proposed threats of 
new regulations with the Endangered Species Act and increased 
taxes on methane, we have the Securities and Exchange 
Commission looking at climate plans, we have bans and setbacks, 
we have electrification proposals, like for natural gas stoves 
that we have seen so much about in the news, and there is 
delayed-lease sales in onshore and offshore. And there is so 
much more.
    But I want to work with this committee--or IPAA wants to 
work with this committee to make sure that we can address these 
threats, strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities. Thank you 
for the opportunity.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Eshelman follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. The Chair will now 
recognize Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF RAUL GARCIA

    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, all the ranking 
members, for the invitation to speak. My name is Raul Garcia. I 
am the legislative director for healthy communities at 
Earthjustice.
    In giving an opinion about the 17 bills that we are 
considering today, I can't--I don't have enough time to go one 
by one. But there are some narratives that the bills overall 
establish for us.
    Overall, there are litany of exemptions, a litany of go-
arounds, and a litany of ways that big industries get to go 
around laws that we have in the books already that were put in 
the books by Congress in bipartisan support in order to protect 
the communities that this very Congress represents.
    And so, when we talk about already having industries that 
act responsibly, one has to beg the question: If they are 
acting responsibly, why do they want to waive the laws that 
hold them accountable to acting responsibly? And we have not 
gotten an answer on that front.
    But we also have to remember that what is at stake here is 
broader than the simple choice that the proponents of these 
bills give us. So they give us a false choice between having 
healthy communities, a healthy environment, and energy 
security. And that is simply not true. We can have both. But it 
is a clever twist.
    I mean, it is a clever ploy, even if it is a cruel one. 
Because on the one hand, some of these bills actually repeal 
parts of the laws they have made--that have made it into the 
books that would speed up a transition to clean energy, that 
would give us energy security in a clean and healthy way, like 
the--like parts of the IRA, particularly the Greenhouse Gas 
Reduction Fund. Now, that would speed up distributed solar 
energy so that people can have energy at their own homes so 
that grids going down are not a problem for an entire State. 
But we want to take that away in these bills.
    And then, on the back end, we actually want to give 
industry loopholes that they can use in order to not comply 
with the Clean Air Act, with the Toxic Substances Control Act. 
These laws were established by this Congress in bipartisan 
fashion to protect the air that we breathe, and the toxics that 
are in our environment, the water that we drink, the makeup 
that we put on our faces, everything that goes into our 
stomachs. And we want to peel that away.
    Now, we hear a lot about energy security and this phrase of 
critical minerals, critical energy sources. So let's talk about 
critical energy sources. Few bills of the 17 that we have here 
today actually establish a definition for critical energy 
sources. What they actually say is, ``Let's leave that 
definition up to the Secretary of Energy.'' That is a Trojan 
horse. That means everything can suddenly become a critical 
energy source.
    And so what are we talking about when we are talking about 
these sources? We are talking about making sure that we have a 
responsible way to get to clean energy that establishes safe 
protections for our communities. And these bills, frankly, do 
exactly the opposite.
    And so, when we talk about the Toxic Substances Control 
Act, for example, one of the bills would have us consider the 
economic impacts, the economic costs of--when determining 
whether a substance is toxic or not. So that would mean that, 
if we put poison in three cups of water, we are going to drink 
them all and figure out what the economic cost is going to do 
to us.
    So the--another question that I have for the proponents of 
the bill is, what is the cost of a human life? What is the cost 
that that poison is going to inflict on a human being? Because 
it is good to talk about everything that is on paper and laws 
and exemptions and procedures. How do we explain the emissions 
coming out of the fossil fuel industry or the mining industry 
to our communities who are suffering from cancers, from asthma, 
from cardiac conditions? But we haven't talked about that here 
yet.
    And so I believe that that is what we need to focus on, and 
that is what we need to do. And so these bills, by and large, 
fail, flat-out fail to address what communities across the 
country are dealing with.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Sweeney for 5 
minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF KATIE SWEENEY

    Ms. Sweeney. Thank you. Good morning, members of the 
subcommittee. I appreciate being here on behalf of the National 
Mining Association's mineral and hardrock mining companies to 
talk about the need to strengthen our mineral supply chains to 
unleash American energy and lower energy cost.
    Domestic mining, conducted under world-leading 
environmental safety and labor standards, is critical to 
securing virtually every key supply chain, especially energy. 
But the right policies are needed to unlock our full potential.
    Minerals are an integral part of all current forms of 
energy and for those we hope to rely on more in the future. 
From copper, nickel, and silver, and renewables to cobalt, and 
lithium, and EVs to barite, and molybdenum that keep oil and 
gas moving, to uranium and coal, which produced over 40 percent 
of our electricity, minerals security makes energy security.
    As we enter the most mineral-intensive era in human 
history, the International Energy Agency estimates demand for 
some minerals required for energy generation transitions could 
grow by more than 40 times by 2040. Urgent action is needed to 
secure these essential supply chains. But recent U.S. 
Geological Survey information shows our country is headed in 
the wrong direction.
    Despite the rhetoric around securing our mineral supply 
chains, we are at a crisis point. In 2022, the U.S. reached its 
highest recorded mineral import reliance. Imports made up more 
than one-half of U.S. apparent consumption for 51 nonfuel 
mineral commodities, up from 2021, when only 47 commodities met 
that metric.
    We are more dependent than ever before on China and others 
for minerals essential to modern life. And each new 
announcement of a blocked mine, such as Twin Mines--Twin Metals 
Project in Minnesota, or foreign sourcing agreements with 
countries with documented problematic labor practices locks in 
our position of competitive weakness.
    The U.S. must focus on supplying these minerals at home as 
well as restoring domestic smelting, refining, and processing 
capabilities. In a 2019 hearing, Benchmark Minerals talked 
about growing mineral demand for EV batteries and lack of 
domestic production, cautioning that those who control these 
critical raw materials and those who possess the manufacturing 
and processing know-how will hold the balance of industrial 
power in the 21st century auto and energy storage industries.
    Automakers understand that truth and worry that the coming 
battery minerals shortfall will decimate the EV revolution. 
Ford's president and CEO recently highlighted the need to focus 
on domestic supply chains all the way to the mines to reduce 
our reliance on minerals sourced from countries with documented 
child labor practices and corruption.
    Without permitting reform, the U.S. will be watching the 
global competition for energy dominance from the sidelines. 
Providing additional funds or incentives for projects that will 
never be approved does nothing. As the IEA concluded in a 
recent report, governments must leverage private investment in 
sustainable mining but also ensure clear and rapid permitting 
procedures to avoid potential supply bottlenecks.
    Opening or expanding a U.S. mine typically involves 
multiple agencies and tens or even hundreds of permitting 
processes at the local, State, and Federal levels. Delays arise 
from duplication among agencies, absences of firm timelines, 
and failures in agency coordination. Necessary authorizations 
take an average of 7 to 10 years, one of the world's longest 
permitting processes. Valid environmental concerns should be 
fully addressed, but permitting processes should not serve as 
an excuse to trap mining projects in a limbo of duplicative, 
unpredictable, endless, and costly review.
    We can build on important work done by this committee to 
support new domestic production and processing. Chair McMorris 
Rodgers and Natural Resource Chair Westerman's Securing 
American Mineral Supply Chains Act offers commonsense solutions 
to reestablish a domestic mineral supply chain. The act 
prioritizes responsible development and would provide certainty 
to mining companies, investors, and manufacturers; establish 
lead agencies and improve permitting timeliness; maintain 
access to mineralized Federal lands unless withdrawn by 
Congress and unless the USGS can assure that the withdrawal 
does not threaten supply chains; support research, development, 
and demonstration funding; and workforce development and 
training.
    It is time for the United States to walk the talk on 
mineral security. As our minerals needs skyrocket for 
everything from EVs to advanced energy technologies, the U.S. 
is stumbling when it comes to our supply chains.
    NMA appreciates this committee's prioritization of these 
issues and is eager to help craft solutions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sweeney follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you for that. The Chair will now 
recognize Mr. Slocum for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF TYSON SLOCUM

    Mr. Slocum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 
members of the committee. It is my pleasure to be here today. I 
am Tyson Slocum, and for the last two decades I have been the 
director of the energy program with Public Citizen here in 
Washington, DC.
    So liquefied natural gas exports are the disruptive event 
that is radically upending domestic energy markets. For the 
first time in history, American natural gas consumers--whether 
they be households, operators of power plants--are forced to 
compete with their counterparts in Berlin and Beijing on price. 
That is why, coast to coast, Americans are now paying 
significantly higher prices for electricity and to heat their 
homes.
    There have been periods in the last 2 months where prices 
on the U.S. West Coast and in New England have been more 
expensive for natural gas than in Ukraine. That is because we 
are now--because, prior to LNG exports, our domestic markets 
were insulated from global calamities. War could break out in 
Europe, and there would be no bump in price. Now our domestic 
benchmarks are directly linked with global events like the same 
that has been the way with oil and gasoline markets for more 
than a generation.
    So this is not a crisis of inadequate natural gas 
production. We are breaking records on natural gas production 
in the U.S. every month, according to the Energy Information 
Administration. Twenty percent of U.S. natural gas production 
is exported out of the United States, and that is what is 
driving the imbalance.
    But on the production side, we are far and away the largest 
producer on the planet. The number 2 and number 3 global 
producers of gas, Russia and Iran, combined don't produce as 
much as the United States every day. So we are not going to 
produce our way to lower prices as long as the export spigot 
remains open.
    So, of course, a focus of policy on energy efficiency and 
promoting zero emission alternatives to gas has to be part of 
the solution. But in the meantime, we need stronger regulation 
over LNG exports, not less. And so I am just going to briefly 
cover 4 of the 17 bills.
    So H.R. 647 would eliminate the requirement that natural 
gas exports be consistent with the public interest. That is a 
standard that has been in place for 85 years, and we believe 
that it is crucial that all natural gas exports continue to be 
subject to that public interest standard.
    The Cross-border Energy Infrastructure Act would require 
FERC to approve any natural gas export pipeline within 30 days 
of receiving the application. So that is a de facto approval. 
We are a party in a case at FERC right now involving a 
natural--a proposed natural gas cross-border pipeline, a 155-
mile pipeline that would connect the Permian Basin at the Waha 
Hub to Mexico, and then directly send that U.S.-produced gas 
through Mexico to new LNG export terminals on Mexico's Pacific 
coast.
    Thankfully, there is a public interest review, and we are 
an intervener in that FERC proceeding, where we are going to 
raise concerns about the threat to the public interest of 
exporting Permian gas directly to China. And removing that 
review would not be advisable.
    H.R. 484 would eliminate the methane fee in the recently 
enacted Inflation Reduction Act. What is wild about this is the 
Inflation Reduction Act bends over backwards to accommodate the 
oil and gas sector. Congress appropriates a billion and a half 
dollars in grants to the oil and gas sector to help them invest 
in facilities to reduce their methane emissions. I don't see 
the oil and gas industry complaining about a billion and a half 
dollars in taxpayer grants to help their business. And in 
addition, the fee is waived if you successfully comply with EPA 
regulations on methane emissions. So that makes the industry a 
partner with effective regulation. And so I don't think that 
that legislation is advisable.
    And last, I just want to touch on the bill that would 
prevent the EPA from requiring oil refineries using 
hydrofluoric acid alkylation to explore less hazardous 
alternatives. It is important to note that, in October of 2022, 
the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, in 
response to a series of tragic accidents with a hydrofluoric 
acid alkylation, recommended and urges the EPA to subject these 
facilities to hazard reviews. So I think it would be imprudent 
to remove that opportunity.
    Thank you so much. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Slocum follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. The Chair will now 
recognize Mr. McNamee for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF BERNARD McNAMEE

    Mr. McNamee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Duncan, 
Ranking Member DeGette, Chair Johnson, Ranking Member Tonko, 
Chair Rodgers, and Ranking Member Pallone, members of the 
committee, thank you for inviting me to participate in this 
hearing. I am Bernie McNamee, and I am here and want to make it 
clear that I am only expressing my own views, and they are not 
of my employer or any of its clients.
    Today we are facing a new energy crisis. The people of 
the--the American people are facing a new energy crisis. 
Americans are now faced with energy scarcity, artificial 
shortages of natural gas and oil despite massive reserves in 
the United States, and an electric grid that is less reliable.
    Nor can all this be blamed on Putin's war in Ukraine. 
Misguided government policies, as well as the politicization of 
capital, are causing much of the current energy crisis in this 
country. The energy challenges are wide ranging.
    We have the means to reinvigorate our energy priorities for 
the benefit of the American people. Many of the bills here 
today will help do that. But recognizing the limited time for 
these opening comments, I will focus on three major issues: 
permitting reform, the importance of natural gas to energy 
security, and restoring reliability to our electric grid.
    Permitting reform. Over the years we have seen a number of 
initiatives to speed up environmental reviews, including 
permitting reform. And the problem is not just agencies 
reviewing projects. The substantive aspects of various 
environmental laws contribute to the rejection, delay, and cost 
of energy projects. Therefore, attempts to make the bureaucracy 
work more efficiently may not result in more projects being 
approved or constructed.
    To address permitting challenges, Congress should look at 
the substantive requirements in various laws and agency 
regulations that they are implementing, so as to ensure that 
they properly protect the environment but also do not create 
artificial barriers.
    But there is another problem, and it is related to NEPA 
litigation. As enacted by Congress, NEPA does not provide for a 
private cause of action. But the courts have allowed agency 
actions on NEPA decisions to be challenged in court through the 
Administrative Procedures Act. The result is that agencies now 
spend an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to address 
every minor comment and issue raised in environmental reviews. 
And no matter how good an agency's review is, the agency's 
action can still be challenged in court, which can then hold up 
a project for years. Such delays can end up killing a project 
or making it more expensive.
    Congress should consider reforming NEPA and the EPA to 
limit how legal challenges can be made against agency actions. 
But of course, this is a two-edged sword. We want agencies to 
be accountable, so Congress will have to engage in a careful 
balancing of its authorities.
    Next, natural gas energy security. American energy security 
and affordability is vitally dependent on access to 
domestically produced natural gas. Natural gas is important for 
home heating, manufacturing, but also provides about 38 percent 
of our electric generation. Unleashing natural gas production 
should be a priority, and natural gas pipelines are very 
important to get end product to users.
    Furthermore, Federal and State policymakers need to 
recognize the interdependence of the electric grid and natural 
gas, especially natural gas pipelines. This means ensuring that 
pipelines are also safe from cyber and physical threats, which 
I also know is being considered by this committee.
    Finally, restoring the reliability of the electric grid. 
Electric reliability is decreasing in many parts of the 
country. And we have seen this in California, Texas, and part 
of the East Coast this past December. And these failures have 
not been the usual causes for power outages, which are usually 
downed power lines. What we have been seeing is a lack of 
enough generation on the grid, dispatchable generation to keep 
the power going.
    This is the result of policy choices, in particular the 
convergence of subsidized renewables and regional transmission 
organizations. Though described as electric markets, RTOs are 
actually complex regulatory constructs. And, unlike traditional 
utilities, generators and RTOs have no obligation to serve 
customers. Furthermore, RTOs and generators are not passing the 
full economic benefits of no-fuel and subsidized renewables to 
customers. The end result has been higher prices for customers, 
less reliability, and little accountability.
    This can be contrasted with traditional utilities which 
engage in an integrated resource planning to provide 
reliability, have the rate set in a manner that is--provides 
the economic benefits of fuel diversity to customers, and is 
accountable to State public utility commissions and 
legislators.
    As you look at the various issues about reliability, 
particularly the interaction between natural gas and electric, 
you may want to consider reforms to the Federal Power Act, FERC 
oversight, and enhancing the role of the States. Reliable, 
affordable, and abundant energy is essential for the American 
people and the Nation.
    I am grateful for the committee's work. Thank you for 
having me here. And I ask that my written comments be put in 
the record.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McNamee follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Duncan. Well, let me thank you all for your testimony, 
and we will now move into the question and answering portion of 
the hearing, and I will begin the questioning, and I will 
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Seeing Ranking Member DeGette's coffee this morning, I am 
reminded that America runs on Dunkin.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Duncan. I spell it a little differently.
    The truth of the matter is, America runs on energy. For 
example, my bill, Protecting American Energy Production Act, 
clarifies congressional intent that States have primacy 
regarding hydraulic fracturing. It also prohibits the President 
from issuing any moratorium on hydraulic fracturing.
    Two years ago, America was energy dominant for the first 
time since 1952. We went from the largest net importer to the--
to a net exporter. We became number 1 in--oil and gas producer 
of the world. We became a global price setter, undercutting the 
leverage of OPEC. Finally, we achieved the--President Jimmy 
Carter's mission for the DOE: We were no longer reliant on 
foreign adversaries for our energy security.
    We have now seen a reverse of this. The Democrats' energy 
policies have made us weaker and more reliant on other nations 
for energy and our supply chains. The Biden administration and 
congressional Democrats have taken over 100 actions to make it 
more difficult to produce oil and gas here in the United 
States. This may be why--that the administration didn't want to 
testify today. They know they have taken all executive action 
possible to undercut American energy production.
    President Biden has then blamed energy companies for not 
producing enough, while pushing a rush-to-green energy agenda 
that would make us overwhelmingly dependent on China, Russia, 
and our adversaries for energy.
    The bottom line is we have the resources here in America to 
meet all of our energy needs and help those around the globe, 
abundant natural resources.
    The goal of the legislation we are reviewing today is the 
reverse of this: to make American energy and its supply chains 
more secure while driving down consumer costs and emissions. 
So, Mr. Eshelman, I appreciate your comments on the shale 
revolution. We are going to talk about the hydraulic fracturing 
and the moratorium today.
    The innovation and entrepreneurial spirit helped make 
America energy dominant and a global leader in emissions 
reductions. This didn't happen in countries with price and 
supply controls. What would happen if this administration 
sought to curtail the use of hydraulic fracturing?
    Mr. Eshelman. Well, it would----
    Mr. Duncan. Mr. Menezes.
    Mr. Eshelman. It would be----
    Mr. Duncan. Or Mr. Eshelman, I am sorry.
    Mr. Eshelman. Yes, so it would be devastating. I remember 
back in 1994, when I worked at IPAA, we issued a request to the 
Commerce Department called a Section 232 because we were so 
dependent on foreign oil that we wanted a national security, 
basically, ranking for America, that it is a threat to the 
United States, all this foreign oil coming into America.
    But now, if we look back 20 years later, 30 years later, 
America has become energy independent, basically. We produce 12 
million barrels of oil a day. We have--imports about 7 million, 
so it is not even half, because we also export about 3 to 4 
million. So it has made us a global leader. It has created 
jobs. It has brought down prices. It has taken down the trade 
deficit, it has helped local communities.
    I know, Mr. Joyce--I am from Pennsylvania, Dr. Joyce--and 
we are the number 2 natural gas producers. It has made our 
counties rich.
    And so we operate in every community across the country, 
pretty much. We live in the communities. We are not 
headquartered all the time in Houston, or wherever you might 
think Big Oil is. So jobs, deficit reduction, helping local 
communities, it has done so much.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you for that. Yes, I meet with gas 
producers and pipeline managers all the time, owners.
    And Mr. Slocum, you mentioned our natural gas production. I 
would argue that we have so much natural gas in this country we 
can't truly measure how much. You talked about, I think, 20 
percent that we are exporting. Producers and pipelines tell me 
that they could provide more natural gas to the Nation if they 
had somewhere to put it. They just don't have anywhere for the 
gas to go. They are at capacity on the pipelines, what is 
produced in the Marcellus. They could produce more, they just 
don't have anywhere to send it.
    My communities need it. My State needs it. The rest of the 
Nation needs it. Natural gas is what got us here in our 
emissions goals.
    The goal of these bills today is to counter misguided 
energy policies that will offshore investment, make us reliant 
on countries that don't share our values. If they had their 
way, we would be relying on critical minerals primarily 
produced in countries with no regard for human rights or 
emission reduction goals, countries like China. These bills 
would reflect that the U.S. is serious about building out all 
forms of energy here, a true all-of-the-above approach.
    What happens, Mr. Menezes, if we recede from the world on 
the energy production, would it be cleaner?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, we need to maintain our ability to 
produce because our global allies and partners have really 
become--to depend on U.S.-produced LNG. They prefer to do 
business with LNG. After Putin's invasion, Europe came to us 
asking us to increase production. So they have--really have 
come to rely on us.
    Plus, with the agreement with the Biden administration to--
that our U.S. LNG providers were going to produce more and 
provide Europe over this winter and next winter, also came the 
realization that natural gas helped Europe meet its net zero 
goals.
    Mr. Duncan. Yes.
    Mr. Menezes. And indeed, so countries are looking to U.S. 
for LNG to help meet net zero goals, which, you know, the U.S. 
is proud to be a leader in that.
    Mr. Duncan. Yes. My time is expired, but lessen their 
dependance on Vladimir Putin and others for their energy 
sources.
    And I will go to the ranking member, Ms. DeGette, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. The first 
thing I want to start with, Mr. Chairman, so we get this 
subcommittee off on the right foot, is I know the 
administration would love to come and testify on these bills.
    And so, first of all, I think we should have another 
hearing with the administration on these bills. Secondly, if 
you expect the administration to come, then we would expect 
that you give them the same comity that we did when Mr. Trump 
was in the White House, and give them advance notice. But in 
addition, you have got 17 bills up today, and they only had 
notice of what 2 of those bills were. So if you really want 
fulsome testimony, you need to give them the bills.
    The second thing I want to point out is that I have good 
news for you, Mr. Eshelman and everybody else and you, Mr. 
Chairman, which is, you know, we have a lot of fracking in my 
State of Colorado, too. And I have been dealing with it for 
some time. And as you know, fracking occurs a lot in places 
where traditional drilling did not. And so it is really 
important--so I don't think anybody is seriously saying we 
should eliminate fracking.
    But what I am saying and what many are saying is we should 
have adequate environmental and security legislation to make 
sure that it is safe for the communities around it. And I don't 
think you could disagree with that. Is that right, Mr. 
Eshelman?
    Mr. Eshelman. I believe you are correct, that the States--
--
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
    Mr. Eshelman. [continuing]. And local communities are doing 
their part.
    Ms. DeGette. Right.
    Mr. Eshelman. But I don't think the Federal Government can 
put----
    Ms. DeGette. OK, thanks.
    Mr. Eshelman [continuing]. A one-size-fits-all on----
    Ms. DeGette. I have only got 5 minutes, unfortunately. So I 
would like to talk to you, Mr. Slocum, for a minute about this 
notion of increasing oil and gas production in the United 
States, whether it is traditional drilling or fracking, and 
this concept that that will somehow make us independent from 
foreign oil. And the chairman was talking to you about that.
    Is that correct, that if we have increased oil and gas 
production here, that that will make us independent from 
international oil? And if not, why not?
    Mr. Slocum. Yes. No, that is not correct, because, as you 
noted, oil and gasoline markets are globally priced, and they 
have been since the futures exchange opened in 1982 in New 
York.
    And so that is why whenever--during the first Gulf War in 
1990, we saw significant price spikes here in the United 
States, even though there were no domestic impediments to that. 
It was because the commodity is a globally priced commodity. 
And prior to the export boom of natural gas, natural gas was 
insulated. And now that we have got LNG exports, Americans are 
now exposed to global natural gas price shifts.
    Ms. DeGette. So what would the best way to become 
independent from these--this foreign market?
    Mr. Slocum. To get our economy off of volatilely priced, 
globally priced fossil fuels like oil and natural gas----
    Ms. DeGette. And move more into renewable fuels that were 
domestically developed?
    Mr. Slocum. Correct.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Now I want to ask you one more thing about 
H.R. 484, because one of the focal points I have been working 
on for some years is reducing methane emissions. And so H.R. 
484 rolls back the Obama-era methane rule that had bipartisan 
support and industry support, including BP and Shell.
    So I want to ask you why section 60113 of the Inflation 
Reduction Act is so important.
    Mr. Slocum. It is so important because methane is an 
incredibly powerful greenhouse gas, far more destructive than 
CO2. It is shorter-lived in the atmosphere, but 
capturing those methane emissions from the oil and gas sector 
is critical if we are going to successfully address the climate 
crisis.
    And so that is why I thought that the methane provisions in 
the IRA were extremely fair. They provide----
    Ms. DeGette. And it gives the----
    Mr. Slocum. They accommodate industry----
    Ms. DeGette. Yes.
    Mr. Slocum [continuing]. To help industry achieve those 
emission reduction----
    Ms. DeGette. They actually give funding to the industry to 
help them comply with the bill, right?
    Mr. Slocum. Correct.
    Ms. DeGette. And finally, Mr. Garcia, I want to thank you 
for your testimony. But I would particularly ask the committee 
to look at your written testimony, where you analyze every one 
of these 17 bills and talk about the fundamental problems. I 
don't have time in 5 minutes, like you didn't have time in your 
testimony, but it is really helpful analysis. And I think we 
should really try to work together to move this discussion 
forward rather than just rehashing tired debates that we have 
had over all the many years I have been on this committee.
    With that, I yield back. And welcome to the new chairman.
    Mr. Johnson [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back, and 
the Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the purpose 
of asking questions.
    And let me--I want to touch on my legislation, the 
Unlocking our Domestic LPG Potential Act. And I mentioned last 
week how unleashing U.S. LNG exports strengthens America's 
geopolitical posture on the world stage, but it can also bring 
considerable benefits here at home.
    Mr. Menezes, thank you for you--thank you for mentioning my 
legislation and for saying how America can lead the way in 
providing the world's energy. Can you explain how increasing 
U.S. LNG exports can have a positive effect on increasing 
production here at home, bringing with it the jobs and economic 
growth in places like my district in Ohio that sits atop the 
Utica and Marcellus Shale?
    Mr. Menezes. Thank you very much for the question. Indeed, 
you know, throughout the world, many of our friends and allies 
are coming to the United States and asking us to try to produce 
as much LNG for the purpose of export. They are aware that, 
when we produce natural gas, it is used, obviously, to drive 
our very powerful economy. But they have come to look to us, 
really, as part of the solution. They do not want to go to any 
of the monarchies if they have to. They do not want to go to 
Iran. And they certainly now have announced that they are no 
longer going to rely on Russia. So they have looked to the U.S. 
to replace this supply.
    We need to look at a future where Russia will no longer be 
a reliable provider. Now, Russia will likely do deals with the 
monarchies and perhaps China, but it is important for our 
friends and allies to know they can depend on the United 
States.
    And so with that demand for export, increases domestic 
production and lowers prices.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Menezes. Now let's shift gears 
a bit.
    We have an impressive slate of bills from our Members on 
the Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials 
Subcommittee that would address some of the major challenges 
that we are facing. Ms. Sweeney, please allow me to start with 
you, because you mentioned in your testimony that some critical 
materials needed for future industries and technologies like 
lithium and cobalt will skyrocket some 30 or even 40 times 
beyond current demand right now. Frankly, this increase is hard 
to even comprehend.
    The bottom line is we need a lot more mining and a lot more 
mines, and it is going to have to be done somewhere. So, Ms. 
Sweeney, wouldn't we want to do more of this right here in 
America?
    Can you tell us how, if we had the right permitting reforms 
and regulations in place, our domestic mining industry would be 
able to extract the minerals and metals we need in a safer and 
more environmentally responsible way than in other countries?
    Ms. Sweeney. Thank you so much for that question. And yes, 
we have about 6.2 trillion of value of minerals known in the 
U.S. today. And there is further mapping all the time. So there 
are more minerals that will be found, and we can mine here 
under the best standards--environmental, labor, and safety 
standards--in the world.
    But we do need the right policies in place to really unlock 
that potential. And permitting is one of the impediments. We 
need more efficiencies. We are not asking for environmental 
shortcuts. We are asking for a more efficient process, similar 
to the processes that are similarly stringent in Canada and 
Australia, but they do more to focus on coordinating amongst 
the various agencies. They have firm timelines in place.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. Well, thank you.
    And back to you, Mr. Menezes, very quickly. We are 
considering multiple bills today to allow America to protect 
its, quote, ``critical energy resources'' when America is under 
threat. Would you agree that, in addition to, say, oil and gas, 
this definition could also include critical minerals and rare 
earths?
    Mr. Menezes. Absolutely. They are going to be necessary for 
our transition to a cleaner----
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Would you agree this is a broad 
definition? Could it also include things like battery and solar 
components, perhaps electrical, steel?
    Mr. Menezes. Yes, it can include all of those necessary for 
our energy production and use.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you, because it is essential 
that we protect all of these components and their manufacturing 
supply chain.
    I do want, in my remaining time, I want to go back. I 
heard, Mr. Garcia, you mentioned that these bills are replete 
with exemptions and go-arounds. These bills are actually the 
removal of burdensome regulatory barriers that are--to 
advancing a true, all-of-the-above, market-driven energy 
strategy, the kind that the President actually wants.
    But yet these barriers for permitting, for mining, for 
exporting clean natural gas, you name it, those are things that 
would promote the President's agenda. But this administration 
doesn't want that. And that is what we are trying to break down 
today. Because good, solid energy policy is also good climate 
policy. And we believe Republicans are offering those up today.
    And with that, I would yield back. And now I recognize our 
colleague, the ranking member on the Environment and 
Manufacturing and Critical Materials Subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Garcia, thank you for your testimony. I am grateful to 
you and the Earthjustice organization for the partnership with 
frontline communities seeking protection from environmental and 
health threats.
    Yesterday, Members received a letter from Earthjustice and 
seven other environmental organizations expressing opposition 
to five bills under consideration today. While I understand you 
have several concerns with each of these bills, the broad 
definition of ``critical energy resource'' seems to be a common 
issue. What is your understanding of what could be included in 
these bills' definition of ``critical energy resources,'' and 
what risks might this pose to the communities with which you 
partner?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, absolutely. As I mentioned, the bills 
themselves don't actually give us a definition of what 
critical, whether it be critical minerals or critical energy 
sources, actually are. And so it really defers to the Secretary 
of Energy in any given administration to determine what these 
are. And so that means that virtually anything can become a 
quote/unquote ``critical energy resource.''
    And so, you know, the idea here is that we have to make 
sure that the energy that we produce is clean, but the 
manufacturing that goes into the creation of that clean energy 
also has to be clean, and it has to protect communities 
themselves.
    And so, when we are talking about broad outlines, right, 
and broad schemes that do go around the laws, it is going to be 
particularly problematic because, again, we are talking about 
laws and regulations. And we certainly heard about red tape, 
but few people actually mentioned that it is not red tape, it 
is actually protections that people rely on. NEPA, the National 
Environmental Policy Act, is at times the only law that 
communities have on the ground to actually know what is going 
to happen in their back yards and then to be able to comment on 
what is going to happen, say, on a mining project or on a 
drilling project or an energy project.
    And so we have to really think about how expansive this 
definition can really get, because, you know, when we are 
talking about the--for example, the TSCA bill, it says that for 
critical energy sources you have to study the economic costs to 
see if the substance is safe, which is backwards. A substance 
is either safe or not. It is either poisoning or it is not. And 
you can't figure that out afterwards.
    It also puts these chemicals on the market before the 
determination of whether they are safe or not is actually made. 
And so you can imagine that, right? Like, you--hey, you got 
three cups in front of you. ``Go ahead and drink them all. We 
will find out later if one of them is poisoned.'' It is 
backwards logic. And that is what we are doing to our--that is 
what we would be doing to our communities day in and day out, 
if we allowed this to move forward.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Ms. Sweeney, your testimony highlighted the increasing 
international demand for critical minerals and the strategies 
developed by several foreign governments, including the UK and 
Canada, to address these growing demands. A common thread 
highlighted in these strategies is the importance of bringing 
greater transparency to supply chains.
    I know that the National Mining Association has said that 
the Inflation Reduction Act's clean vehicle tax credit, coupled 
with other provisions in the IRA, can help U.S. energy security 
and supply chain resilience. As you know, a key component of 
this tax credit is verifying material sourcing, and I want to 
hone in on that verification effort.
    What do you see as the need for increased supply chain 
transparency and tracking in helping verify and promote 
compliance with the domestic sourcing requirements in the 
recently enacted battery incentives?
    Ms. Sweeney. Thank you very much for that question. That is 
a great question, and transparency is needed.
    I mean, there is information that we do get from the U.S. 
Geological Survey about where minerals come from, but it can be 
quite complicated to trace them back to the source, and 
additional resources are probably needed to be able to do that.
    Mr. Tonko. So what----
    Ms. Sweeney. Of course, if we get them here, we wouldn't 
have to trace too far.
    Mr. Tonko. Right. But what specifically should we do to 
improve that tracing, tracking opportunity?
    Ms. Sweeney. You know, I have not spent a lot of time 
thinking about that. I would love to get back to you with an 
answer.
    Mr. Tonko. Sure. Thank you. And I also believe Congress 
should consider other methods for meeting our critical mineral 
demands, including investing in R&D to develop alternative 
battery chemistries that are less reliant on critical minerals, 
and putting a greater emphasis on the recycling of critical 
minerals already in commerce.
    Mr. Garcia, do you believe more can be done to achieve more 
sustainable sourcing through recycling and reuse of critical 
minerals, provided this is done using safe and environmentally 
sound processes?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, absolutely. And the laws that are in the 
books, far from being obstacles, are actually guides. They 
guide us in order to make sure that, while we are doing more 
recycling of these minerals and while we are figuring out what 
we want to do in terms of the next innovation, that we are 
doing it in a way that it is safe. And so, far from obstacles, 
these are guideposts that we need to make sure that we are 
keeping in mind as we move forward in innovation.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    With that I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the chairlady of the total committee, Energy and 
Commerce, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our goal is to put 
security back at the center of our energy policy. That is what 
this, the package before us today--each of these bills is 
central to our energy work.
    And flipping the switch for more American energy and 
energy-related industrial activity, it is key, while 
maintaining America's highest labor environmental safety 
standards. There is nothing in any of the bills before us that 
would undermine those high standards.
    And I--and, you know, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it 
didn't cause the energy crisis. It just exposed what was going 
on in weakening American energy security. The risks extend way 
beyond oil and gas supplies to vulnerabilities in the civilian 
nuclear sector.
    The sad fact is our domestic fuel infrastructure, from 
uranium mining and conversion to enrichment services, has 
eroded. Upwards to 24 percent of America's fuel this year--this 
year--will be Russian sourced, which places our fuel supplies 
at greater risk of disruption.
    Mr. Menezes, during your time as Deputy Secretary of 
Energy, DOE highlighted the importance of restoring American 
nuclear leadership in the world. Would you speak briefly as to 
why a strong nuclear industrial base, from fuels to 
technological development, is critical to domestic nuclear 
development, quality energy supplies, and to our national 
security?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you very much. I mean, we have 
always been aware of the need for the U.S. to maintain its 
global leadership in nuclear technology, but it became more 
apparent as I began to travel overseas and to see the role that 
Russia and China is playing, doing deals with our friends and 
allies across the world, trying to bring their nuclear 
technology to them.
    Now, one might say, well, you know, that is not a big deal, 
but it is a big deal, because what we are doing is we are 
ceding the leadership, the technological leadership, the 
institutional knowledge, and the 50- to 100-year relationships 
with China and Russia--with our friends and allies. They are 
turning away from the U.S. So that is an important thing: We 
are losing the global leadership.
    We have 123 requirements in our law. China and Russia do 
not. And so we should all be concerned about maintaining that. 
Regardless of how you feel about nuclear energy, we need to 
maintain that leadership. It is very real, and it is very 
threatening.
    And then our own history is that we really have--we need to 
improve our mining, our milling, our conversion, our fuel 
fabrication, and, of course, enrichment. And so I really--I ask 
this committee to please look seriously at it.
    We released a report in 2020 where we tried to look at it 
in a very broad view, and I would like to submit that in the 
record, as well, with my testimony. Thank you.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Sweeney, just to build on this a little bit, my 
legislation is designed to send a clear signal to industry that 
a date certain America's nuclear industry can no longer rely on 
Russian-sourced, low-enriched uranium. What do you believe this 
signal would mean for building out our domestic fuel industry?
    Ms. Sweeney. It is a lifeline. Frankly, you know, talking 
about insecure supply chains, our reliance on foreign sources 
of uranium, over 97 percent is foreign. It is just crazy when 
you think about that. And that industry is on the precipice of 
extinction. They need that lifeline.
    Mrs. Rodgers. So this week we are all talking about a 
Chinese spy balloon that made its way across America, 
underscored the importance of Americans and--having safe and 
secure systems, supply chains. It is real. The threat from 
China is real. It is active.
    So Ms. Sweeney, what do you believe this event says about 
the urgency for us building out our mineral, metal, and energy 
materials supply chains?
    Ms. Sweeney. It is such an important topic. You know, we 
need to be able to rely on ourselves for as much as we can, and 
we have so much here that we can be using. We have the great 
workforce, we have great transportation infrastructure. We can 
and should be doing it here, and that will protect us, you 
know, in energy crisis, in military crisis, in economic crisis.
    Mrs. Rodgers. So would you speak to where do we get the 
minerals and the metals that we need right now? Where do they 
come from?
    Ms. Sweeney. Could you repeat that?
    Mrs. Rodgers. The minerals, the metals that we need in 
energy, in----
    Ms. Sweeney. Oh, oh----
    Mrs. Rodgers. Yes, yes.
    Ms. Sweeney. China, mostly China, right? And the 
processing, as well.
    I mean we are 80 percent reliant on rare earths that come 
from China. Processing, they do about 90 percent of the rare 
earths processing there.
    Mrs. Rodgers. And what has been happening recently in 
America, as far as making more of this available in America?
    Ms. Sweeney. Well, we have gotten a lot of funding for new 
projects in the U.S., but what we are lacking is the permitting 
reforms to accompany that. So what--we are seeing money going 
to projects, but we are not seeing approvals happening. So it 
is really delaying our ability to unleash our full potential.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Yes, you can't build without permitting 
reform.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman. I am going to try to get 
in some questions for Mr. Slocum and Mr. Garcia.
    So, Mr. Slocum, in your testimony you talked about how 
increased LNG exports have increasingly tied American natural 
gas markets with global markets, meaning that American 
consumers are now sharing in the volatility that global markets 
are experiencing due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And 
American natural gas markets are currently reflecting that 
volatility.
    Last year, American natural gas futures fluctuated wildly 
from a low of just under $4 per unit to nearly 10. I don't know 
how families in New Jersey are supposed to budget for gas to 
heat their homes when it could double in price on them with no 
warning whatsoever.
    So first question, Mr. Slocum: Can you talk about how 
increased LNG exports have increased home energy costs for 
Americans?
    Mr. Slocum. Yes. So the Department of Energy has authority 
to review export applications, and it has approved every one. 
And so, as a result, we went from zero LNG exports in 2016 to 
now we are the largest LNG exporter in the world. And what that 
has done is it has forced consumers in New Jersey and Texas and 
elsewhere to compete with our foreign counterparts for that 
gas.
    And obviously, we want to help our allies in need after the 
Russian invasion, but I think that there needs to be a balanced 
assessment because, when there are physical shortages in New 
England and extremely high prices on the West Coast, it is 
clear that the level of export is creating detrimental impacts 
for energy affordability at a time when families are already 
stretched thin with high energy prices.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
    Now, I wanted to enter into the record--if I can ask 
unanimous consent to enter into the record--a CNBC article from 
last June detailing the decrease in U.S. natural gas prices 
after the explosion at a Freeport LNG terminal. If I could ask 
unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    So if--my understanding is that, you know, because that 
Freeport terminal export was closed, that we had more natural 
gas here, and prices went down. Accurate?
    Mr. Slocum. That is 100 percent correct. So on June 8th, 
2022, there was a massive explosion at the Freeport LNG 
facility, which alone accounts for 20 percent of all of U.S. 
LNG exports, so it is a very large facility. And the futures 
market immediately reacted to the fact that that 20 percent 
export capacity was going to be offline for some time by 
sending domestic prices significantly lower, a recognition of 
the direct impact that exports have on domestic pricing.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Let me just focus on Mr. Johnson's 
bill, Mr. Slocum. Then I have to get to Mr. Garcia.
    Can you talk about how removing the requirement for DOE to 
find that LNG exports are in the public interest would worsen 
the problem of expensive natural gas?
    Mr. Slocum. Correct. Right now, under the standard 
established in 1938, Congress dictated that no exports are 
allowed to occur unless they are found to be consistent with 
the public interest. And right now the Department of Energy 
performs that test.
    We banded together with a number of other organizations in 
October, noting some methodology flaws in the way that the 
Department of Energy currently does that. But the statutory 
requirement is very important to ensure that exports are 
consistent with the public interest. And I think removing that 
public interest standard would not be advisable.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Let me go to Mr. Garcia about 
methane.
    Consumers are also paying for market failures that make it 
cheaper for the industry to waste methane than to install or 
upgrade equipment to prevent leaks. And this leaked or 
intentionally wasted gas never makes it to consumers, but they 
are nevertheless stuck with the bill. So that is why we enacted 
the Methane Emission Reduction Program to ensure consumers stop 
paying for wasted energy or the harm its emissions cause. 
Cleaning up legacy damage and preventing future pollution from 
the oil and gas industry were also reasons for the program.
    So Mr. Garcia, you have got less than a minute. Could you 
speak to how frontline communities would benefit from holding 
the oil and gas industry accountable for its methane pollution?
    Mr. Garcia. I mean, throughout we see, whether it be oil 
and gas production or petrochemical facilities across the 
country do some of the worst damage to communities across the 
country. And we can almost pinpoint the communities, the 
Ironbound community out in New Jersey, the Cancer Alley between 
Baton Rouge and Louisiana--sorry, and New Orleans in Louisiana.
    All you have to do is really go--and I really encourage 
everybody on this committee--go and take a what they call the 
toxic tour of these communities to truly understand what they 
are dealing with left and right, day in and day out.
    And people say, well, it is their choice to live there. 
They were there before. They were there before. And industry 
has come in, and they have utterly ravaged the health of these 
communities throughout.
    And they will tell you about the cancer clusters. They will 
tell you about all of the concerns that they have about the 
respiratory health, cardiac health. And I honestly can't do it 
justice here.
    But it is imperative that the protections that we have stay 
in the books. And what really needs to be the focus of this 
Congress is how do we strengthen protections so that not only 
are we addressing the energy needs, which we have heard a lot 
about here today--and what we haven't heard, many things, in 
fact, anything about--are the health protections that need to 
be in place for communities to actually thrive in the face of 
oil and gas, mining, and other dirty industries.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Deputy Secretary Menezes, let me just ask you a question, 
if I could. The statement was made that natural gas prices fell 
in June after the unfortunate accident at the Freeport 
facility.
    Do you know what has happened since then, as far as the 
futures on natural gas?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, I think today, you know, they are back 
at their normal historic lows since the shale revolution. So 
that has been the constant thing. There was indeed a blip of 
the prices, as mentioned. But you have to look at the long-term 
view.
    And so DOE has done, like, five studies using EIA and other 
experts in the field to look at if, in fact, all of the 
facilities that are pending there were actually permitted and 
built and exported. The studies have all been--the projections 
have been clear: modest increases in prices. And this is going 
out to 2040.
    Mr. Burgess. Yes. According to Bloomberg, the price did 
drop in late June and early July. It then immediately came back 
up for the balance of the summer, dropped again a little bit in 
September, when perhaps energy demands--air conditioning and 
electricity demands--fell off, and currently stands at 2\1/2\ 
dollars per million BTU, I mean, which is in line with its 
historical precedent.
    So--but there is probably another reason why they are 
paying higher prices in Boston. Can you help us with that?
    Mr. Menezes. So on the price of natural gas, there are 
several reasons for that. It should not surprise anyone that, 
due to limited capacity on the West Coast and the East Coast, 
that those prices are going to be high. Those areas of the 
country have taken the position to restrict natural gas going 
in there. So their constituents should be prepared to pay 
higher prices.
    On pricing with respect to electricity, that is something 
actually different. So the pricing there is done, you know, at 
different points within the bid-based markets. And so those 
are--it is locational marginal pricing, and it really depends 
on the price of natural gas, really, to set the electricity.
    But to be sure, when you restrict access to natural gas and 
our economy is growing on the use of natural gas, you will have 
higher electricity prices at the points where you can't get 
natural gas. And more and more of our generation is replacing 
coal and ramping renewables. So it is a good thing that it is 
growing, but you have got to be careful about how you 
characterize pricing.
    And with respect to the jump in LNG going down, remember 
that was in--the prices went up for the unanticipated Putin 
invasion of Ukraine. That is what set the prices up. So when it 
came down because of the Freeport accident, it could only come 
down, to be frank about it, because the Putin invasion caused 
the global prices to go so high.
    Mr. Burgess. So what is the principal source for natural 
gas in Boston?
    Mr. Menezes. I don't know if there is a principal source. I 
do know that New England has, you know, the ability to import 
natural gas from Yamal and other places. Our Jones Act 
restricts, you know, our ability to get natural gas from the 
Gulf of Mexico up to New England. So that is----
    Mr. Burgess. So let me just ask Mr. Eshelman.
    Are--those are your independent producers that are selling 
in Boston?
    Mr. Eshelman. No, we are not up in Boston. I was going to 
say probably the biggest source of methane in New England is 
dairy farms.
    Mr. Burgess. Is what?
    Mr. Eshelman. Dairy farms.
    Mr. Burgess. Well, look. And Mr.--or Secretary Menezes, I 
appreciate your thoughts on this and the restriction of natural 
gas. One of the bills we have under discussion is to help get 
product that is stranded in the Permian Basin and get it into 
the stream of commerce. So I appreciate your comments on that.
    Mr. Menezes. Just on a point on that, so, I mean, the 
President was taking the credit for increasing exports so they 
could get to Europe. You know where the exports were coming 
from? The exports were coming from the Permian Basin in----
    Mr. Burgess. Correct.
    Mr. Menezes [continuing]. Texas to the export facilities 
there with--beyond Federal overreach. That is the source. The 
President didn't make that point when he was taking credit for 
increasing production to help our European----
    Mr. Burgess. Well, maybe you could help him with that line 
in the State of the Union tonight. He likes to take credit for 
stuff.
    But, look, I really appreciate your efforts on helping us 
with the bill to get the siting and the permitting for natural 
gas pipelines.
    Yes, I get the concern that you don't--in the production of 
natural gas, you don't want flaring and venting. The problem 
with stranded gas in the Permian Basin is you can't get it--
sometimes you can't get it to market. So this is an effort to 
do that. And I appreciate you pointing out how we are helping 
the President in the process.
    So thank you all for being here today, and I appreciate the 
lively discussion.
    And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you to our witnesses.
    Drill, baby, drill is what Big Oil and Big Gas wants right 
now. And it seems as if, from the list of bills that are being 
considered today, that that is what my Republican colleagues 
want, as well. It is really a wish list, I think, and a laundry 
list of policies on the Big Oil agenda.
    So, Mr. Slocum, I want to ask you, consumers have been on a 
natural gas roller coaster, with prices reaching their highest 
level since 2008. Do the bills that we have--or that we are 
considering today do anything to combat the high gas prices 
that consumers have suffered for this last year?
    Mr. Slocum. I am unable to find any consumer protections in 
these proposed bills. In fact, I think that the expansion of 
exports would likely hurt consumers.
    What is striking to me is the lack of any energy efficiency 
or demand reduction initiatives in this legislation. It is not 
always about supply, it is also about demand.
    And how do we get more tools in the hands of consumers to 
help them avoid these high costs? More incentives. More funding 
for building efficiency, for building electrification, if 
municipalities and States want to go that direction. 
Weatherization. All of these types of tools can empower 
consumers to avoid their exposure to increasingly volatilely 
priced fossil fuels for energy.
    Ms. Schakowsky. So I want to ask you this. So in that case, 
what can--tell us what we can do to encourage the utility 
companies to transition away from fossil fuels, while at the 
same time, of course, lower home energy costs and promote 
energy efficiency.
    Mr. Slocum. Right. I think----
    Ms. Schakowsky. I mean, we want to hear your ideas of what 
we can do going forward.
    Mr. Slocum. Well, I think, you know, Congress already has 
directed a lot of financial incentives through the Inflation 
Reduction Act to try to spur the deployment of a number of 
different clean energy and energy efficiency technologies. And 
I think anything else that Congress can do to assist States 
with ensuring that utilities are making those investments in 
energy efficiency.
    There are a number of States that have recognized that 
prodding their utilities to invest more in their consumers to 
increase energy efficiency is the best path forward. And so 
providing more regulatory incentives and financial incentives 
for utilities, for building owners, for landlords, and for 
homeowners to deploy and adopt energy efficiency technologies 
and clean energy technologies, that is only going to help 
reduce customers' bills and their exposure to volatilely priced 
fossil fuel energy.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Can you give us some examples of things 
that are happening around the country that are delivering that 
kind of good outcome?
    Mr. Slocum. Sure. So I live in Maryland, which has very 
proactive--it is called Empower Maryland, where the Public 
Service Commission, backed by the legislature, requires 
utilities to invest not necessarily in building new power 
plants to meet demand, but investing in consumers to help 
obtain energy efficiency initiatives. So, you know, I live in a 
house built in 1900 that needed a whole lot of weatherization 
renovation. And that was helped in part because of incentives 
through the utility.
    And so I think looking at energy providers not as just 
providing energy, but assisting customers in avoiding energy 
use through improvements in energy efficiency, has to be a 
central component. And all investments in energy efficiency are 
typically far more cost effective, meaning the bang for your 
buck for investing in energy efficiency is always better than 
building new energy resources.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I thank you so much for your comments----
    Mr. Slocum. Thank you.
    Ms. Schakowsky [continuing]. And I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for our 
witnesses for being here today. I really appreciate it.
    And one key area that is holding the United States back 
from reaching its full potential for energy production is 
refining capacity. Last year the Energy Information 
Administration estimated that North America lost over 1 million 
barrels of fuel per day in refining capacity in a 3-year 
period.
    Where refining capacity has decreased, demand for energy 
has gone in the opposite direction. Our remaining refineries 
struggling to keep up with this demand are running at close to 
95 percent of total capacity. Any economist will tell you that 
the situation--resulting in higher prices for the consumer. And 
my legislation, the Researching Efficient Federal Improvements 
for Necessary Energy Refining and Refinery Act, would address 
this.
    If I could start with you, Secretary Menezes, how important 
is it for the Federal Government to drive the conversation 
towards increasing refining capacity in this country?
    Mr. Menezes. We do need a robust refining capacity here, 
simply so we don't have to import from any other country, and 
we can provide our consumers with what we need. But the fact is 
that there hasn't been another major--a new, major refinery 
built--greenfield--since 1977. We have built some small 
refineries, but we have been closing more of----
    Mr. Latta. Sorry, would you repeat that again? What was the 
date, again, for our major refinery?
    Mr. Menezes. In 1977, the last major greenfield oil 
production, I believe it was the Marathon refinery.
    Now, there have been some small refineries that have been 
built, typically on brownfield sites, but we have been--our 
industry has been ratcheting out the inefficiencies back from 
the 1970s. And so we have been closing, we have been doing with 
what we can.
    But the permitting process, essentially, is too difficult 
to overcome. I believe we have a North Dakota plant and a Utah 
plant that, I think, have basically stalled out because of lack 
of permits.
    So we are doing--we are making improvements with what we 
have had for many years, and that--it operates at the 95 
percent efficiency that you say--does not leave much wiggle 
room for when the President wants us to increase refining. For 
example, we simply, A, don't have the facilities or it would be 
too costly for us to suddenly begin to take them out of 
mothballs and then try to get them going again.
    So that is why we should look at this comprehensively to 
see what we can do to help, you know, get a robust, clean, 
environmentally compliant refinery.
    Mr. Latta. And just to follow up, what is the benefit going 
to be to the consumer? What is the benefit to the consumer?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, you would have a ready supply of refined 
products.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
    You know, we have talked a little bit earlier today in 
regards to having a strong nuclear fuel security program, and I 
totally support it. And I also fully support our chair's 
legislation that would ban the importation of Russian uranium. 
And, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to place into the 
record two letters of support in favor of this bill: one from 
the Uranium Producers of America and the other from the 
organization ClearPath.
    Mr. Johnson. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Sweeney, if I could switch gears real quickly and talk 
about your testimony, because, interestingly enough, you know, 
just by chance--everybody saw the second page of The Wall 
Street Journal today. It is all about what? It is all about 
our--what we are going to do about EVs and our batteries in 
this country. And it is a very interesting article, and I 
thought right--apropos for where we are today.
    But, you know, in your--this testimony that you talked--
that you presented today, you know, you have that the lithium 
band is going to--demand is going to increase by more than 40 
times by 2040, followed by graphite, cobalt, nickel at 20 to 25 
percent in that timeframe. Our automakers are warning that the 
coming battery shortage could stop the EV revolution in its 
tracks.
    And also in your testimony you state that, with over $6 
trillion worth of mineral resources that we have right here in 
this country, you know, it is right in our own back yard.
    But it goes right to--a question, then, is on the 
permitting and the delays out there, because also in your 
testimony you have your chart that shows that, you know, we 
could be looking at anywhere from 7 to 10 years to get a 
production site up. And I have been to the only lithium 
facility that we have in this country, out in Nevada.
    But you also state that unexpected permitting delays could 
reduce that--mining projects by more than a third.
    But do you also--when you think about all of these things, 
you know, what are we going to do in this country, especially 
when we look to our friends to the north in Canada, that their 
permitting is taking 2 to 3 years, and here in this country it 
is taking 7 to 10? What can we do?
    Ms. Sweeney. You know, they have some efficiencies in 
Canada and Australia, you know, which have very similar NEPA 
regulations and statute in place that do allow the permitting 
process to move a little bit faster.
    One of those is actually allowing the project proponent to 
prepare the environmental impact statement. The Government then 
does a thorough review, and makes sure that, you know, that 
meets all the standards, and they allow the opportunity for the 
public to comment on the NEPA project--or the analysis, just 
like we do here.
    But the project proponent is--has the best information. 
They are on the ground right there. They know what is happening 
on the ground. They have got the data in front of them, and 
they have the incentive to move more quickly. And they are only 
focusing on one project at a time. When the Government has to 
do it, they are looking at a lot of different projects, and it 
is just a matter of getting the resources to the project. That 
is part of the delays.
    Another process that works better----
    Mr. Latta. Oh, excuse me. I am afraid my time has expired, 
but I would ask, if you could put that in writing, and I will 
address that to you then.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Sweeney. Sure.
    Mr. Johnson. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, for 
5 minutes.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 
witnesses for being here today.
    Recent research from the Energy Innovation shows it is now 
cheaper to replace almost every coal plant in this country with 
new, renewable generation rather than pay to keep those old 
coal plants running.
    In my community, our utility, the Sacramento Municipal 
Utility District, affectionately called SMUD, is on track to be 
zero carbon by 2030. At the same time, our electricity rates 
are among the cheapest of any competitors.
    Mr. Slocum, fast forward to 2030. Based on current 
modeling, will the clean energy transition save consumers 
money?
    Mr. Slocum. Yes.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Again, Mr. Slocum, given the expected costs 
of climate change, will the clean energy transition save our 
Government money?
    Mr. Slocum. Yes.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. I want to follow up on what you said about 
what utilities can do. Are utilities doing all those kinds of 
things, and making sure that--they are making sure that their 
customers have good investments so that we can transition?
    As I mentioned, our municipal utility in Sacramento is on 
track to be zero carbon by 2030, 5 years ahead of the 
President's goal for decarbonizing the U.S. power sector.
    The clean energy transition is achievable, it is cost 
effective, and the potential benefits are enormous.
    Mr. Garcia, if every utility in this country were zero 
carbon by 2030, what kind of benefits would we see among the 
low-income and minority communities living adjacent to fossil 
fuel facilities?
    Mr. Garcia. Well, it is going to be a huge impact, and that 
is why the investments coming out of the IRA are so important, 
because we are basically reducing the process that is poisoning 
the communities across the country, right? And so, the less 
they have to rely on those dirty fuels, the less poisoned air 
they have to breathe.
    Ms. Matsui. And for those focused on economic impacts above 
all else, what are the potential economic benefits of improved 
health in those frontline communities?
    Mr. Garcia. Well, throughout the--you know, throughout all 
of the economic impacts, they would be quite substantial.
    One, because, you know, I mean, you can think about, in 
very concrete terms, how much does an inhaler cost for--you 
know, for a child per se? And that is a saving. The trips to 
the emergency room, the hospital bills.
    On top of that, it also makes electricity way easier for 
them to get, and not as expensive as it used----
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Nature-based solutions are among the most 
cost effective and underappreciated tools in our toolbox when 
it comes to mitigating and adapting to climate change. And I am 
very concerned to see a number of bills here today that would 
roll back important environmental protections and threaten 
fragile ecosystems.
    Mr. Garcia, what would be the cumulative impact of those 
bills on our ecosystems, natural lands, and biodiversity across 
America?
    Mr. Garcia. It would be extremely destructive, not only 
because of the--I mean, one is the climate emissions that they 
would--that they bring about, and all of the way that they are 
going to make--the storms, the droughts, all of that is going 
to get worse.
    But in addition to that, a lot of these projects are 
happening without any regard to nature, and I think that 
oftentimes we talk about nature as some distant place where we 
don't actually go. But we have to recognize that air knows no 
borders. It travels all across our States, and so does water. 
And so when we are polluting the water, when we are polluting 
the air, when the wildlife can't adapt quick enough, when we 
are throwing away grasslands that would protect our 
communities, say, from hurricanes or bigger storms that way, we 
are all going to end up suffering.
    And unfortunately, communities of color and low income are 
at the front lines of that suffering.
    Ms. Matsui. Certainly, they are the most exposed, 
especially to nature's wrath and those dependent on the 
resources provided by the natural ecosystems.
    How could we work better with low-income, minority, and 
frontline communities to protect these ecosystems and improve 
the potential of these ecosystems to help mitigate and adapt to 
climate change?
    Many of these are in low-income neighborhoods, and it is 
very difficult to figure out how to work with them.
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely. And, you know, the way that we work 
with them is by following the guideposts that laws like NEPA 
set in place, because NEPA is really about engaging the public, 
engaging frontline communities.
    And so making sure that it is not industry's alternative 
that gets put front and center all the time, making sure that 
communities on the ground are actually being able to say, 
``That is actually a conflict of interest,'' making sure that 
communities on the ground are able to say, ``That is actually 
going to affect my water, so you shouldn't do that,'' and, 
frankly, all of those protections that, again, many people here 
keep calling obstacles and red tape are those guideposts in 
order to engage those communities in a way that is going to be 
helpful to them and helpful to the project's sponsor 
themselves----
    Ms. Matsui. OK.
    Mr. Garcia [continuing]. To create better projects.
    Ms. Matsui. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Garcia, and 
thank you for the witnesses for being here today. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, for five--
--
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you----
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Minutes.
    Mr. Guthrie [continuing]. Mr. Chair. I appreciate the 
recognition.
    And there is a cost. First of all, I will bring up 
Paradise, Kentucky, in Muhlenberg County. It is--TVA shut down 
its coal-fired power plant. It devastated that community, it 
devastated the people that live in that community, but it also 
devastated everybody in the TVA power area.
    December 23rd, 24th, it was a cold day, it was unusually 
cold. But TVA wasn't prepared for it. They will give you about 
10 different reasons because their board wants them to get out 
of fossil fuels. But I will tell you, people are suffering 
because of it. We had rolling blackouts, which is hard to 
believe in America during this time and this day.
    The rising cost of gas, the rising cost of energy affects 
people at the low-income level at the most. I hate paying when 
we were paying $5--almost $5 a gallon worth of gas. I hate 
paying it. But I know people that had to change their lifestyle 
because they couldn't afford to pay it. And so this is serious 
stuff.
    I mean, we don't need technology deniers. We need to 
understand that we have to have a system where people have 
access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy.
    And for instance, you know, Germany tried it. We export 
coal, the price of coal has increased because the German 
economy decided they cannot continue down the path they were 
on. If we didn't export coal, then we wouldn't have the 
increased price of coal. Therefore, we wouldn't--they wouldn't 
have opened mines. And so now it has brought more coal into 
production because of the decisions that's happening in Europe.
    You know, thank goodness Germany has had a mild winter. You 
know, I was praying for a mild winter for Germany because of 
some of the decisions they made. You are talking about people 
affected? People could have died from the cold weather if it 
had moved forward.
    So it is important that we are part of this global economy. 
And for instance, I was in--I think Ms. Schakowsky has left--I 
was in her neighborhood, dropping my daughter off for college, 
when I heard that Iran had bombed a Saudi Arabian oil 
production facility. And being a child of the 1970s, my first 
thought is I better top my car off--because I can get home on 
one tank of gas if it is all the way to the full--expecting 
disruptions in the gas supply. But because of energy 
independence, we didn't have any. And I think it went up maybe 
a dime for a half a day, or a day or so.
    So the point is we have got to do all the--and I grew up, I 
went to college on the Hudson River, about 45 miles from New 
York City. You couldn't swim in it when I was there. We don't 
want that, absolutely don't want that. Now, it is--fortunately, 
it has rejuvenated itself. We put in protections in place.
    And so we need communities that are safe, we need 
communities that people can live in and enjoy the beauty of the 
Hudson Valley, which they can now because of laws that Congress 
put into place and efforts that people moved forward.
    So we are not selling that, but we want people to have 
access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy. And one 
way to do it--I want to talk, Mr. Menezes and Mr. Eshelman, 
on--I have a bill in this, or a resolution with--that says we 
don't want export bans on petroleum and natural gas. And the 
reason is that it actually produces lower prices for everybody 
when producers can engage in the world marketplace. It allows 
expansion of supply. So that is why, even though the expansion 
of demand allows expansion of supply at the price that is 
sustainable, you may get some short-term lower prices, but not 
in the long term.
    Also, do we want our friends and our neighbors and our 
allies to be dependent on dictators? If you are dependent on 
dictators, you are vulnerable to them. So when we choose to say 
we are going to keep it all here, we are going to say to our 
European friends, ``You are going to have to buy from Putin, 
you are going to have to buy from Iran, you are going to have 
to buy from Venezuela.''
    And so, if the two of you would, kind of talk to why it 
doesn't make sense to ban exports of petroleum, natural gas, 
Mr. Eshelman and Mr. Menezes.
    Mr. Eshelman. Well, Congressman, there are a few reasons.
    One is if we continue to produce oil here at home, those 
are jobs that remain. If we would stop exporting the oil, those 
jobs would disappear. So it actually helps when we are 
producing more here at home and exporting to keep those wells 
pumping.
    The other thing I mentioned before is the trade deficit. It 
has come down tremendously because of the export of oil and 
natural gas to other countries. About 68 percent of our LNG 
exports go to Europe. So it helps our allies, and it helps our 
own national security. It makes sure that we are on the world 
stage and being a player.
    And so those are the big themes that I would hit.
    Mr. Menezes. And I look at it, really, from a separation of 
powers, you know, viewpoint, because having worked for Congress 
for many years--and I got, you know, accustomed to the fact 
that, unless Congress says it, you know, others can't do it, 
and we set the law of the land, and then you go over to the 
executive branch, and the first question you ask is, well, if 
Congress doesn't prohibit me from doing something, then I have 
all the authority I need to do something.
    And it becomes relevant when emergencies occur, and the 
President wants to take action to solve a problem. What 
emergency authorities, you know, do I have? What can I do? What 
do I have in the Constitution? What is--what has Congress said 
I can and cannot do?
    And with respect to bans of oil, Congress has been--has set 
a process in place. The President can actually take decisions 
to limit exports, but he has to do it following a process that 
Congress clearly put in the bill when they decided to lift the 
export ban. So he can't simply unilaterally declare an 
emergency and take such action.
    And this is what you do: You make him follow the law that 
Congress enacted. So that is my view of this and why I think it 
is important for Congress to express the clear intention to the 
executive branch to read the law and follow the law.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for your testimony today. As we know, we are 
considering several bills that would, according to our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, unleash American 
energy.
    But, no surprise, a lot of these bills that are on the 
docket here are more of the same. They are really unleashing 
more profit-making by the big oil companies, and doing that at 
the expense of the American people, in my view. And it is 
beyond me why our colleagues, with these pieces of legislation, 
would seek to erode what are bedrock environmental laws for the 
sake of unleashing American energy, as if we need to choose 
between health and safety of communities on the one hand and 
promoting energy on the other hand.
    One of the bills we have talked about--but I want to come 
back to it--that we are being--that we are considering today 
would create this new regulatory pathway for, quote, ``critical 
energy sources'' under TSCA, and it would circumvent what were 
bipartisan reforms that Congress passed in 2016. It would 
require EPA to consider nonrisk factors when determining the 
risks associated with a substance, which is very backwards 
thinking, you would think, in this day and age.
    Congress deliberately and explicitly prohibited EPA from 
considering such factors when determining whether a chemical 
presents unreasonable risk. These factors are, however, 
considered in the risk management stage.
    The bill would also provide a pathway for a, again, 
critical energy source to enter the market without regulation 
if EPA does not act in the review period, thereby potentially 
exposing communities and workers to toxic chemicals.
    Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to enter into 
the record a letter that we received from the Natural Resources 
Defense Council and nine other environmental groups opposing 
this particular legislation.
    Mr. Johnson. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Garcia, getting back to the broader frame here--and you 
have spoken to it, but I would like you to do it again, if you 
would. Is it necessary to roll these environmental protections 
back in order to secure our Nation's energy independence?
    I mean, do we need to choose, make this choice between our 
environmental laws and energy, or can we do both?
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely not. We don't have to choose. We can 
absolutely do both. We have the technology. And in fact, some 
of the legislation presented today would actually curtail that 
technology, which is sad to see.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Arguably, if you look historically, when we 
have leaned in with more--a more of an enlightened perspective 
on what we need to do with the environment, not only has that 
not compromised our economy, it ends up driving new economies 
that benefit. The pie grows from that. And I think the same can 
happen here. And if we go in the other direction, as is being 
suggested by these bills, we could undermine that kind of 
opportunity.
    So I definitely agree with you, and it is one of the 
reasons that we passed in the last Congress the Inflation 
Reduction Act, which would put our Nation on track to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, accelerate the development of 
reliable and clean energy.
    Unfortunately, again, our colleagues here seem unwilling to 
commit to a more sustainable future, as evidenced by their 
eagerness to get in there and start repealing all these 
things--again, many of them that came to pass and are on the 
books because of a bipartisan consensus and understanding that 
this is the right thing to do for our environment and for our 
economy and for our energy future.
    So, Mr. Garcia, let me ask you one last thing while I have 
the time. What would erosion of our environmental laws mean for 
particularly disadvantaged and underserved communities, which, 
as you know, are already overburdened? If you could, speak to 
that.
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, absolutely. You know, I don't know if I 
caught that right, but where--when Mr. Menezes mentioned, you 
know, we are not creating refineries and the old refineries 
that we had are going out, I am not sure if I caught that 
right, but I heard they were brownfield sites now.
    Now, think about that. Brownfield sites, which are hugely 
contaminated sites that have not been cleaned up, that were 
contaminated by industry, are in that place now, and we want 
more of these things throughout the country? Right? That is 
what is compromising communities everywhere.
    And so, unfortunately--and I have to say this very 
explicitly--these facilities are not in upper-class White 
portions of cities. These facilities exist primarily in 
neighborhoods of color, people--where people of low income 
live. And so that means that they are the ones absorbing this 
pollution, first and foremost.
    And even though our laws are not perfect, they offer 
protection. We are now to weaken them further with these 
loopholes left and right, whether it is the Clean Air Act, 
cleanup laws, and planning laws, permitting laws that would 
avoid us having to clean up because we are planning correctly--
that seems like it would multiply the damage.
    Mr. Sarbanes. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I am so glad to have another Virginian here today, my old 
friend--I hope that doesn't hurt your reputation any; I know we 
have known each other at least 20 years, probably more than 
that--Bernie McNamee. Mr. McNamee, it is good to have you with 
us as an energy expert and somebody who teaches law at the 
Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia, in Buckhannon 
County.
    Now, I mention that because I recently had an interesting 
tour, which is right on your way as you drive there, as you get 
to that turn where 460 and 19 separate, and you turn west 
heading towards Grundy in Russell County--or excuse me, in 
Tazewell County, headed towards Richlands. Just off on your 
left behind the Food City is a CONSOL office, and they are 
doing some fascinating new work.
    They have got a new technique to more efficiently and 
cleanly capture coal bed methane, and they are using it right 
now at Buckhannon No. 1. As you know, Buckhannon No. 1 is a 
huge underground mine for metallurgical coal. That means we 
make steel out of it, for those who don't know. The footprint 
underground right now is about the size of Washington, DC, and 
they are getting ready to open up a new section in the next 
couple of years. And so they are capturing, in a very clean and 
efficient manner, the coal bed methane out of that mine.
    But what people may not realize is they also can use this 
technique to capture this from existing mines or mines that--or 
areas that have coal that may not have ever been mined, but 
because they may be close to the surface or whatever, they have 
escaping methane gas. We can use it on that, too, but they 
don't get any credit for having a clean, efficient way, because 
it is the dreaded fossil fuel. It is natural gas. Oh, my gosh, 
egads, it must be bad. But here is a way that American 
technology is helping us.
    Do you think that is a good way that we should go, and that 
if we are going to do something with credits, that we ought to 
be looking at things that make it so that smaller steps forward 
can be made with existing fuel sources and baseload like 
natural gas, et cetera?
    Turn your mic on.
    Mr. McNamee. Congressman Griffith, it is great to be back 
in front of you once again. And I think you are correct--is 
that the innovation--the American people have been the ones 
that have solved most of our energy crisis and energy 
challenges.
    You think about the fracking revolution with George 
Mitchell in Texas, the innovation that CONSOL is doing, these 
resources--and what is neat about natural gas, what is great 
about the methane that is being produced is that it is 
something that can be dispatched and used to keep the grid 
growing. And these are very important things that we need to be 
focused on as a country.
    It is great to talk about--you know, we think we can go 100 
percent renewables, but the reality is, with technology we have 
today, we have to have dispatchable energy, and that is going 
to come from natural gas, from the methane that is captured at 
the coal seam, and these are things that we should not look 
negatively about. They have made our economy, people's lives, 
and the quality of life for all American people much better. 
And it is something we should embrace.
    Mr. Griffith. Yes, I appreciate that.
    Mr. Menezes, you agree that we probably ought to be using 
this technology and rewarding it, instead of excluding it from 
being able to receive money from, you know, the Greenhouse Gas 
Reduction Program? Because it is a fossil fuel, I don't think 
they are eligible.
    Mr. Menezes. To be sure. I mean, there are a lot of 
technologies that we can be deploying right now to help reduce 
emissions. Remember, our quest here is not to choose one type 
of energy over another. Our quest here to solve the climate 
problem is to reduce emissions.
    Mr. Griffith. Yes, and I appreciate that.
    Mr. Menezes. So anything we can do to reduce emissions, it 
doesn't make any difference whether you are using coal or 
fossil, you have technologies to deploy, and the IRA actually 
encourages it in some in some ways to do that. So it is 
reducing emissions, not saying something should be antifossil 
or, you know, or renewables. That is the----
    Mr. Griffith. Yes.
    Mr. Menezes [continuing]. False narrative. It is reducing 
emissions.
    Mr. Griffith. And I appreciate that.
    Back to you, Mr. McNamee. You know, it is interesting that 
that Buckhannon No. 1 mine, it is expanding. A lot of times 
people want to talk about, oh, we are going to have new 
sectors, and we are going to hire all these people in the 
renewables area. And while the CEOs may make good money, the 
frontline people don't make nearly what the miners in Buck 1 
make. The new section, they estimate, is going to be about an 
average of $103,000 a year for people with sometimes not even a 
high school education. They are able to get in there, and they 
are able to learn a trade and go forward, and that is very 
exciting.
    Also, as a former FERC representative, I would like to see 
us move forward on our pipeline reforms, including possibly 
even having collocation. But my time is out, so we will have to 
talk about that privately another time.
    Mr. Menezes. I would be happy to.
    Mr. Griffith. I appreciate. Always good to see you. Thank 
you for being here today, and for spending your time with us.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Duncan [presiding]. The gentleman's time is expired. We 
will now go to Mr. Cardenas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also Ranking 
Member, for holding this committee today.
    As Members of Congress, we have been entrusted with the 
duty to protect and improve constituents' quality of life, 
their health, and overall well-being. And, as members of this 
committee, we have a unique opportunity to examine and put 
forth real solutions that advance our Nation's energy 
independence while ensuring a healthier future for our children 
and grandchildren.
    Today we have convened to discuss 17 bills, all of which 
are partisan, none of which Energy and Commerce Committee 
Democrats were consulted about. Welcome to the Republican 
rodeo, ladies and gentlemen. And this ain't my first rodeo. I 
have been in the minority in the House of Representatives once 
before, and here we go again.
    The bills being discussed today are an attack on the 
environmental and public-interest laws that are most essential 
to ensuring that our constituents can breathe clean air and 
drink clean water. These bills will not serve the American 
people. They are intended to serve fossil fuel companies who 
continue to see record-shattering profits while everyday 
Americans pay higher prices at home.
    Today's hearing is an--is indicative of my Republican 
colleagues' misplaced priorities, and their willingness to 
sacrifice the health, the safety of the American people, 
starting with frontline communities like the one that I 
represent.
    My district and too many communities across our Nation know 
all too well the challenges of environmental injustices. In 
2020 my district was impacted by a methane gas leak, a leak we 
later found out had been occurring for over 3 years before the 
actual community found out that it was going on right in their 
midst. In my district, residents already breathe some of 
California's most polluted air, and a chemical disaster can be 
a death sentence to vulnerable communities like the one that I 
represent.
    There are far too many communities across the country that 
we were sent here to help protect and to make sure that their 
quality of life is secured. But yet, with some of these bills, 
they are really focused mostly on what industry prefers, rather 
than what the American people truly do deserve.
    My first question is for Mr. Garcia. Can you elaborate on 
the implications of proposals that hinder efforts from the 
EPA's risk management program, and what would happen if they 
became law?
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely. So EPA's risk management program 
essentially calls on refineries to be able to present safer 
alternatives or to try to study safer alternatives to their 
methods of production. And so it is a huge problem, because the 
bill that we are seeing today would essentially exempt--again, 
a loophole--from the Clean Air Act to refineries using 
hydrofluoric acid, which is incredibly dangerous for 
communities that live near the refineries and that really 
depend on the air around the refineries themselves.
    And so this is something that it is very much common sense. 
In fact, much of the industry is already doing it. The fact 
that we are talking about a bill that would eliminate this is 
sort of puzzling, because large refineries are doing it. And 
again, it is common sense. It is the idea that you should study 
to see if there are safer and effective ways to go about the 
business that you have already been doing for quite some time.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. And what would accountability look 
like for communities facing chemical disasters, particularly 
those that are low-income communities across the country?
    Mr. Garcia. Well, you know, on the foremost, we have to 
make sure that--we have seen disasters before. I mean, a couple 
of years ago, the plant in Philadelphia exploded and was a 
national disaster because of this same kind of lax enforcement 
of laws.
    So what we really need to focus on is making sure that it 
doesn't repeat itself. And particularly for communities of 
color and low income, and those that live near those 
refineries, We need to make sure that the planning is done 
right and that it is reoccurring. We can't just pretend that a 
facility that is there and that is exempted from the Clean Air 
Act is suddenly going to be responsible enough to do its job. 
It has to be held in check, and that is why those laws exist.
    Mr. Cardenas. One of the reasons why I ran for office many 
years ago was to make sure that I am a voice for the community 
that I grew up in, and I grew up in one of the most impacted 
communities in all of Los Angeles or Southern California, with 
more dumpsites and plants around my home than most people would 
ever want to have to deal with.
    In your testimony you explained that, under the bill that 
amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act, facilities could operate 
before securing a permit?
    Mr. Garcia. That is right. That is right. It essentially 
allows industry to roll out the red carpet, march in, do 
everything that it wants to do before we even know whether the 
practice is going to be safe, whether the appropriate 
precautions are being taken, whether the community's--the 
community alternatives, those projects that the community is 
actually bringing forward to accomplish the same goal, are 
being considered. All of that gets done through those laws, and 
somehow it is not going to matter.
    And then it is like this, right? And then, once it is 
operational, we get the excuse that, well, it is already there, 
so we can't draw it back. It is like----
    Mr. Cardenas. So----
    Mr. Garcia. It is like pouring, like, food coloring in a 
cup of water.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you.
    Mr. Garcia. Good luck getting that out.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I just want to note that I think the clock 
was backwards on my----
    Mr. Duncan. It was.
    Mr. Cardenas. So did it actually start at----
    Mr. Duncan. Yes. You got 5 minutes and 44 seconds as of 
right now.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK. But I noticed that it was going up, in--
rather than going down then.
    Mr. Duncan. That is correct.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK, thank you.
    Mr. Duncan. They didn't reset it, but you weren't shorted 
on time.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK, thank you so much.
    Mr. Duncan. We apologize. They are going to make sure to 
reset it.
    Mr. Cardenas. No, no----
    Mr. Duncan. And I will go to the crossroads of America, the 
gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today I am speaking 
in support of the Securing America's Critical Minerals Act, a 
bill that our former colleague, Mr. Upton, introduced last 
Congress and I am introducing this Congress, and I am looking 
for Democrat cosponsors, if anyone is interested.
    I do find it fascinating that some of the same groups that 
support total conversion to electric vehicles are also the same 
groups that are working to block the mining of minerals such as 
cobalt and lithium that are required for the batteries--block 
it here in the United States.
    Just to mention, you know, that China is a major supplier 
of the lithium. And as far as the cobalt goes, I don't know if 
anybody has seen the video of the mines in Africa, but, 
essentially, slave labor in Africa to get the cobalt. And I 
would encourage everybody to look at the YouTube videos of 
those mines with little children digging through the dirt, 
trying to find cobalt.
    So over the last few years we have discussed in these 
subcommittees the importance of critical minerals and other 
energy resources necessary to providing for our energy needs, 
as well as the potential vulnerabilities that exist in the 
supply chain and domestic production and capacity limitations.
    This bill would ensure that the Secretary of Energy is 
engaged productively in addressing the issue. It would require 
the Secretary to conduct an assessment of our Nation's energy 
supply, identify resources that are critical to our economy and 
vulnerabilities in the supply chains of critical energy 
resources, and determine the extent to which critical energy 
resources play a role in developing new energy technologies.
    The bill defines critical energy resources as those that 
are ``essential to the energy sector and energy systems of the 
United States,'' and the supply chain of which is vulnerable to 
disruption.
    The bill would also direct the Secretary of Energy to 
diversify energy sourcing and increase domestic production, 
refining, and processing of these resources.
    As a supporter of an all-of-the-above energy approach, I 
appreciate our need for a diverse energy portfolio. We must 
take steps to ensure we safeguard our supply chains as well as 
prevent our adversaries from weaponizing potential 
vulnerabilities in these supply chains, and critical minerals 
is a large part of our vulnerability--I can't get that out 
today for some reason. As a country, we need more production 
here.
    So, Ms. Sweeney, how potentially could securing America's 
Critical Mineral Supply Act help our country and the energy 
sector reduce this reliance on China and other foreign sources 
of these critical mineral needs?
    Ms. Sweeney. Thank you so much for the question, and that 
is a really important question.
    I think that one area that the act really is important is 
having the Energy Information Agency actually look at that 
connection between minerals and energy. As I said in my 
testimony here earlier, there isn't any form of energy that 
doesn't rely on minerals as the--you know, as the base of that 
energy. So it is very important to focus on where these come 
from, where we are getting them.
    And in particular, you know, you mentioned the processing 
and smelting and refining. You know, that is an area where we 
need to focus attention, as well. It is not just the mines 
themselves, but the processing also needs to take place here in 
the U.S.
    Mr. Bucshon. Mr. Menezes, do you have any comments on that?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, I think the bill is especially important 
because there are other agencies that also would like to get 
resources to look at critical minerals, and it is important to 
have the Department of Energy, in its organizational act, have 
the statutory authority to be the experts throughout the 
interagency process. Those agencies compete at--for Congress 
dollars.
    And so when you can point to legislation that says we need 
this to do our jobs, it is important, really, and we hope that 
this would be a strong bipartisan bill to declare the 
Department of Energy--the Department of Energy has those 
national laboratories. I mean, they are better equipped than 
any other agency. But at the end of the day, it is resources.
    And so this act is really important for that. Put that 
expertise at the Department. It will protect this committee's 
interest throughout that interagency process that can get 
pretty tough.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you. I do also want to emphasize what my 
colleague, Mr. Guthrie, mentioned.
    We now have an example of what happens when you take an 
energy approach that this administration appears to be taking, 
and that is Europe, and that is countries like Germany. They 
are now building coal-fired power plants, importing coal from 
in the United States also, and it is probably going to set 
their clean energy agenda back decades by getting too far ahead 
of themselves and trying to restrict certain forms of energy 
rather than taking an all-of-the-above approach and advancing 
innovation and technology in every area of energy production.
    I yield.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. Now we will go to 
California, Mr. Peters, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last week I encouraged 
Republicans and Democrats on this committee to engage in a 
constructive bipartisan process to enact sensible permitting 
reforms to deliver energy security and environmental protection 
for the American people. I spoke about the need to reduce 
excessive process requirements necessary to build clean energy 
projects and reform environmental laws from the 1970s to meet 
the challenges of today. I talked about the dismal state of our 
electric grid and how we must build 200,000 miles of new 
transmission lines by the 2030s to keep the lights on, lower 
costs for Americans, and build clean energy projects like 
solar, wind, hydropower, and nuclear.
    And my Republican colleagues have said publicly they are 
committed to advancing permitting reform, and that they are 
focused on an all-of-the-above energy agenda to secure our 
energy future, and that is why I am a little bit disappointed 
about the hearing today. We are discussing 17 bills, and almost 
all of them are focused on solely natural gas and oil. And 
doubling down on oil and gas will lead to more price 
uncertainty and financial pain for Americans.
    Speaking of all of the above, the Energy Information 
Administration says that a very small amount of the planned 
projects on the ground today are going to be natural gas, and 
that 86 percent are zero-emission projects. That is what we are 
trying to build. But we don't really address that today. There 
is no focus today on key energy technologies like solar, wind, 
transmission, energy storage, advanced nuclear, hydropower, or 
hydrogen. And for a party that claims it doesn't want to pick 
winners and losers, Republicans are seeming to pick oil and gas 
every single time.
    So I am not going to give up hope. But if we are going to 
pass permitting reform in this Congress, it has to be 
bipartisan. Today we are using our time to discuss partisan 
bills that I really don't think will be going anywhere, 
relitigating a pipeline that was terminated more than 2 years 
ago by the company developing it. I think we could do better.
    I am a proud Democrat. I am a former environmental 
attorney. I am a climate hawk ready to have hard conversations 
about permitting reform. And we can compromise on NEPA, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hydropower relicensing, critical 
minerals, interstate electric transmission, and more, but I 
really want to get about that business.
    Let me ask a couple of questions of the witnesses today, 
and thank you for being here.
    Mr. Menezes, you helped negotiate the Energy Policy Act of 
2005, which included language intended to streamline the 
construction of electric transmission lines. Can you elaborate 
on why we need to build these lines faster and the importance 
of advancing bipartisan legislation to permit these projects 
faster?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, even today, as it was back then, I mean, 
there are probably more difficult things to build and site--
interstate transmission line, but it is hard for me to come up 
with what they are.
    Mr. Peters. Yes.
    Mr. Menezes. Really, it has opposition almost everywhere 
you turn. And although the goal of modernizing our grid, to 
make it green, et cetera, and to embrace the energy transition, 
it is one of the most difficult things to overcome, an 
interstate transmission line crossing States of low 
populations, et cetera.
    So I know Congress has been looking at this. There are ways 
to go about trying to do this. We tried it with backstop 
authority. Two courts told us we didn't quite get it right.
    Mr. Peters. Right.
    Mr. Menezes. There's been some proposals over in the Senate 
to look at that. And so I think that this is something that 
certainly is within this committee's jurisdiction to take 
another look at.
    Mr. Peters. I drafted the POWER ON Act, which was put in by 
the Senate into the infrastructure bill to provide backstop 
authority. That is certainly helpful. But when we have a 
project that takes 10 years, and 7 of those years are 
permitting and processing, we will not be able to build the 
grid that we need to electrify this economy. And I think we are 
going to lose a lot of the benefit of the IRA if we do--if we 
don't.
    Mr. Slocum, methane is a superpollutant responsible for 
about 25 percent of humanmade warming. Today we hear claims 
that we produce the cleanest energy in the world. I am not 
sure, if you consider methane, that that is true. But isn't it 
essential that oil and gas producers significantly reduce 
methane leaks to be the cleanest in the world?
    Mr. Slocum. Yes.
    Mr. Peters. The IRA included billions of dollars of new 
funding to help large and small oil and gas companies reduce 
their methane emissions. The EPA is finalizing a new rule to 
reduce those emissions from oil and gas operations.
    Will the oil and gas industry significantly reduce methane 
emissions in the absence of that regulation and strong funding?
    Mr. Slocum. I don't think so. I think you need to have that 
regulatory structure and--in order for the industry to make 
those investments.
    Mr. Peters. I agree. And on this too I would reiterate my 
willingness to work in a bipartisan way.
    One of the things I think we can offer to the small 
producers who are concerned about these costs is that the IRA 
provides funds to help those companies comply.
    I also don't pretend that oil and gas is going away 
tomorrow. It is going to be around for a while. While it is 
around, we need to make it cleaner, and I am willing to work on 
that, as well.
    Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. Now we will go to the 
vice chair of the Energy, Climate, and Grid Security 
Subcommittee, Mr. Curtis, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, like many of you, 
view PFAS as a four-letter word. And I think on this committee 
it has been demonized frequently, and in some cases rightly so. 
But it might surprise all of us and my colleagues to know that 
a number of products needed for transformation and energy 
production require PFAS.
    As a matter of fact, semiconductors, green hydrogen 
membranes needed for electrolyzers, hydrogen used in fuel 
cells, and lithium batteries all require fluoropolymers, 
especially plastics. Critical PFAS is used in EV charging 
infrastructures, batteries, powertrains. I have a list here of 
21 uses in the semiconductor industry of PFAS. So frequently, 
when we quick rush to judgment and lump all of these together, 
it is probably a mistake.
    I have a bill, one of the 17 that has been discussed today, 
that would make sure that these chemicals are approved in a 
timely manner. There is nothing about this bill that asks the 
agency to approve anything that is not safe, that is not 
healthy, simply to do it in a timely manner.
    In short, chemicals are all around us and necessary for 
every industry, but especially to achieve decarbonization of 
our economy in the world. If we want a clean future, we need to 
approve chemicals more effectively and responsibly. My bill 
would help deploy clean energy technology more quickly and puts 
the following three conditions on there.
    Hard deadlines on EPA's ability to make a decision on the 
risk presented by the critical energy resource. I believe, if 
we give them 180 days, it will take 280. If we give them 280, 
it will take 380. They need to stick to the guidelines that we 
have given them.
    It prevents the EPA from telling an applicant to suspend 
their application unless EPA has reviewed the notice--it sounds 
reasonable--and make a determination.
    And it requires EPA to consider cost and other nonrisk 
factors in determining if an unreasonable risk is present. We 
heard earlier from Mr. Garcia that that was akin to killing 
people, and I adamantly disagree with that. It does not say 
that they should make an unwise decision, simply that they 
should take that into consideration, and that seemed pretty 
melodramatic to me.
    Mr. Menezes, you have experience as a former Deputy 
Secretary of Energy. Can you speak to the importance of 
chemicals in the energy sector?
    Mr. Menezes. Without critical--one of the two--I learned 
two lessons when I visited the labs. To achieve breakthrough 
technologies, we need two things: one, high-performing 
computing to do modeling and continue to do modeling--and it is 
modeling that is important--and another thing is we need to 
create chemicals and products that do not exist today. They do 
not exist, and we need to do that.
    And to make that point, they actually gave me a new product 
that they had made.
    [Holds up a coaster.]
    Mr. Menezes. This was at Argonne, and this is cesium 
aluminate. It didn't exist before 2017. It is going to be a key 
product that is going to be used in our green energy future. 
And to even make the point, they used the same product to make 
me a 3D printed replica of our Capitol building.
    So this is what the future looks like. The problem is that 
these chemicals are bollocksed up at EPA. EPA reads risk as 
almost any risk is unreasonable, and so they can't seem to make 
decisions.
    And so all the companies are asking, particularly those 
driving toward the EV technologies, et cetera, is, ``Please 
tell us what the rules are, tell us what we need to do,'' and 
we need to do that.
    But China is going to maintain the dominance in the 
electric vehicle space, OK? They are beating us. We need to get 
our act together, please. Just----
    Mr. Curtis. So, first of all----
    Mr. Menezes [continuing]. What we need to do.
    Mr. Curtis [continuing]. Everybody is not going to believe 
that this wasn't a setup, you came prepared with your props for 
my question. So you and I didn't rehearse this.
    Mr. Menezes. We did not rehearse it. In fact, as I was 
reading the bill, it dawned on me that this made a big 
impression on me. It was on my desk when I was preparing for 
this hearing. This was not set up.
    Mr. Curtis. So before we run out of time, my friends on the 
Democratic side often emphasize the importance of decarbonizing 
quickly, and I agree with them. But then they call bills like 
mine undermining environmental laws. Do you think it is 
possible to move in a reasonable speed and protect ourselves, 
as well?
    Mr. Menezes. Of course. We are trying to figure out ways to 
get the laws that are on the books to actually produce results. 
Please do your job. Stop with the delays.
    The applicants go in and they are told--and they are--the 
bureaucrats are aware of the 90-day rule. So they will get you 
to withdraw and resubmit, because they can't meet the statutory 
deadlines. So they are sort of trying to do their job, but we 
have reached the point where the backlog now is so significant 
that those that want to take advantage of the IRA provisions 
can't do it because----
    Mr. Curtis. I am going to run out of time, but----
    Mr. Menezes [continuing]. They can't get the----
    Mr. Curtis [continuing]. So I just want to make two----
    Mr. Menezes [continuing]. Can't get their permits.
    Mr. Curtis [continuing]. Two quick points. There is a lot 
of parallel here with permitting reform.
    Just tell us what the rules are, and then let us do it and 
make it timely and predictable. That is what people are asking 
for.
    And Mr. Chairman, regrettably, I am out of time. I yield 
the balance of my time.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. The Chair will now go to 
the gentlelady from an energy-producing area of the State of 
Texas, Mrs. Fletcher, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for 
holding this hearing. Thanks to you and, of course, Ranking 
Member DeGette, as well as our chairman--chairwoman, and 
ranking member, and others.
    And I have listened to the testimony today and to the 
questions. I appreciate all of your time in being here. I think 
there has been a lot of really important information conveyed, 
as well, in your written testimony. And I am a little bit 
concerned about some of the things that I have heard this 
morning, specifically some of the bills that have been 
introduced for this hearing.
    And I would, of course, like to note that we are 
considering 17 bills, many of them aimed at repealing some of, 
I think, the very good work that we did in the last Congress to 
try to address the complexities of the policy that we are 
trying to do here.
    And so, you know, I would request, hopefully, that we will 
get a little more notice in the future in time to review these 
bills, because I think that, you know, we all know--and 
everyone on this committee should know and understand--that 
energy policy is complex. And we have had no better example 
than what we have seen happen over the last year, and the 
importance of all of us really having a depth of understanding 
on this committee as we work to make policy.
    Certainly, what we have seen happening in Europe with 
Russia's unjustified and unconscionable invasion of Ukraine, 
what we have seen happen to our friends and allies in Europe, 
what we have seen happen here in the United States as a result 
of the market demands and some of the things that we have 
talked about today--I disagree with some of our witnesses about 
the importance of, for example, exporting natural gas and being 
able to help our allies reduce their dependance on Russian oil 
and gas at this critical moment.
    What we know is this is domestic policy, it is foreign 
policy. It has real consequences in our communities. People who 
are living, especially in my hometown of Houston, people who 
are living near the largest petrochemical complex, arguably, in 
the world, there are real-world health impacts. There are real-
world economic impacts. These are also our jobs.
    So coming together and building consensus around what we 
can do, I think, is incredibly important for this committee. 
And I heard a few things today that I just--I want to take up.
    Most important, I think, Mr. Menezes, you said--and I agree 
with you--that the issue here is that we want to reduce 
emissions. That is what we are trying to do, and that is what 
the good legislation that we passed in the last Congress really 
does. And so, you know, I think that what we did in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and, importantly, the 
Inflation Reduction Act is really important to accomplishing 
those goals.
    And I am going to disagree with and I am disappointed to 
see the bill 484 that has been introduced by my friend from 
Texas, Mr. Pfluger, because I think it undoes the important 
work that we did on this committee just last year in trying to 
address the impacts of methane and deal with that in a way that 
is reasonable and workable for industry.
    And we spent a lot of time on this committee and got a lot 
of criticism for what we have, a billion and a half dollars to 
help small operators employ the technology, this grant program. 
And so I want to kind of direct my question there, because I 
think, Mr. Eshelman, I saw you shaking your head during Mr. 
Slocum's testimony about the IRA and the methane fee. But there 
is funding there to help smaller operators in particular, 
because that was a real concern that we heard about, the 
ability to implement the technology to reduce methane 
emissions, which should be the goal of everybody here. And I 
think on both sides of the aisle we keep saying that is what we 
want to do.
    So, you know, I would like to see if there are real 
concerns still about the implementation and the ability to 
implement that, something that we can do that doesn't involve 
repealing what many people in the industry have said is a very 
smart solution to try to address the complications but also 
address methane emissions. And so that is a concern that I 
have. And, you know, the question I have for you is, does this 
mean--I mean, it sounds like you don't support this, you want 
to see it repealed.
    Are your members not going to take the grant money that we 
provided to try to assist them? What do you think should be 
happening with that?
    Mr. Eshelman. As we speak with our members, it has been a 
very contentious relationship with EPA, especially the 
enforcement office. So we are mostly concerned that this grant 
money will come out of EPA. We think it should better come out 
of DOE and maybe the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council. So 
we are just mostly concerned that it is EPA that is making 
these regulations.
    Mrs. Fletcher. And so what I am hearing you say is the idea 
of the program, the idea of reducing emissions and having some 
coming----
    Mr. Eshelman. Right.
    Mrs. Fletcher [continuing]. Through this legislation, it is 
designed to work in tandem with EPA, so that there can----
    Mr. Eshelman. Our----
    Mrs. Fletcher. The concern you are expressing is the 
funding source, versus the idea of what we tried to do with 
this legislation. So it sounds like we----
    Mr. Eshelman. That would be one----
    Mrs. Fletcher [continuing]. Don't necessarily need to 
repeal it.
    Mr. Eshelman. That would be one of our concerns, yes.
    Mrs. Fletcher. OK. Well, I am going to run out of time. I 
have a ton of questions. We are going to cover them on this 
hearing. I hope I can work with Mr. Pfluger and my friends on 
both sides of the aisle to really work on understanding the 
depths of this incredibly complicated work we have in front of 
us and working together to achieve all of our shared 
objectives.
    So thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for the time, and I 
yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. Agreed, and I look forward to working with you.
    The Chair will now go to Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 
panel today for being with us. It is an important hearing.
    Threats to our critical energy infrastructure have 
increased year after year. In 2022, attacks on United States 
power grids rose to an all-time high. More apparently needs to 
be done to protect our critical energy infrastructure, which is 
why I plan to introduce the Critical Electric Infrastructure 
Cybersecurity Incident Reporting Act.
    Mr. Menezes, electric utilities and other energy 
infrastructure owners and operators are required to report 
critical infrastructure cyber incidents to DOE and FERC. Last 
Congress a law was passed that also required some of these 
entities to submit incidents to CISA. The FAST Act clearly 
establishes DOE as the sector-specific agency for energy 
cybersecurity and granted them authority to address grid 
security emergencies. As such, DOE has the expertise to best 
address some of these threats.
    Mr. Menezes, do you agree that it makes the most sense for 
energy sector stakeholders to submit threat incidents to DOE 
and then have DOE share that information as necessary with 
CISA?
    And secondly, how can Congress clarify DOE's role in the 
process?
    Mr. Menezes. Thank you very much. It is very important that 
you clarify DOE's role that it is the agency that private 
sector and other Government agencies need to report cyber 
incidents to. Because when Congress passed CISA, it created 
confusion as to where reports needed to go. When we were there, 
we knew the importance of cybersecurity. Of course, Congress 
had mandated cybersecurity standards. We created the Office of 
CESER, which remains today: the Cybersecurity, Energy Security, 
and Emergency Response.
    But within the interagency--you are hearing this a lot from 
me today, I am bringing the experience that I gained in the 
executive branch--is that we need to designate DOE to have--to 
be the agency that all cyber incident reports on the bulk power 
system--this is electricity, it is not oil and natural gas, but 
it is electricity--to go to DOE. And that is important because 
we have all the expertise there, we have the information 
sharing there, we have some of the modeling that the labs 
develop to look for anomalies on data pools, et cetera.
    So this is an important piece of legislation. It seems as 
though, you know, it is a simple thing to do. But we are going 
to need all support to get this through. And it is an important 
piece of legislation to give DOE clarity.
    Mr. Walberg. And I would hope that it would make more 
efficiency in the process for Members of Congress to understand 
what is going on and get information and more transparency, as 
well.
    Mr. Menezes. Absolutely.
    Mr. Walberg. Mr. McNamee, as a former FERC Commissioner, 
how will increased sharing and coordination of cyber incidents 
improve the safety and reliability of our electric 
infrastructure?
    Mr. McNamee. I think it is very important that anything 
that can be done to make the sharing information on the bulk 
power system and threats to it be done. The threats are real. 
As you mentioned in your comments, they are happening all the 
time, both cyber and physical securities.
    And one of the things that frightens me the most is what 
happens with the limited natural gas pipeline capacity up to 
the northeast. If there is a physical attack on the pipelines 
up there, you are going to lose a lot of power. Then the 
problems that you have on the bulk power system in relation to 
transformers or the SCADA systems, these things are real 
threats. The utilities are being pinged every single day by 
foreign actors trying to get into the systems to be able to 
flip the switch off when we need it the most, on the coldest 
days of the year.
    So I think legislation like yours makes sure that there is 
focus, and that is, as Secretary Menezes said, that there is 
one source in the Government that is absolutely responsible. Of 
course, FERC has responsibility for establishing, along with 
NERC, reliability standards, SIP standards, but I think it is 
important that reporting go through DOE.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Being from Michigan, I am extremely 
concerned about the current backlog at EPA of hundreds of TSCA 
section 5 applications and the impact it has had on our auto 
supply chain. Last year my Michigan colleagues and I sent a 
letter to Administrator Regan imploring him for the bare 
minimum of timely review of two premanufacturing notice 
applications that were essential to the launch of an EV battery 
plant in the State.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to, if you would allow, to 
include that letter for the record.
    Mr. Duncan. Without objection.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Walberg. Mr. Menezes, the Biden administration is 
forcing a transition to electric vehicles, yet it took almost a 
year for the EPA to approve this project that would supply the 
needed batteries. How will Representative Curtis's draft 
legislation improve the efficiency and timeliness of the TSCA 
review process so that auto supply chains remain in the United 
States?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you, and we talked a little bit 
about that before.
    It basically--it says that, look, not any risk is an 
unreasonable risk. Two, it stops them from forcing applicants 
to withdraw and resubmit so that they can reset the statutory 
deadline there. And basically, it allows them to be able to go 
forward after a certain time period that has elapsed while they 
were pending review. This will allow us to accelerate our move 
to the--through the energy transition, you know, to more EV 
use.
    The letter that you mentioned, you know, expressed the 
frustrations clearly, and I think that is why Mr. Curtis's bill 
will go a long way to helping streamline the process, not 
remove any environmental protection.
    Mr. Duncan. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you. Now we will go to New York, Ms. 
Clarke, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Chairman Duncan, Chairs Duncan and 
Johnson, and Ranking Members DeGette and Tonko for holding this 
hearing today. I would also like to thank our witnesses, as 
well, for being here to testify on these bills.
    There are real challenges in America's power sector as our 
Nation begins an economywide transition to clean energy in the 
midst of the climate crisis. But I reject the premise presented 
today that the only way we can unleash American energy is 
through creating loopholes in our bedrock environmental laws 
and/or sacrificing the health of our communities. Many of the 
bills considered today would not only weaken our economic and 
national security but also turn the clock backwards on the 
progress that we have made combating climate change and 
protecting public health.
    My first question is to Mr. Garcia.
    In your testimony you state that many of these bills would 
circumvent bedrock environmental laws like the Clean Air Act, 
TSCA so polluters can profit at the expense of frontline 
communities. Could you elaborate on the connection between 
frontline communities and what waiving the Clean Air Act and 
Solid Waste Disposal Act would mean for communities sited near 
these facilities?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, absolutely. I mean, when we are talking 
about the Clean Air Act, one of the--again, what they are 
seeking to waive with the bill that waives--that addresses the 
Clean Air Act is a commonsense practice that many industries 
already take on, which is simply to study how can we achieve 
the same goals that we already have in a safer way.
    And we are dealing with hydrofluoric acid. And it exempts 
any refinery that uses hydrofluoric acid from that requirement 
to study if there is a safer way to do this. It is problematic, 
because hydrofluoric acid is extremely dangerous to the human 
body. It is--it can explode. And not only that, but there are 
already recorded alternatives that many across the industry 
already use in order to do the same thing in a safer way. And 
so there is really no other way to characterize this. It is 
something that industry absolutely doesn't need. And yet we are 
still seeing this bill being pushed through.
    So, you know, unfortunately, the brunt of this comes down 
on those communities that live near these facilities and the 
workers that work in these facilities. Unfortunately, we have 
seen facilities like these blow up. And when that happens, it 
hurts the people who are there, first and foremost.
    And so I think that, you know, Vice Chair Curtis said I was 
being melodramatic when I was talking about life and death. But 
it really is. It is really hard to not get dramatic when you 
are talking to the families of those that get devastated by the 
deaths of their loved ones. And so that is what is really at 
stake here, and that is why we have--what we have to keep front 
and center.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you. My next question is for you again, 
Mr. Garcia, and Mr. Slocum.
    So much of the discussion today has been focused on how 
burdensome regulations are. Can you tell us why it is so 
important to center community voices, especially those who have 
been historically marginalized, like communities of color and 
indigenous populations, when it comes to permitting decisions 
in the energy industry?
    Mr. Slocum. It is absolutely essential that frontline 
communities that are being asked to host all of the hazards 
play a prominent role in the siting process.
    We are working with an African-American community in the 
Florida Panhandle that is opposed to a liquefied natural gas 
export terminal that--we learned about it through a FERC 
regulatory process. Nobody in the local governments there had 
told these folks that this was the plan.
    And this is a common, unfortunate occurrence that we see 
throughout the country, where the local community does not have 
involvement or consent. And it is crucially important that, as 
part of any sort of regulatory review, that those frontline 
communities play a prominent role in being able to have a say 
in the development within their own communities.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you. Well, my time is winding down pretty 
quickly.
    Let me just say that studies have continued to find that 
race, more than any other demographic, is the primary indicator 
for living near an energy facility emitting toxic pollutants. 
In fact, more than half of the individuals live--living life 
close to any hazardous waste site are people of color.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair will now go 
to Mr. Carter from Georgia.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you 
for being here.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for continuing on this theme that 
we have started with in the Energy and Commerce Committee this 
year, and that is about unleashing American energy. This is 
extremely important. We have all seen and witnessed what 
happens when we neglect American energy dominance and our own 
independence. It is to our own detriment. We--it results in 
high energy prices and diminished supply chains. And that is 
why I am really happy that we continue to focus on this.
    And we know about supply chains, but there is perhaps 
nothing more important in supply chains when we talk about them 
than critical minerals. That has to be perhaps one of, if not 
the most, glaring weaknesses that we have. All of you have 
mentioned our dependance on China for critical minerals and how 
that needs to end. And we all recognize that. And we have got 
legislation in this package to fix that.
    And I want to talk about some of that, because I am eager 
to talk about a bill that I am introducing, and it has to do 
with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and it has to do with 
mining. As I understand it, when you get a mining permit, you 
get the first permit, then you have to--if you are going to 
keep the hazardous waste for longer than 90 days, you have to 
get a second permit. But while you are waiting on that second 
permit, what my legislation--what this legislation will do will 
be to give you an interim permit, if you will, until you can go 
through the process to get the second permit.
    So I think it makes a lot of sense. It helps us with our 
supply chain for critical minerals, and it needs to be done 
now, because there is no time to waste. We have got to address 
this issue right now. No, it is not a silver bullet, but I 
think it is a fix that will help us tremendously.
    Ms. Sweeney, I want to go to you, and I want to ask you, 
because it is interesting. You say in your written testimony--
and I quote--``an average of 7 to 10 years to secure''--it 
takes ``an average of 7 to 10 years to secure--one of the 
longest permitting processes in the world for mining 
projects''--to receive necessary permits to even begin to build 
the mine project. And then you compare this to Canada and 
Australia, who have kind of similar environmental regulations 
as we have, and there it only takes them a few years, 2 to 3 
years, to complete.
    How can--how have they been able to maintain comparable 
environmental standards to the U.S. and complete the permitting 
process for new mines in a fraction of the time that we do?
    Ms. Sweeney. They have a lot more coordination up front of 
the various agencies involved, whether they be provincial, 
territorial, or the overarching Canadian Government. They are 
seeking to do, like, one-stop permitting shopping.
    They also allow the project proponent to prepare the 
environmental impact statement, which really involves a lot of 
efficiencies because you are not waiting for the agencies to 
have to do that. But the Federal--but the Government does 
oversee that to make sure that the rigorous rules are----
    Mr. Carter. So there are a lot of lessons we could learn 
from them, and a lot of good takeaways from them.
    Ms. Sweeney. Absolutely.
    Mr. Carter. What would be one of the most immediate that 
could help us?
    Ms. Sweeney. Up-fronting litigation. I think that is 
something in Canada that they are focused on, and getting that 
done, so you are not at the end of your 10-year process just 
entering into the litigation that could add another 10 years 
before you can actually start operations.
    Mr. Carter. Good, good. OK, I want to go to Mr. McNamee.
    And when we talk about unleashing American energy, part of 
that is the structure of the market that the energy goes into. 
Can you help me out? Restructured electricity markets like 
regional transmission organizations, RTOs, do they lead to 
lower rates? Do they lead to greater reliability?
    I mean, tell me what the advantage, if there is any, of 
these are.
    Mr. McNamee. They don't. And the RTOs were originally 
structured on the idea to use market forces to get 
efficiencies.
    But the problem is that there are seven RTOs in the 
country, six of them regulated by FERC. The problem is that 
they use marginal pricing to set power prices, so you get bids 
in by each of the generators into--to bid to meet every 5 
minutes of what the energy needed.
    And the problem is usually natural gas does set the 
clearing price on that, but every other resource is getting 
paid that natural gas price. So if you are a subsidized 
renewable, you have no fuel costs, you have tax credits, yet 
you are getting paid the natural gas price. So the economic 
benefits of renewables are not passing through to customers. 
Hence the reason energy prices keep going up, despite adding 
all these renewables.
    And then secondly, you have got a reliability problem, 
because none of these generators are like your utility. None of 
them have an obligation to serve. And so they bid in, and if 
they are picked, they run, if they don't--but then you have 
problems like you had in Texas, which you have seen also in 
this past winter, where there is no incentive to winterize your 
unit because you are, like, ``Well, why should I do it if it is 
going to make it more expensive?''
    What you want is a system that allows--that is designed to 
serve the people, and you need reliability as the number 1 
thing.
    Mr. Carter. Good. Well, thank you all.
    And again, this permitting process is crushing us. We have 
got to do something about it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. The gentleman--the Chair will now recognize Ms. 
Barragan for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am especially 
concerned about legislation under consideration today which 
says that no hazard assessment is required on the use of 
hydrofluoric acid at a refinery to understand the risk of an 
accidental release. This chemical is deadly. It is toxic. It is 
deadly toxic to people, and it is extremely corrosive. A hazard 
assessment is a common, safe safety measure the Environmental 
Protection Agency has proposed.
    We also know there are safer alternatives available that 
many refineries already use.
    The refineries in and near my district that still use 
hydrofluoric acid--and it is a safety--a serious safety 
concern. In 2015 there was a near miss at a refinery near my 
district in Torrance, California. An explosion at the refinery 
launched debris that landed close to two tanks containing 
hydrofluoric acid. People could have been killed.
    Mr. Garcia, what safer technologies are available for oil 
refineries to replace hydrofluoric acid, and should the oil 
industry have to consider them?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes. I mean, there are quantities of 
alternatives. And that is the saddest part about this bill, is 
that there are quantities. One of them is sulfuric acid.
    But the idea is that that is what the analysis should tell 
you, right? That is what the analysis that industry should have 
to do. That is the one that tells you, yes, there are better 
alternatives to do this and still accomplish the goal that we 
need to accomplish.
    And so when we hear about it, just this piece of the Clean 
Air Act being completely dismantled, it is really puzzling 
because you have everything--industry has everything that it 
could want in order to keep this in the books, and that--
actually, compliance is relatively easy. So it is puzzling to 
see this.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I would like to enter into the record a letter I 
led with Senator Booker to EPA on the proposed risk management 
plan rule signed by 47 Members and Senators. The letter asks 
EPA to finalize a rule that requires refineries to transition 
to safer chemicals and processes. This letter was supported by 
environmental groups and labor, including the United 
Steelworkers and United Auto Workers.
    I will hand you that letter at the end of the questioning.
    Mr. Duncan. Without objection.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Barragan. Mr. Slocum, I am concerned about the 
Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act, which eliminates the 
requirement that our Department of Energy find imports and 
exports to be consistent with the public interest.
    What could the consequences of this bill be on domestic 
energy prices and our climate?
    Mr. Slocum. Well, the public interest should be 
comprehensive. It should look at environmental justice 
considerations. It should look at climate and clean energy 
considerations. So it should be requiring the Department of 
Energy to perform those assessments, to require applicants to 
document how LNG exports--whether or not they are displacing 
dirtier forms of energy abroad, or whether or not they are 
displacing renewables by bolstering existing gas 
infrastructure.
    Right now, the Department of Energy is not performing that 
assessment. To eliminate that assessment altogether, which has 
been in place for 85 years, would be a huge disservice to 
communities, especially in the Gulf, that are being asked to 
host these massive facilities.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you for that, and thank you for 
raising the issue of environmental justice issues.
    I share the climate concerns, and I want to underscore the 
impact of energy prices because my constituents have been hit 
hard by this--by rising natural gas prices. And this shows how 
volatile fossil fuel prices are and why we need the Department 
of Energy to be a check on the fossil fuel industry's proposals 
to have countries like China competing with American consumers 
to buy gas. This is why the Industrial Energy Consumers of 
America, a coalition of manufacturing companies, has opposed 
this bill. I think it is bad for the U.S. manufacturing.
    Mr. Garcia, legislation under consideration proposes to 
repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that was passed by 
Democrats in the Inflation Reduction Act. This fund would 
provide low-income communities with grants and loans to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions with zero-emissions technologies. Can 
this fund help low-income residents to reduce their energy 
bills?
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely. I mean--and we saw that--that fund 
is really meant to make sure that we don't make the mistakes 
that have happened in previous energy revolutions, where often 
people of color and low income get left out. And so this fund 
is specifically meant to make sure that low-income and people 
of color have access to those funds.
    Ms. Barragan. And can the fund help create clean jobs, 
energy jobs, in low economic communities----
    Ms. Garcia. Absolutely.
    Ms. Barragan [continuing]. Low-income communities?
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you for that. It is unfortunate, 
the Republican talk about lowering energy costs and creating 
jobs. They talk about it, but they want to repeal programs that 
empower communities to do just that.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair will 
now go to the gentlelady from Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, for 5 
minutes.
    Before I do that, there are going to be votes called around 
1:30. Apparently, there's two votes. We are going to plow 
through and get as far as we can, but we will recess and come 
back and finish the hearing. Members are encouraged to come 
back right after the second vote is called. And vote, come 
back, and we will get back on it, because there is another 
hearing following this.
    Mrs. Lesko, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I love this 
committee, because we are talking about energy, critical 
minerals on the environment. What could be more important than 
that?
    Mr. Chairman, I am proud to sponsor the House concurrent 
resolution expressing disapproval of the revocation by 
President Biden of the presidential permit for the Keystone XL 
pipeline. This is a simple resolution, and I hope my colleagues 
will support it. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have said they disapprove of the cancellation of the 
Keystone XL pipeline, and this resolution gives them and the 
entire House of Representatives the opportunity to show our 
disapproval.
    On day one of his administration, President Biden canceled 
the Keystone pipeline. Soon after he canceled the Keystone, he 
removed sanctions on the Nord Stream II pipeline. This paved 
the way for Russia to hold the EU hostage to Russia's energy 
and not allow cleaner, U.S.-provided LNG.
    Canceling the Keystone pipeline did not stop the drilling 
or exporting of the sand oils, as the extreme environmentalists 
thought. The 830,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Alberta, 
Canada, is still being produced and being shipped via rail or 
other pipelines. Canada's oil sands producers were able to 
export a record amount of crude in 2022 to overseas markets, 
including China and India. So instead of providing well-paying 
jobs for Americans, the Biden administration prefers those jobs 
to go elsewhere.
    The cancellation of the pipeline also did little to stop 
emissions. CO2 emissions will increase, since much 
of the oil is now transported by the railroads, a much dirtier 
method of transit, instead of the pipeline. Rail transport also 
increases the risk of derailment and ensuring environmental 
damage of spilled oil.
    Mr. Menezes, thank you for pointing out in your written 
testimony another shortcoming of President Biden canceling the 
Keystone pipeline: the fact that the U.S. and its allies would 
have had access to Canadian oil to lessen the import and use of 
Russian oil. Canceling the pipeline was a horrible financial 
decision, in my opinion. Developers of Keystone XL are seeking 
to recoup more than $15 billion in damages connected to 
President Biden's decision.
    Mr. Menezes, what other financial losses can you comment 
on, due to the cancellation of the XL Pipeline?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, I was going to add that, you know, we 
import about 700,000 barrels per day from Russia. So the 
Keystone Pipeline could have also been used to offset that 
amount as we, along with all other NATO countries and our 
allies, have said no to Russia resources. So it is very 
significant, as we have been talking about all morning.
    The fact is that, if you can increase supply, you are going 
to have downward pressure on prices, you know, for our--you 
know, for your constituents and for the American people. And I 
know, you know, people want to have it both ways, right? They 
would like to stop--to have refineries operate, but they want 
their constituents to have cheap gas. You can't have it both 
ways.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
    Mr. Menezes. We can have environmentally compliant 
refineries in operation and making rational decisions to remove 
the bottlenecks. But that's just commonsense approaches, 
really, is everything we are considering today.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. My next question is for Ms. Sweeney.
    Ms. Sweeney, copper is not listed as a critical mineral, 
although it is--I think it uses four times as much copper in an 
electrical vehicle as in a standard vehicle and other things. 
Why do you think that copper isn't listed as a critical 
mineral, and do you think it should be?
    Ms. Sweeney. I definitely think that it should be. I think 
that it actually does meet the U.S. Geological Survey criteria. 
But when they were doing the latest list, they didn't have the 
most recent data in front of them. I think, using the data 
today, that copper would definitely make that list.
    However, you know, in National Mining Association's 
viewpoint, anything that you need and can't get really should 
be critical. So maybe those kinds of criticality lists don't 
just make the most sense because, as technologies change, 
something that is critical today may not be critical tomorrow.
    You know, people were talking about substitutions. Well, 
then you are creating a new critical mineral, because something 
that maybe we use now to substitute becomes the next big thing 
that everybody is going to need. So if we just had efficient 
permitting, criticality doesn't matter so much.
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, good. And I hope that copper is added to 
the critical mineral list, because I am from Arizona, we 
produce lots of copper, and it is unfortunate that the 
Resolution Copper Mine has been put on hold. The final impact--
environmental impact statement was approved under the former 
administration and now has been put on hold, plus a lawsuit.
    So I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair will now go 
to Dr. Ruiz for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Ruiz. I would like to inform the gentlewoman from 
Arizona that I am very familiar with the copper mines in 
Arizona. My family actually worked in those copper mines in 
years past. I believe it is the Bisbee Queen's Copper Mines, is 
one of those big, big areas.
    But thank you, Chairman. I would like to address a 
recurring theme that I have seen in multiple pieces of 
legislation before this committee today. In these pieces of 
legislation I see bills that are sacrificing key provisions of 
landmark legislation that help protect people's health, like 
the Clean Air Act, to--in order to increase critical mineral 
extraction. And that is the wrong approach.
    Frontline communities already bear too much of the burden 
of the environmental injustice. To name an example, people 
living near fossil-fuel-drilling sites are at greater risk for 
preterm birth, cancer, asthma, and other respiratory diseases. 
I mean, it is a direct link to real people's health, childhood 
asthma, COPD, all these other things.
    As a doctor, the health of my constituents is my top 
concern, and I have seen firsthand that we must do more to 
protect vulnerable communities from pollution and other 
environmental dangers.
    I do want to be clear that I am not against critical 
mineral production. I have been unequivocal that we need to 
build our domestic supply chains. And as a prime example of 
this is right in my own district, in the Imperial Valley, or 
the Imperial County.
    In the Imperial Valley, the Salton Sea has a massive supply 
of lithium. In fact, it is the fifth largest lithium deposit in 
the whole world. It has the potential to supply the lithium 
needed for electrical vehicle batteries and our clean energy 
future. We import the vast majority of our batteries and our 
lithium from other countries that are not aligned with our 
world views. We call the area Lithium Valley back home to 
emphasize the potential that this lithium has to transform the 
region.
    And beyond powering our country towards its clean energy 
future, I believe that Lithium Valley can also provide a model 
for how we can both protect our community's health and get the 
critical minerals we need. And how do we do that?
    So instead of hardrock mining or salt flat evaporation, 
breaking up the earth, putting more dust in the air, et cetera, 
in Imperial County the lithium is extracted from geothermal 
production. So it is in a closed loop cycle, and the brine that 
goes through this closed loop as they naturally produce 
geothermal energy--which is a good thing--they filter that 
brine out to extract the lithium. And so it is better for the 
environment and better for our communities. This shows that we 
don't have to sacrifice health and the environment. We can have 
a win-win for the environment, for our public health, and for 
places like the Imperial Valley.
    Mr. Raul Garcia--I like your first name, by the way. We 
share that. In Spanish we would call each other tocayos. In 
your testimony you note that our country doesn't have to make 
this false choice between energy creation and protecting the 
health and safety of our vulnerable communities.
    Tell me more about that, and as it applies to the critical 
mineral production, as well.
    Mr. Garcia. Well, I think that when we are talking about 
critical mineral production, we want to make sure that we are 
using the resources that are available to us that are the 
safest ways to use the critical minerals. And that, when that 
requires mining, it has to follow the law. It shouldn't--we 
shouldn't be seeking exceptions to the law in order to make 
sure that this happens safely. We actually need to make sure 
that it applies.
    We also need to make sure that we, as you mentioned, have a 
circular economy on critical minerals. So making sure that they 
are being recycled, and that when they are being recycled they 
are being--the recycling is being done responsibly and in a 
clean way, the--whether it is extraction or recycling of it. 
And again, those laws, those bedrock laws are in place.
    Now, we have talked a lot about permitting in some places 
and how long it takes. But I like to point out that a lot of 
the delays that happen on permitting are actually not done 
because of the requirements of the permitting structures 
themselves. They are done because the agencies are being 
starved from actual funding in order to carry out the 
permitting.
    And so, if we want to speed up permitting, when we are 
talking about--whether it is a mine or whether it is something 
else, you actually need to fund the agency in order to make 
sure that the experts are going to do so, are going to get out 
the permits in a way that is going to protect communities on 
the ground.
    Mr. Ruiz. Catch-22, right? Chipping away government in 
order to make it as ineffective as possible, and then 
complaining that they can't do their job and it is too slow. So 
the only result is going to be to eliminate government at all 
and eliminate these rules that protect the health. And that is 
not necessarily feasible or the right thing to do for the 
American people.
    But with that my time is over, and I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I appreciate the gentleman. The Chair will now 
go to another gentleman from the crossroads of America, Mr. 
Pence, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pence. I thank you, Chairmen Duncan and Johnson, and 
Ranking Members DeGette and Tonko for holding this hearing. And 
thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.
    The bills before us begin to shore up our national energy 
strategy, lower energy prices for Hoosiers, and put our Nation 
back on track towards energy dominance.
    The Biden administration's electrification-or-nothing 
approach is only deepening our reliance on China and leaving 
our country vulnerable in the event of a national emergency. 
Despite what the Biden administration is telling us, demand for 
oil and natural gas will only increase around the world.
    Petroleum products are the lifeblood of the American 
economy, fueling businesses to bring good-paying jobs and 
lowering energy costs for families.
    Over the past 2 years, the Biden administration has failed 
to put forth a coherent energy strategy. Hoosiers in southern 
Indiana deserve answers on why this administration has made it 
more expensive for families to heat their homes and for 
business and families to keep their lights on at the old 
prices. And I hope we hear a little bit of that tonight.
    My legislation being considered today would provide waivers 
for critical energy resources in the event of a national 
security emergency. And I quote, ``If the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Energy, determines that the processing and 
refining of a critical energy resource at a critical energy 
resource facility is important to the national security or 
energy security of the United States, then the Administrator 
may waive application of any requirement, sanction, or fee 
under the Clean Air Act.''
    And by the way, I am one of the few--I am old enough, I 
actually read the Clean Air Act when it came back--came out 
many, many years ago.
    This bill would ensure that the Federal Government can act 
swiftly to preserve access to energy supplies. And I look 
forward to hearing constructive feedback on how to improve this 
legislation and provide the Federal Government with tools to 
respond in the event of a crisis.
    Mr. Menezes, I am going to direct my question and my 
comments to you at this point. Back in 2005 I went in with 
then-Governor Mitch Daniels when he became Governor in the 
State of Indiana, and I was the chief deputy commissioner of 
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. And the 
biggest problem in the State of Indiana was overregulation by 
the EPA and IDEM. It was inhibiting business growth. It was 
holding farmers down. It was costing too much money. The 
regulations were just crushing the State of Indiana.
    And that got changed. At that point the State of Indiana 
was $2 billion in the hole, and today they are $6 billion to 
the good.
    My question to you: In the event of a national security 
emergency that threatens access to critical energy resources, 
what sort of emergency authority tools exist to address severe 
supply disruptions for different types of energy?
    Mr. Menezes. Right. Well, there--that is where the 
confusion lies here, because we face emergencies regularly. You 
go into the executive branch, you know, as a public official. 
So the President and his team typically says, ``What do--what 
can we do at this point?'' And it's ``Can--does the 
Constitution prohibit it? Has Congress prohibited such action? 
Has Congress authorized?''
    And with respect to waivers, Clean Air Act, Jones Act 
waivers, these kinds of things, Stafford Act, declarations of 
emergencies, what waiver authority is there, we have a body of 
law that kind of--the executive branch runs fairly well. Where 
it gets diffused and confused is anything there after that.
    And so, you can look at all of these different laws, and 
you don't see anything with respect to, really, energy, 
critical energy resources, in there. And so, as a consequence, 
being at the Department, you are kind of brought in at the last 
minute. In fact, the Department of Defense has a lot of clear, 
you know, emergency--they weigh in, they can do things. 
Commerce, even Transportation. MARAD under the Jones Act. The 
Department of Energy is just like sort of forgotten about. So 
you are in there, trying to focus on the importance of energy.
    Puerto Rico. I mean, the Governor would tell us--they would 
come to Energy and say, ``We can't do anything without energy. 
Our water doesn't work, our hospitals can't run. We can't do 
anything without energy. What are you doing for energy?'' You 
don't have those authorities, those clear authorities on the 
books to be able to have Energy play a key role in solving 
crises during these emergencies.
    Mr. Pence. So would you agree, as a former Deputy 
Secretary, that this bill would add a little clarity to that?
    Mr. Menezes. Add clarity----
    Mr. Pence. And help everybody out, both----
    Mr. Menezes. Office of Legal Counsel, believe me, it 
would----
    Mr. Pence. All right.
    Mr. Menezes [continuing]. Help tremendously.
    Mr. Pence. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. OK, the Chair now goes to Ms. Blunt Rochester 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to all of our witnesses today.
    Across the country we are already seeing the impacts of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation 
Reduction Act. We are seeing a commitment to a cleaner economy 
and cleaner planet, and a commitment to our American 
manufacturers and workers.
    Just in the 6 months since the Inflation Reduction Act 
became law, companies have announced over 100,000 new domestic 
clean energy jobs, and billions of dollars in new manufacturing 
investments. This historic law--or both of these laws have 
actually created a path to a stronger, more resilient domestic 
energy system, all while combating the ongoing climate crisis.
    But, unfortunately, the bills and resolutions that we see 
before us today would force us off that path. They neglect to 
address the global shift toward clean, renewable energy and 
focus instead on expanding the fossil fuel industry by creating 
loopholes for important environmental and public health 
protections. We need legislation that not only protects our 
domestic energy interests but also protects the environment and 
health of all Americans.
    My questions are for Mr. Garcia. One of the bills being 
heard today relates to EPA's risk management program rule, also 
known as the Chemical Disaster Prevention Rule. The proposed 
legislation would amend the Clean Air Act to exempt refineries 
that use extremely dangerous hydrofluoric acid from assessing 
whether they could potentially use safer technologies. I am 
concerned about any legislation that weakens the Clean Air Act, 
but I am particularly concerned about a bill that guts a 
commonsense practice that would save lives and prevent 
disasters.
    Mr. Garcia, can you speak to how clients that your 
organization represents use foundational laws like the Clean 
Air Act to protect themselves from dangerous polluters in 
courts and how creating exemptions for them using the vaguely 
defined ``critical energy resource'' would gut those legal 
protections?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, absolutely. So what we see is that the way 
that permitting should work, and the way that--whether it is 
the Clean Air Act or anything else--it should work in a way 
that industry along with the communities are equal partners in 
a way that identifies the best science in order to follow 
through on whatever the permit would allow, with the health and 
safety of the communities most impacted. And that is exactly 
what the what the RNP does, right? It is, in fact, a study. And 
why would we ever want to stymie innovation in this process?
    I believe that, from a lot of folks here today, we keep 
talking--we keep hearing about the next chemical and the next 
metal and the next thing that we are going to see. Why aren't 
we applying the same level of innovation to the standards that 
would protect our communities in the process?
    And so that--I think that is a question that has to be 
answered. But that is what the process is. And the fact that 
the bill seeks to exempt it from exploring that innovation is 
very problematic in all sorts of ways.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Another bill that we heard about today 
authorizes the use of flexible air permitting with respect to 
certain critical energy resource facilities. In your written 
testimony, you stated that using flexible air permitting in 
this manner would take the science out of air permitting 
decisions. Can you elaborate on that statement and discuss the 
risks associated with this use of flexible air permitting?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, absolutely. We have--when we are talking 
about permitting, there are certain standards that industry or 
whoever wants the permit needs to comply with. In flexible air 
permitting, as we have it in the bill, essentially, the 
administration gets to pick winners or losers, never mind the 
actual standards.
    And so, when you have an administration that is really not 
looking after the health and safety of the people on the 
ground, that is really looking for corporate profits and things 
like that, it really just allows them to pick favorites. And, 
unfortunately, there is a long history of which industries they 
pick to be favorites in that process.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And just as a followup, can you talk 
about the public health and environmental implications of that?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, absolutely. I mean, the idea is that you 
are leaving out the science, and at the same time you are 
ramming the most dangerous alternatives out there down 
communities' throats, right?
    And so they are the ones that would have to live with, God 
forbid, any explosion that happens, the workers themselves. 
They are the ones who have to deal with the consequences.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. The Chair will go now to Dr. Joyce for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. I want to thank the chairman for holding this 
critical hearing today.
    As we begin the 118th Congress, we continue to hear from 
our constituents at home that the high costs at the pump and in 
their electric bills are kitchen-table issues that they deal 
with every day.
    The fact is, the only way to bring down prices is to 
increase supply. We have been blessed in this country to have 
plentiful reserves of natural resources. In my home State of 
Pennsylvania, we have significant deposits of coal and natural 
gas. In the last 20 years alone, new drilling techniques have 
led to the shale gas revolution, and Pennsylvania is now the 
second-largest net supplier of energy to all other States. In 
my conversations with energy producers, they make it clear that 
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has much more that it can 
give.
    What is standing in the way of unleashing the resources 
under the feet of my constituents? It is the Biden 
administration's war on American energy.
    At every step, this administration has held up and hindered 
the production of American coal, oil, and natural gas. From 
creating restrictive and burdensome regulations to attempts to 
scare away capital investment from fossil fuels, the Biden 
administration has stifled supply and caused prices to rise.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the 
record a report by the National Fire Protection Association, 
published in July of 2020, which I will submit at the end of my 
questioning.
    Just last month, an administration official raised the 
possibility of banning gas stoves due to safety concerns. Well, 
let's look at the science, a report by the NFPA. These claims 
of unsafe natural gas stoves are incorrect. Gas stoves are 
incredibly safe to use. In fact, electric ranges are over 200 
percent more likely to cause a fire, and over 300 percent more 
likely to cause a deadly fire, and close to 500 percent more 
likely to cause fire-related injury than gas ranges.
    This misguided attempt to ban gas stoves shows yet another 
step that the Biden administration is attempting to move the 
market away from American energy products like natural gas. It 
is time to stop playing political games and do what is best for 
our constituents.
    No producer single-handedly affects the price, but by 
giving businesses regulatory certainty and providing confidence 
to capital markets assures that the domestic production of 
energy is here to stay. We can lower prices and reclaim 
American energy dominance.
    My first question is for Mr. Eshelman.
    How do aggressive and targeted attempts to discourage 
investment in natural gas affect production?
    Mr. Eshelman. Well, first off, to hit on your point about 
the natural gas stoves, I think this is a real personal 
intrusion, that the Government is trying to tell consumers what 
kind of choices they can make. So it is what kind of--how you 
can cook, what kind of cars you can drive, how you can heat 
your home. So that is a very important point to bring up. I 
think consumer choice is at risk here with this administration.
    Second, business thrives where there is a predictable 
landscape. So we need State and local governments and the 
Federal Government all work together to streamline their 
processes so we can get some permitting done, as well as 
exploration and production, and particularly in Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you. My next question is for Mr. Menezes.
    I mentioned the need for regulatory certainty in my earlier 
remarks. I have a draft bill that would enable critical mineral 
facilities to work with the EPA in advance of the permitting 
process so that they can react to surges in the market without 
needing to restart the permitting process.
    Currently, how do regulated critical materials entities 
deal with large increases in market demand, and what relief 
would this bill give them?
    Mr. Menezes. You know, currently I believe there are some 
300 backlogged applications pending at EPA for the permits that 
you have requested, and that number is only growing, really, to 
take advantage of a lot of the provisions that were in the IRA. 
Capital wants to be expended. This new investment will involve 
new chemicals, et cetera. They want to get their permits.
    A lot of the funding is based on you have to have the 
permits first. And so frustration is mounting that we can't 
seem to figure out how to get EPA to really just follow the 
law, implement the law, get the permits out, and let's try to 
embrace the new future with these new chemicals and our 
energy----
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you for addressing this critical issue.
    My time is expiring. Thank you, and I yield.
    Mr. Duncan. OK. The Chair is going to go to Ms. Schrier 
next. And when she finishes her 5 minutes, we are going to take 
a recess for Members to go vote.
    Members are reminded we are going to meet again right after 
the second vote opens. Vote, come on back. We are going to go 
to Kelly Armstrong first up when we come back.
    So Ms. Schrier is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 
you to our witnesses. This has been a really interesting 
discussion.
    You know, last week one of my Republican colleagues 
acknowledged that there is actually a lot of common ground, 
that there is bipartisan agreement that we all want to be good 
stewards of the Earth, that careful use of resources is 
important, and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions is one 
element of how we can be good stewards of this earth.
    So I was so inspired by these prospects of bipartisanship 
that the very next day I met with Democratic and Republican 
House and Senate members at a breakfast discussion about the 
real practicalities. Like, let's just get down to nuts and 
bolts about how we are really going to get the changes we need 
made with clean energy in a timely fashion to actually make the 
difference that we need to make.
    And one important practicality had to do with how delays in 
permitting and years of litigation could thwart our very best 
efforts to make the changes that we need to achieve our clean 
energy goals. And just to be clear on where I stand, I am not 
suggesting in any way that we gut our bedrock environmental 
protection laws. But we need to make some pragmatic, necessary 
reforms, like faster timelines, in order to have a realistic 
shot of meeting these clean energy and emissions goals.
    So I am looking for areas where bipartisanship is possible, 
and I think we have some opportunity for common ground here.
    I also believe and know that our production of renewable 
energy is only as good as the electric grid that we have. And 
the broader system and our Federal permitting laws were 
primarily written for the fossil fuel era. And so it is time to 
kind of rethink how we can streamline, and it requires some 
very practical conversations, not trying to speed every answer 
to yes, but at least getting to a yes or a no quickly so we can 
move on.
    So, Mr. McNamee, I appreciated your testimony. You noted 
that Congress should consider reforming NEPA and the APA to 
limit how legal challenges can be made against agency actions. 
Of course, this is a, as you refer to it, a two-edged sword, 
and that we want agencies to be accountable, we need public 
input. And so Congress has to do this balancing act. I was 
wondering if you could talk a little bit about this.
    And I am confining the way I think about this to the 
speeding of clean energy projects.
    Mr. McNamee. Thank you for the question. The--one of the 
key problems is that the way NEPA litigation--when Congress 
passed NEPA, there was no cause of action. They thought they 
just wanted agencies to look at the environmental impacts and 
make sure they consider it.
    The Administrative Procedure Act allows parties to 
challenge an agency action for being arbitrary and capricious. 
And so then they say, well, if the agency didn't make the 
decision properly on NEPA, that is arbitrary and capricious, 
and so that can be pulled back. An example: FERC in the last 
few months had a--I think it was the DC Circuit sent back an 
approval that they made because, even though they addressed the 
issue, they forgot to cite--make a citation to a reg. And so 
they had to send it back. That just seems to me to be things 
that don't need to happen. So there can be ways to streamline 
that.
    In terms of the clean energy, the thing that I find 
somewhat kind of amusing is that the--that often the same 
people who didn't like underground natural pipelines suddenly 
say, ``We need to fix permitting for, you know, 400 miles of 
lattice towers for transmission lines to get wind from the 
Midwest to the coasts,'' going through, you know, farms, 
ranches, et cetera.
    And what I think it is, we have to look at what are the 
real problems. Because I think what the renewable developers 
have realized is, there is a NEPA problem. There is a problem. 
And so we need to come up with a solution that fits one size 
for fitting all, not just picking----
    Ms. Schrier. And I will give you just some feedback on 
that. One of those things pollutes, one doesn't. One, in many 
cases, lines are already there. But we--that is a discussion 
for another day.
    I wanted to just turn at the end to just a really pragmatic 
example: hydropower. I come from Washington State. Hydropower 
makes up a third of the renewable energy in the United States. 
It makes up about half of the electricity we use in Washington 
State. And with the looming climate crisis, hydropower is going 
to be critical. You know, it provides baseload, just like 
nuclear and like natural gas, that wind and solar just can't 
provide. And so hydropower is critical.
    And right now it turns out that just about 3 percent of 
dams in this country generate hydropower. And this is an area 
where the chairwoman of this committee and I really agree, that 
this is exactly the kind of project where, if you consider the 
net environmental benefit, you consider the economics, you 
consider the energy benefits, that this sort of project might 
be ideal for having a speedier pathway to a yes or a no.
    So I want to thank you, and I yield back my time.
    Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back.
    So Members are reminded that we are going to come back 
right after the second vote opens. So vote and come back, and I 
am going to take them in order. Kelly Armstrong is up next.
    Witnesses are asked to remain. If you need to get up, 
stretch your legs, bathrooms are down the hall. Apparently, 
there is a lot of people in the lobby out here, so you may not 
want to go that way.
    And we will stand in recess until we get back.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Duncan. All right. We are going to go ahead and get 
started. So I will call the subcommittee back in order.
    And I will now go to Mr. Armstrong from North Dakota for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2017, when this 
committee held a hearing on the Promoting Cross-border Energy 
Infrastructure Act, Ranking Member Pallone remarked at the 
time, ``With President Trump already approving the Keystone XL 
pipeline, it is unclear to me why Republicans feel it is 
necessary to strip the President of his authority. Do my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle honestly not have 
confidence in President Trump?''
    It is not that Republicans didn't have confidence in 
President Trump, it is that Republicans didn't have confidence 
in future administrations to make rational decisions regarding 
energy's infrastructure. We only had to wait a matter of hours 
after President Trump left office and President Biden--for 
President Biden to revoke the cross-border permit for the 
Keystone XL pipeline and prove the exact reason why we need 
this bill.
    Well, it is clear that the FERC and DOE processes are not 
immune from political influence, which I will get to in a 
second. They must follow statutory and regulatory guidelines, 
as opposed to the impulsive decision-making process used by one 
President. Opponents of carbon energy have routinely exploited 
the uncertainty of the cross-border process to starve projects 
of capital investment because they understand that these 
projects can take decades to complete and are not a short-term 
investment.
    We know that those who are antagonistic to carbon energy 
oppose every pipeline project. It has nothing to do with the 
merits or the environmental analysis surrounding a particular 
piece of infrastructure. To quote a leader of the Keep It In 
the Ground campaign, the Keystone XL pipeline was never about 
any single pipeline. It was about establishing a litmus test. 
Well, the opponents of carbon energy have established that 
test, and they know that they can rely on domestic--Democratic 
administrations to undermine our energy infrastructure.
    Deputy Secretary Menezes, before we go any further, it is 
important, I think, to talk about what the Promoting Cross-
border Energy Infrastructure Act does not--what it does not do, 
and we need to be perfectly clear. This bill will have zero 
effect on NEPA or shortcut environmental reviews. Is that your 
understanding?
    Mr. Menezes. That is my understanding.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thanks. And I am going to switch over to 
domestic pipelines for a second.
    Mr. McNamee, are political considerations playing an 
outsized role in FERC's permitting decisions?
    Mr. McNamee. I am concerned that FERC has not always been 
focused on the limits of the Natural Gas Act in making its 
determinations.
    Mr. Armstrong. Have there been any policy changes in the 
last 2 years, or is it simply that the regime has changed?
    Mr. McNamee. Two things have happened. One, the regime had 
changed from majority Republican to majority Democrat Members. 
And second, there were proposals for new policy statements that 
would have allowed the Commission to deny natural gas pipelines 
based on the upstream and downstream natural gas combustion, 
which, in my opinion, when I was on FERC, FERC did not have the 
authority to make those decisions under the Natural Gas Act.
    Mr. Armstrong. Well, what do you think the practical impact 
of that would be if they--if prior to putting a pipeline in the 
ground, a company had to mitigate both the oil well and the 
SUV?
    Mr. McNamee. Well, they may not even have an opportunity to 
mitigate it. The FERC--if those policies were enacted, the 
pipeline might not be approved at all because it would be 
declared too harmful. And so, even though it is in the public 
interest, it would provide service to customers, and it could 
lower prices for customers, that may not be approved at all.
    Mr. Armstrong. As somebody who grew up in western North 
Dakota, I would say an oil well is like a five-star steak 
restaurant and a pipelines is like McDonald's. They both make 
money, but they make it in very different ways.
    Back to Mr. Menezes. In addition to raising costs and 
limiting growth, roadblocks that delay or prevent the 
development of energy infrastructure, particularly oil and gas, 
threaten the overall resilience of our electric grid, as well. 
Can you touch on why that is important, to support efficient 
deployment of midstream infrastructure?
    Mr. Menezes. As we have been talking about today, we need 
to increase supply, but we also need to increase infrastructure 
to make sure that supply gets delivered to the American people. 
That will bring downward prices onto the commodity that they 
are purchasing.
    Mr. Armstrong. And there is also global ramifications to an 
efficient cross-border process in North America. I mean, we 
import a ton of oil from Canada. They are our closest ally and 
our neighbor. Maybe I am a little biased, because they are my 
neighbor directly to the north.
    Mr. Menezes. Well, I don't----
    Mr. Armstrong. What are the ramifications----
    Mr. Menezes. I mean, we have about eight refineries that 
are designed and built to take heavy crude, heavy crude from 
Canada. It was also for heavy crude from Venezuela until the 
shale revolution. So we have refineries that are designed to 
take that oil. It is from Canada, you know, our largest trading 
partner. So it only makes sense.
    Plus, we talked about earlier that would have been--we 
import about 700,000 barrels per day from Russia. That 830,000 
from Keystone would have certainly offset that.
    Mr. Armstrong. I always used to say anybody who has ever 
looked at the process to drill a well in Canada would 
understand it is significantly more stringent than potentially 
even drilling on our Federal land. When I would talk to my 
friends and allies on this issue, I would say, ``What can we do 
to make--change people's minds?''
    They would say, ``Call it something other than tar sands 
oil, because it just sounds dirty.'' It doesn't matter that it 
is sour crude that we need for marine diesel. I love my Bakken 
sweet crude, but it doesn't work for everything.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. So I am assuming I am 
going to Ms. Kuster for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me get 
straight to the point. Most of the legislation before us in 
committee today is merely a handout to the fossil fuel 
industry, poorly described as an attempt to strengthen our 
Nation's energy security.
    So let me be clear. Furthering our Nation's independence--
dependance on fossil fuels instead of diversifying our energy 
sources not only weakens our energy security, but it also harms 
American families by leaving them vulnerable to global energy 
price shocks.
    In the first legislative hearing of this subcommittee, the 
Republican majority has put forward partisan legislation which 
stands no chance of being enacted into law rather than focus 
our time on meaningful bipartisan efforts to further American 
energy independence. These bills simply miss the mark. While I 
disapprove of these misguided proposals, I remain committed to 
working with my Republican colleagues to find opportunities to 
actually deliver affordable, reliable, and domestically 
produced energy to the American people.
    One of those opportunities is bolstering our baseload 
energy resources, such as hydropower and nuclear. In New 
Hampshire, the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant provides low-cost 
baseload energy by operating at full capacity nearly year-
round. This past weekend you may have heard about record-
breaking cold on top of Mount Washington in my district. Under 
some of this winter's coldest temperatures, Seabrook continued 
to deliver reliable baseload energy to the grid.
    To protect nuclear energy as a baseload energy resource 
nationwide, we must also secure the uranium these plants rely 
upon to operate.
    Mr. Menees--Menezes? Thank you.
    One of these legislative items before us today would 
prohibit the import of low-grade uranium produced in Russia. At 
a time when Putin's regime is using profits from energy exports 
to fund a gruesome war in Ukraine, I would say cutting off 
Russian imports is a sound policy. Can you speak to the 
importance of reducing our dependance on Russian uranium, from 
an energy security perspective?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, your question touched on the key points. 
Russia simply is no longer a reliable partner for any critical 
energy infrastructure resources at all, including the enriched 
uranium which our civilian nuclear fleet has become dependent 
on, because it can be cheaply produced in Russia and they 
export it at cheap prices to ensure that our civilian nuclear 
fleet that competes in these RTO markets that we talked about, 
they can't bear any cost increase on the cost of fuel.
    The bill not only prohibits it, but it phases it out, and 
it does provide for some waivers. So it is not as though we are 
going to be without the fuel. That should give us enough time, 
because there have been some other provisions of the bill to 
develop our own abilities for fuel fabrication and, you know, 
enrichment.
    It is not the easiest thing to do, but we need to reclaim 
our leadership and our own ability, frankly, to not only mine 
and mill, convert, but also for fuel fabrication. And it is 
important because, remember, nuclear is our cleanest emission-
free source of energy in the United States.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you. Like many Americans, I remain 
concerned by the record profits that oil companies continue to 
rake in while households across the country are struggling to 
pay their energy bills.
    Mr. Slocum, in your testimony you suggested that Congress 
should press FERC, which is responsible for regulating natural 
gas markets, to protect American consumers from price 
manipulation that could increase natural gas prices and 
America's energy bills. What steps can FERC take to improve 
price transparency in natural gas markets?
    Mr. Slocum. Yes. So FERC has jurisdiction over spot natural 
gas markets if there is evidence of market manipulation. But in 
the 2005 Energy Policy Act, because of widespread manipulation 
of the price indices, FERC requested and Congress inserted into 
the Natural Gas Act a provision that allows FERC to establish 
its own price transparency natural gas reporting system.
    And so, in comments in a rulemaking last year at FERC, I 
urged the Commission to undertake this never-used statutory 
authority, and what it would do would shine some badly needed 
transparency into pricing in natural gas spot markets.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you. Many of my constituents in New 
Hampshire rely on natural gas for electricity and home heating, 
and I am committed to ensuring that Congress and the 
administration evaluate all available tools to ensure the 
prices consumers pay are just and reasonable.
    To my Republican colleagues across the aisle, please take 
seriously my offer to work together on commonsense energy 
legislation and put people over politics.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair will 
now go to the gentleman from an energy-producing area--well, 
actually, nuclear energy--that would be Mr. Allen from Georgia.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and Chairman Johnson, 
for holding this joint subcommittee hearing today to discuss 
the importance of unleashing our domestic energy production, 
securing our electric infrastructure and domestic supply 
chains. This is critical in delivering lower energy costs to 
Americans and becoming energy dominant.
    I can't stress enough the importance of having an all-of-
the-above energy strategy, which we have talked about over and 
over again here today, and ensuring our supply chains here are 
secure.
    Yesterday I hosted my first telephone town hall with 
thousands of constituents on the line for the 118th Congress. 
The most questions I got were about, ``What are you going to do 
about energy and the cost of energy? How can we become energy 
dominant again? I remember those days when we actually set the 
price of a barrel of oil. That was real power, Mr. 
Congressman.''
    My constituents and Americans across the Nation are 
spending money they don't have on energy, should it be at the 
pump or trying to heat and cool their homes. The key to 
affordability and reliability is a diverse energy portfolio and 
removing regulatory barriers that hinder access to our natural 
resources right here in the United States. The free market is 
key in setting the price for energy.
    Mr. McNamee, you mentioned in your testimony how subsidized 
renewables are distorting price formation and regional 
transmission organizations, which is having a negative impact 
on important energy sectors like nuclear and coal, and, in 
turn, the reliability of the grid. Commercial nuclear energy is 
critical to my district, as it is home to Plant Vogtle, and 
currently under construction are units 3 and 4, which are 
scheduled to come online later this year. Nuclear energy is 
reliable and affordable and emission-free.
    Are there ways we can ensure subsidized renewables are not 
undermining the market so that the coal and nuclear business do 
not become obsolete?
    And how does this degrade reliability?
    Mr. McNamee. Thank you, Congressman. The primary challenge 
in the so-called RTOs, which are in seven parts of the country, 
is that they tried to use market forces in order to achieve the 
cheapest energy resource for electricity.
    The problem is, once you have subsidized resources like 
renewables that have no fuel costs, that show up 
intermittently, they have tax credits, they undermine the way 
price formation works. And the price formation is for every, 
basically, 5 minutes of the day during the load curve, 
generators bid in to see if they can meet the load. And the 
last generator that is picked sets the price that everybody is 
paid. So that means if you are wind or solar, you are paid the 
same price as the natural gas producer or the nuclear producer.
    And what has happened is, when you have these intermittent 
resources coming on and off, they are taking up market share, 
they are driving a little bit of the marginal price of energy 
down, but they are undermining the ability of baseload, like 
nuclear, to be able to make the money to stay operating. And 
this has become a big crisis in a lot of parts of the country, 
where you see electricity prices spiking but reliability going 
down.
    In Georgia, one of the things is it still has the 
traditional vertically regulated, and you mentioned that--
planning the resources. That is exactly what utilities do. They 
do integrated resource plannings, they decide what units are 
needed to meet the power 24/7, 365 days a year, whether it is 
cold or whether it is hot.
    And they also--the price of energy is averaged. So 
customers are getting the economic benefits of all the 
resources.
    Mr. Allen. Right. And that might explain why we are--have 
two battery plants that are scheduled to come online, as well 
in Georgia, one just announced and one is under construction 
for batteries for the electric vehicles that are going to power 
the future, because we have the most efficient, most abundant 
supply of electricity in the country. Thank you for the answer 
to that question.
    Nuclear energy, as I said, is critical to our national 
security. So I would like to now enter into the record two 
letters, one from the Nuclear Energy Institute and another from 
the United States Nuclear Industry Council, which both 
expressed support for the committee's work to establish a 
secure nuclear energy fuel supply chain.
    Mr. Duncan. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Allen. And now, Ms. Sweeney--and we are not--we are 
going to run out of time, but we have talked about the 
permitting problem in the mineral supply chains. Can you submit 
in writing to me?
    What I am hearing is workforce problems. And maybe you can 
comment on another question later about the workforce problems 
we are having throughout the energy sector.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will now 
go to Ms. Castor for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Fossil fuel prices and energy costs were the primary 
drivers of inflation last year and higher gas prices after 
Putin's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. And we had the Big Oil 
CEOs here at the committee to talk to them about price gouging. 
And we asked each one of them, were they interested in lowering 
costs, lowering prices at the pump? We are going through a 
crisis of a war with an ally. Inflation was hitting consumers 
hard. And they all said no.
    Now, just last week the profits became clear. Mr. Slocum, 
did you see the profits reported by the Big Oil companies?
    Mr. Slocum. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Castor. How would you characterize them?
    Mr. Slocum. Extremely large. And that doesn't even reflect 
all of their profitability, because they have been plowing 
billions into share buybacks. Chevron, for example, committing 
to $75 billion.
    Ms. Castor. But wait, they could have used that to lower 
the price at the pump, right?
    Mr. Slocum. Correct.
    Ms. Castor. Shell Oil made more in profit than they ever 
have before. Exxon and Chevron, their $90 billion in profit was 
called ``epic.'' So this is what profiteering looks like, 
doesn't it?
    Mr. Slocum. The proof is in the numbers. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Castor. So I think they have everything they need. Why 
would we be bending over backwards to provide a wish list for 
the Big Oil companies when they are making--they are banking 
the biggest profits ever, and then they are not passing along 
these savings, they are doing stock buybacks?
    Is there anything in this wish list that is on this agenda 
today that lowers the cost for consumers?
    Mr. Slocum. I don't see anything in these various bills 
that are going to reduce cost to consumers or protect consumers 
from the kind of price gouging that is going on.
    Ms. Castor. Mr. Garcia, do you see anything?
    You have helped shine the light on the litany of this wish 
list for polluters in Big Oil today. Is there anything in this 
package that would lower costs for consumers?
    Mr. Garcia. I can't identify a single thing.
    Ms. Castor. In fact, you have helped us go through some of 
these bills today. It is like the 1970s have called, and they 
want their energy policies back. This is 2023, and clean energy 
is cheaper energy. We, with the help of the Inflation Reduction 
Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the 
CHIPS and Science Act, we are unleashing American innovation to 
lower costs for consumers, to create jobs, to build healthier, 
more resilient communities.
    Mr. Garcia, is there any reason that you think we should go 
backwards to the costly policies of the past, and--rather than 
go forward?
    Mr. Garcia. None. I mean, quite the opposite, right?
    I mean, if we do that, there is going to be a lot of damage 
done, both at a climate level for everything that we are going 
to face as a country, as a planet, but also in small frontline 
communities next to these facilities that, unfortunately, bear 
the burdens of these--largely would bear the burdens of these 
largely unregulated practices if these loopholes go through.
    Ms. Castor. I mean, that is one thing that we never really 
talk about when we have this wish list for polluters in Big 
Oil, the cost of the climate crisis.
    Back home in Florida, because our monopoly electric 
utilities have kept us--we are the so-called Sunshine State, 
right? But we are reliant about 75 percent on fracked gas for 
our electricity. So people are paying higher electric bills as 
we have warmer days. That is not smart. That is not consumer 
friendly. We are paying higher property insurance.
    There was another story out this morning about displacement 
because of extreme events. There is a huge pull on the Federal 
budget because we are outlaying more and more to tackle 
droughts and floods and these extreme events. And then there is 
the long-lasting burden of pollution that you highlight.
    Again, isn't the future in clean energy? It is cheaper 
energy. It will help us lower costs across the board.
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely. I mean, what we are seeing is the 
attempt by dirty fuels and dirty industries to circumvent laws 
in order to stay afloat longer, when what we really need to do 
is make sure that our investments are going to--as you said, 
the future, making sure that those investments are happening 
quickly and directly into renewable industries that are also 
clean industries for our communities.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank gentlelady. The Chair will now go to 
Mr. Balderson from Ohio.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 
being here today. My first question is for Mr. Eshelman.
    Thank you for being here, Mr. Eshelman. In your testimony 
you note that IPAA's member companies are the innovative 
leaders that broke the code to usher in the shale oil and 
natural gas revolution in the United States. Chairman Johnson 
and I can certainly attest to this massive impact the shale 
revolution had in the Appalachia Ohio region and the economic 
benefits we have seen in our communities.
    As you know, the shale revolution and fracking turned the 
U.S. into an energy superpower and greatly enhanced our 
national security. But we must look forward. Natural gas and 
oil will continue to be essential to our energy portfolio for 
the foreseeable future.
    In addition to prohibiting the President from unilaterally 
banning fracking, Chairman Duncan's Protecting American Energy 
Production Act also expresses the sense of Congress that States 
should maintain primacy for the regulation of fracking for oil 
and natural gas production on State and private lands.
    Mr. Eshelman, why was this aspect of energy policy key to 
the shale revolution?
    Mr. Eshelman. Well, hydraulic fracturing is a technology 
that has been around for a long time but perfected over the 
past 10 years, which unleashed the shale revolution in the 
Utica, the Marcellus, and the Permian all around the country 
and provided jobs and oil and gas to consumers. So it is a very 
important technology that, if we didn't use it, we would 
probably lose half of our oil and gas supply tomorrow.
    One of the other things I would mention is that there have 
been efforts in Congress to ban hydraulic fracturing or have it 
regulated at the Federal level. That doesn't work. A one-size-
fits-all regulation does not work for different parts of the 
country. So the States are doing it well. They are working with 
communities, and it should remain that way.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you. I will follow up with you, sir. 
You said it best. The IRA's methane tax will jeopardize the 
operations of many oil and natural gas producers and divert 
their attention from what they do best: producing the cleanest 
and safest oil and natural gas in the world.
    As you noted, this tax was included in the Inflation 
Reduction Act despite not being considered at a hearing, not 
receiving expert testimony, and without an economic analysis. 
If this isn't repealed, producers will start paying this tax 
next year.
    How will the natural gas tax impact rural producers, rural 
communities, and, ultimately, how will the tax impact our 
constituents who rely on natural gas each and every day?
    Mr. Eshelman. Well, I think you hit on it. There was no 
congressional hearing on this tax. There was no testimony taken 
on it, no analysis done on it. So we really don't know the 
answer to that question. That is the problem with this tax.
    Mr. Balderson. A followup for Mr. Menezes and Mr. McNamee: 
Do you think this tax will ultimately hurt rural communities?
    Mr. McNamee. Yes.
    Mr. Menezes. We have to keep in mind that those that are 
benefiting from fracking, they are the small producers. The 
majors do not frack, OK? They are mom-and-pop operators here. 
These are the true patriots. These are the true Americans. They 
have produced the oil to where, for the first time in history, 
OPEC is forced to negotiate with the United States. That has 
never before happened since OPEC was in existence.
    And so, when you are looking at those provisions, the 
methane regs, those fees, it is going to be the small 
producers. The majors, they are not going to be impacted, 
again, but they don't have the small producing that the IPAA 
folks have on the methane.
    And remember, the methane we talk about is a pollutant. It 
certainly, in great concentrations, can do great harm. However, 
it is a product. And so, with the improvement in all the 
detection devices, what we have seen already is the industry 
moving to detect, take action, and it is a product. And so, by 
making the investments, it is more product to actually sell. 
And so, talk about a circular economy, that is one, and they 
are taking advantage of it now.
    Also, EPA has a supplemental pending rule open for public 
comment now on methane regulations, which essentially does the 
same thing without the fee, but you have the full backing of 
all the penalties in the Clean Air Act if you violate those 
regulations once they become final.
    Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you very much. We are down to 30 
seconds. I want to ask one last question. Please be conscious 
of the time.
    Mr. McNamee and Mr. Menezes again, Chairman Johnson's 
Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act would streamline the 
approval process for American companies to export liquefied 
natural gas.
    Do you think--during last week's hearing Under Secretary 
Paul Dabarr regarding the global environment benefits of the 
exporting U.S. natural gas to developing nations, many of which 
are reliant on coal from China.
    If you all would respond with just written answers, I would 
appreciate it.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McNamee. Exporting natural gas helps both people in 
foreign countries and domestically.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
    Mr. Duncan. All right. I thank the gentleman. The Chair 
will now go to Ms. Miller-Meeks for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
thank all of our witnesses for having stamina to last through 
this hearing.
    Iowa is a little-known energy State. We have 50 percent of 
our energy from renewables. Over 50 percent of our electricity 
is from wind. And we are an exporter, a net exporter of energy 
that both reduces greenhouse gas emissions and cleaner burning 
engines as part of our liquid fuel portfolio. And it should be 
part of a liquid fuel portfolio in all of our energy needs. It 
offers, you know, affordable energy to allow us, as a country, 
to compete globally on an affordable level.
    Imagine when I went to COP 26 and COP 27 that I found out 
that energy demand is increasing. It is not decreasing. And I 
agree with the witness that we need increased electrification, 
but energy efficiency is only going to be able to give us so 
much, and it is a very small amount. And to increase 
electrification we need electricity, which means we need more 
energy sources and to build new energy sources and resources, 
not less.
    In Europe, as we have seen over the past year--and I saw 
when I went to both COP 26 and COP 27--demand is going up. 
Energy efficiency, as tried in Germany and UK, has been reliant 
upon wind and solar as renewables and have much higher 
electricity prices than we have in the United States. So it is 
not bringing down electricity prices.
    In Iowa, not only are we a source of energy, we also have 
the Ames National Laboratory located at Iowa State University 
just outside of my district, and it currently leads the 
Critical Materials Institute. CMI is an energy innovation hub 
of the U.S. Department of Energy. Its focus is innovation to 
assure supply chains for materials critical to clean energy 
technologies. CMI carries out scientific and engineering 
research that facilitates more diverse primary supply chains in 
addition to mining, which we wholeheartedly agree we need in 
this country, more efficient manufacturing, re-use and 
recycling, and development of new materials.
    Mr. Menezes, can you speak to the national significance of 
diversifying supply, developing substitutes, and driving re-use 
and recovery of critical minerals with respect to securing our 
Nation's global competitiveness?
    Mr. Menezes. Well, we have talked about the critical 
minerals, you know, throughout the day. It is important that we 
figure out a way for us to have our own access to our critical 
minerals, you know, as we are dependent on 31 of 35, we import 
14. So I think that is a--that is one of the lessons learned.
    And it was really emphasized after COVID. So Congress in 
2020 did take action, you know, to do R&D for critical 
minerals. And so they were doing it. But after COVID we 
realized we really cannot depend even on other countries. While 
we have been talking about China, you know, other countries 
provide us other critical minerals. So the focus now is really 
to do this.
    And the Biden administration likewise, you know, 
underscored that. And--but we need to do more. And so that is 
why today's bill is so important, that we really need to make 
sure that the Department of Energy has the expertise to do it.
    You mentioned Ames. It is great. Ames is the place where 
you go, where you get to see the actual elements that are on 
the elemental chart, except for the radioactive ones, of 
course. But you can just see, and they are all there in these 
little vials. And it is just an absolute great place to go and 
visit.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. I wholeheartedly agree. And as you know, 
in December of 2022 the U.S. Department of Commerce found 
Chinese solar panel makers had circumvented the U.S. tariffs by 
doing minor processing in Southeast Asia--and I think that was 
mentioned earlier--including Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and 
Vietnam before exporting to the U.S. New tariffs on U.S. 
imports from these countries, which account for about 80 
percent of U.S. panel supplies, do not take effect until June 
of 2024 because of a 2-year waiver from President Biden.
    I have concerns about China taking advantage of the waivers 
for renewable technologies meant for other countries, 
especially when the alternative is American-made products. 
There is a similar issue with Chinese companies operating 
production facilities for the EV batteries, which we had talked 
about through the credits with the Inflation Reduction Act.
    Can you please speak to the risk that the waivers for 
critical minerals and renewable technologies in other countries 
pose to the U.S. national and economic security?
    Mr. Menezes. Right. For the first time, then, if this bill 
is enacted, the Energy Department will actually have a role in 
advising the President and other agencies as to what emergency 
actions can take place to ensure that we can protect those 
vital sources. And that is why this is needed.
    Otherwise, the Department of Energy and its expertise will 
lose out to other agencies, who will have other equities to 
argue about and for. And so you want the Energy Department to 
be at that table to inform the President as to why certain 
actions need to be taken to protect our critical minerals and 
resources.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much. I wish I could go 
through all of the witnesses, but I don't have time. I have 
some other questions which I will submit to the committee, and 
then ask you to respond in writing. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentlelady, and the Chair will now 
go to the gentleman from the Republic of Texas, Mr. Pfluger, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the 
opportunity in this hearing. I would like to thank all the 
witnesses.
    You know, I would hope that what has been said by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle is actually true, 
that we can work together. I am worried about not having 
electricity.
    There is a narrative here that Big Oil is making big 
profits. Does--Mr. Slocum, I don't know if you know the price 
of oil on April 20th, 2020. I don't know if anybody on this 
panel can tell me what that was. I bet there is one or two. 
Negative 37.63. Do we remember that? And do we have hearings 
about the profits that we were not making at that time?
    Energy security is so important. It is important to our 
economy. It is important to our livelihoods. It is important to 
our military. You know, when we look at the concept of making 
sure we have affordable, reliable energy--Mr. Garcia, can you 
tell me what the reduction in methane emissions has been over 
the last 10 to 15 years here in the United States?
    Mr. Garcia. I don't have that data in front of me, but I am 
happy to provide----
    Mr. Pfluger. Yes, it is 14 percent, 14 percent.
    Mr. Slocum, any idea where that ranks in the world?
    Mr. Slocum. I don't know, but I don't know about that 
figure. There is----
    Mr. Pfluger. That is from----
    Mr. Slocum. It depends upon how it is being measured.
    Mr. Pfluger. That is from DOE.
    Mr. Slocum. Right. Because there has been discrepancies 
between actual emissions and recorded----
    Mr. Pfluger. OK.
    Mr. Slocum [continuing]. Methane emissions.
    Mr. Pfluger. The point that I would like to get to here is 
we lead the world in reduction of emissions, harmful emissions. 
We have producers that are doing this because it is not only 
efficient, but it makes sense in a market-based place. And we 
do leave this Earth better.
    And I would invite you to come to my district to see the 
wind and the solar and the problems that they actually have for 
the environment, since you have spoken so eloquently on 
environment, and see the ranchers and the farmers who operate 
this land for generations--seven in my case, my family--who 
leave the land better, and use the resources, and put back into 
it.
    Mr. Eshelman, you mentioned--what percentage, can you 
remind us? What percentage of energy comes from small 
producers, from independent producers, not from quote/unquote 
``Big Oil''?
    Mr. Eshelman. That is 91 percent of the wells.
    Mr. Pfluger. Ninety-one percent. And disproportionately, 
how is the methane, the natural gas tax, how does it affect 
those people that don't have economies of scale, that are 
independent producers, that--one or two people in their 
businesses?
    Mr. Eshelman. That is what we are trying to understand. As 
I mentioned before, there has never been a hearing on this. 
There has never been a study on this. There has never been 
testimony on this tax. So we really don't know.
    But we are concerned with giving EPA more authority. And 
once you give an agency authority, they kind of grow with it. 
So that is----
    Mr. Pfluger. You know, I figured out very quickly when the 
wind energy folks came to see me and they said, ``Mr. Pfluger, 
we have a problem with the EPA. We can't get a permit to build 
a windmill in your district.''
    I said, ``Oh, well, welcome to the club.''
    We have more wind energy, by the way, Mr. Garcia, in my 
district than the entire State of California. But they can't 
get a permit to do that.
    Mr. Slocum, is wind and solar--do they provide baseload 
capacity?
    Mr. Slocum. They do not. But the question is whether or not 
baseload capacity is always a requirement.
    Mr. Pfluger. Yes.
    Mr. Slocum. Especially--you can balance off intermittence 
with----
    Mr. Pfluger. That is fine, thank you. I think the fact is 
it doesn't, and it is not required in States like California, 
where they have intermittent electricity, which is unreliable. 
However, in most of the United States we want reliable 
electricity.
    We have these balls in the air. One of them is cost, one of 
them is reliability, one of them is geopolitical security. And 
the climate is certainly always going to be right there. We do 
it cheaper, more efficiently, and also more environmentally 
friendly.
    Mr. Garcia, you mentioned that--I don't have the exact 
note, but that there is no boundary on air pollution. Is that--
does that summarize a previous comment?
    Mr. Garcia. For the specific provisions that these--and 
loopholes that these bills would bring about, yes, there would 
be no----
    Mr. Pfluger. No, you said air knows no borders. I found my 
note. ``Air knows no borders.'' I just quoted you on----
    Mr. Garcia. Air, yes, the air----
    Mr. Pfluger. Is that true?
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely, air doesn't know borders.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK, so what are the Chinese doing to curb? Do 
they have taxes on natural gas in China?
    Mr. Garcia. My understanding is that the jurisdiction of 
this committee is about what the United States can do.
    Mr. Pfluger. So my understanding of what you said is that 
air knows no borders. And I want to make the point that, if 
that is true, then the people in my district are being affected 
by Chinese air, just like they are in your home, just like they 
are everywhere throughout the United States or throughout the 
rest of the world.
    So the competitive advantage that we are giving them, 
giving away, the most important resource we have at our 
fingertips, is also causing the actual harming of our climate. 
And it is coming from China. And we have to take actions here 
to compete and to continue to do it better.
    I have 15 more minutes of comments. However, the Chair will 
not let me use that time, and I yield back.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman, and now we will go to 
Mr. Obernolte from California.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Duncan. Is your mic not on? Can you slide over one?
    Mr. Obernolte. There we go. I swear I pushed the button.
    Mr. McNamee, in your testimony you were discussing the need 
to enhance cybersecurity in our natural gas pipelines. And that 
really resonated with me because we all lived through the 
cybersecurity hack of the Colonial Oil pipeline a year and a 
half ago, which, as I am sure everyone in this room knows, 
disrupted the supply of gasoline to the entire southeast United 
States.
    So what can be done? What needs to be done to put those 
protections in place for natural gas pipelines?
    Mr. McNamee. Well, the industry has generally been working 
to try and--to harden their systems, including their electronic 
systems, but also there is the challenge of physical attacks.
    So I think the primary thing that needs to be done is to--
like the reporting issues that want to be done for the bulk 
power system, but also for natural gas. And I think that, you 
know, we need to encourage natural gas pipelines, oil 
pipelines, the electric grid to all be focused on trying to 
find out what is the next thing that is going to happen and 
harden it.
    Because one of the problems with regulations is it tends to 
look backward at what has happened, and, of course, you need to 
harden for that. But the bad guys are way ahead, and so they--
kind of constantly be working for what is the next thing. And 
being aware of what the next thing is is going to be helpful, 
and that is part of what I think that bill will help do.
    Mr. Obernolte. Sure. Well, you know, I think that we are 
having to transition from seeing cybersecurity of privately 
held companies as a business issue to seeing it as a national 
security issue, whereas traditionally we just thought of 
national security being applicable to the Department of Defense 
and agencies of the Government.
    Mr. Slocum, first of all, let me thank you very much for 
not reading your statement. You know, I think that hearings--we 
communicate with each other a lot better when we are not just 
reading at each other. And I just want you to know that we 
noticed, that we appreciate it, and, you know, I think that is 
something we should do some more of.
    So you were talking in your testimony about objecting to 
removing the required finding of being in the national interest 
before liquid natural gas can be exported. And, you know, 
just--we heard some other testimony from various witnesses, 
including Mr. McNamee, about the way that government action can 
create distortions in the markets for energy.
    And I am wondering why that wouldn't be the case here, 
because every time the Government tries to put their finger on 
the scale to try and protect energy markets and manipulate 
energy prices, it seems like things can go awry, and 
particularly in this case, when you are creating, you know, by 
the restriction of natural gas, of liquefied natural gas 
exports, you are creating an economic island that then can be 
vulnerable to things like arbitrage by people with just a 
profit incentive, and the consumer ends up losing anyway.
    So what--why would that not create economic distortions 
that we need to avoid?
    Mr. Slocum. Well, I think because natural gas has 
historically been a regulated commodity.
    So when it was enacted in 1938, this provision, it was 
recognized that natural gas was providing essential services to 
homes and businesses. And so, as a result, if you were going to 
export it or import it, there had to be public interest 
determinations on it because of its essential utility----
    Mr. Obernolte. But should it be, is the question. I mean, I 
think that is the question that the bill that we are we are 
debating is asking, is should it be? Does that actually have 
the intended effect?
    Because many times, as you know, governmental action does 
not.
    Mr. Slocum. Well, I mean, right now, as I pointed out in my 
written testimony, the Department of Energy is not really 
performing a meaningful public interest determination. There 
has never been a rejected application to export natural gas by 
the Department of Energy, right? So that--so it seems like the 
legislation is proposing a solution in search of a problem, 
right, that the Department of Energy is not--there is no 
backlog of applications. It takes sometimes just months between 
the submission of the application of the Department of Energy 
and its approval.
    Mr. Obernolte. OK, that is an interesting different kind of 
line of argument than the one in your testimony. I think both 
are interesting. I would love to continue this discussion. I 
only have a few seconds left here.
    Mr. Garcia, I was going to ask you about this. 
Unfortunately, it is going to be a statement, and not an 
opportunity for you to respond, and I apologize for that.
    But, you know, we have been talking about this economic 
valuation between trying to value human prosperity and ranking 
that against protecting the environment. And I think everyone 
here on the dais would agree that we need to do both. But, you 
know, the problem is that we all represent constituents who are 
suffering.
    In California we pay twice as much for residential 
electricity than neighboring States, three times for 
industrial, four times as much for commercial. My constituents 
pay twice as much for a gallon of gas to put in their car to 
commute to work. They don't have a choice to do that. And this 
is the problem. You know, we have to make those economic 
judgments. And I think that there is a way to effect a win-win.
    But I want to thank you all for your testimony. I found it 
a very interesting hearing.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman. The Chair will now go to 
Mr. Weber from Texas.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to make a 
couple of comments.
    First, the--one of the comments on the panel was earlier, 
before we went to vote--was that bang for energy efficiency--
you get more bang for your buck than you do more power plants.
    And I would submit this for the record and for the panel 
that, you know, power plants, I don't know, 100 years ago there 
was X number. But American population has doubled, tripled, 
increased. And so we are getting more and more people, and 
especially with an open border--thank you, President Biden--we 
are going to have a lot more people, and we are going to need a 
lot more power.
    Now, some of you all know I am from Texas, and we talked 
about Winter Storm Uri, where we went through that two 
Februaries ago, and Texas saw record cold. I am born and raised 
on the Gulf Coast of Texas, 20-mile radius, 69 years. I have 
never seen it be 18 degrees on the Galveston Island.
    So we lost some power. It was a perfect storm. Some of the 
industries that normally--plants that normally shut down in the 
wintertime weren't necessarily ready for that kind of cold. The 
waterlines freeze. South Texas nuclear plant down in Matagorda 
County was one of them. I represented them as a Texas State 
rep. And so we lost--wind energy failed us. Wind turbines, they 
froze up, blades got iced up.
    So we are number 1 in wind energy. We are number 2 in solar 
panels. And you find out very quickly that, in an incident like 
that, you get a lot of cloudy skies. You don't have as much 
sun. Solar panels ice up. They got snow on them. And here is 
the bad news about solar panels: You know the sun goes down at 
night, and so they are not constantly producing electricity.
    We actually met with ERCoT and PUC--the ERCoT, Electric 
Reliability Council of Texas, and the PUC there in Texas--and 
they talked about their plan. There is a website called 
PowertoChoose.org, where you can choose your provider. A lot of 
the providers--some of the providers advertise 100 percent 
green energy. And what that was saying is only solar and wind 
power. They were able to provide--because of the subsidies and 
whatnot--cheaper rates from those who used natural gas, and 
some coal, and even nuclear.
    And so the PUC told us--four of us Members of Congress met 
in Austin with them--that they were going to put a rule into 
place that, if you are a power provider on that website, a 
retail electric provider--we call them REPs, R-E-Ps--they had 
to increase--they had to include, rather, a part of a base load 
that included some reliable, dependable, affordable--and as 
your discussion with Mr. Pfluger was--that is natural gas.
    We have a lot of wind energy in Texas. I didn't know it 
was--most of it was in his district, but I am mighty proud for 
that. A lot of gas pipelines, oil pipelines in his district 
too.
    So I want to go back to Obernolte's discussion about the 
Colonial Pipeline system. The Keystone Pipeline comes into my 
district in Texas. It is the safest way to move product, 
period. Not truck, not rail or barge. It is the safest way. The 
President shut it down.
    Colonial Pipeline system, about 2 or 3 months after Winter 
Storm Uri, was hacked into and was shut down 4 or 5 days. The 
Colonial Pipeline system feeds the southeastern part of the 
United States. It carries 3.1 million barrels of product today: 
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The Keystone pipeline carries 
830,000 barrels of product a day. It is literally one-fourth--
more than one-fourth the output of the entire--the Colonial 
Pipeline system that feeds the entire southeastern part of the 
United States with a leg that goes north.
    So it is extremely important that we have a solid 
baseline--baseload system that is going to be fossil fuels. 
Renewables are great. We like renewables. Make no mistake about 
that. I am tired of our friends across the aisle saying somehow 
we are in the oil companies' back pockets. That is just a 
mischaracterization. But what else do you expect? Did I say 
that out loud?
    At any rate, renewables can--they can--it can be the 
supporting actor in this movie. It cannot be the leading actor 
in this movie. And what we are trying to do today is to make 
sure that we are building that up.
    Mr. Menezes, in your written testimony you outline H.R. 
150, Protecting American Energy Production Act, which I am an 
original cosponsor of, which would prohibit the President from 
declaring a moratorium on fracking, which has started in my 
district. You got 29 seconds. Tell us how good it is, fracking.
    Mr. Menezes. What are we talking about, the virtues of 
hydraulic fracturing?
    I mean, certainly for domestic supply, for export to help 
our friends and allies all over the world get off of Russia, 
natural gas--they have come to us asking.
    You will look at what is going on in the private sector. 
This is without government interaction. In fact, it is beyond 
the reach of the Federal Government. Contracts are being 
entered into by European off-takers and Asian off-takers, our 
friends and allies, for good old U.S. LNG. If the President 
thinks that he can declare an emergency and somehow put a 
moratorium on fracking, he is going to upset the entire 
geopolitical energy markets.
    Mr. Weber. I will say thank you for that.
    And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson [presiding]. Thank you. The gentleman yields 
back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 
Palmer, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk a 
little bit about where some of your funding comes from, where--
how it is used, and particularly about the $27 billion slush 
fund that was put into the Inflation Reduction Act. You stuck 
in $27 billion that basically is going to go to Wall Street 
firms to set up a climate bank. But it doesn't help the 
American people with their utility bills.
    It is about 20 million households that are behind on their 
utility bills. That is about one in six households. It is 
forcing people in some places to literally choose between 
keeping their homes adequately warmed and still be able to 
afford their groceries and their medicine. I think, if Europe 
is any indication, we are going to find out that there are 
several thousand people that will be classified as excess 
winter deaths. We have seen this in the United Kingdom, we have 
seen it in Europe. It has basically become a conduit for seed 
money for this new climate bank. And because there was no 
clarity in it, you have got climate groups fighting over the 
money.
    I am just--Secretary Menezes, will this $27 billion slush 
fund lower the cost of heating for these American families?
    Mr. Menezes. No, the provision is clear. It is to go to 
develop zero-emission technologies for States and 
municipalities----
    Mr. Palmer. Will this slush fund provide natural gas for a 
town like Pembroke Township in Illinois that--85 percent 
African American? They don't have any means to grow their 
economy, they are heating their homes with propane and wood. 
Will it help them?
    Mr. Menezes. Zero-emission technologies, nonprofits, 
municipalities, and States.
    Mr. Palmer. Will it do anything for the people in the 
northeastern part of the United States that are not using 
natural gas, they are using heating oil, and the cost has 
almost doubled in the last couple of years--$5 and something a 
gallon. Will it help them?
    Mr. Menezes. Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. Palmer. Yes, and it has nothing to do with natural gas 
in that area. It is all about heating oil.
    Will it help people who have been--who bought into this 
stuff like Dharnai, India, where in 2014 Greenpeace went in and 
convinced them that they could supply power for the village 
through 100 percent renewables, and 6 years later it is 
basically an animal shed because they couldn't afford it, they 
couldn't--it wouldn't power appliances like a refrigerator that 
most of us take for granted. They couldn't maintain the 
batteries. So now they are getting their power from fossil 
fuel. It wouldn't help in a situation like that, would it?
    Mr. Menezes. I was not aware of that, but I would hope that 
is not the consequence of this fund.
    Mr. Palmer. Yes, there is a really good paper on this from 
the Institute for Energy Research.
    My concern is, looking at China's influence and funding 
various groups that are pushing renewables, that in many 
respects--and I mean this seriously--it undermines our national 
security, this mad dash to renewables.
    I keep hearing some of my colleagues across the aisle talk 
about we don't need to be dependent on foreign sources for oil 
and natural gas. Well, I got news for them. We don't have to 
be. The only reason that we might be is because we refuse to 
access what we have.
    I hear them basically ignore the fact that natural gas is 
largely responsible for the tremendous reduction in greenhouse 
emissions that we have already enjoyed. They ignore the 
technological advances, yet they want us to be dependent on 
China for the--for wind turbines and for solar panels. Does 
that make sense?
    Mr. Menezes. Not to me.
    Mr. Palmer. It doesn't to me, either. It does concern me, 
though, because it becomes a national security issue at that 
point. China is already, in some critical minerals, holding 
back on shipping those, and some of those are critical for our 
national defense, not just our national energy grid.
    But having worked for two international companies, having a 
little bit of an understanding about this--and there is another 
report from the Electric Power Research Institute--we are not 
going to be at net zero by 2050. We don't--the engineering 
doesn't support it. The technology doesn't support it.
    We could be a lot more on the renewable side, but if we 
were really smart about it, we would go to next-gen nuclear and 
power the world. We would be working in sub-Saharan Africa, 
South America, Latin America, and the Caribbean, building 
natural gas facilities so that those people could enjoy the 
same economic benefits that we do, rather than sitting back and 
watching China. They have already built 14 coal-fired power 
plants outside of China, and they built, what, maybe one every 
two weeks now in China.
    So I just--Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to 
raise these issues about the slush fund that I think was put in 
that Inflation Reduction Act, and I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Fulcher, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And coming up on the 
tail end of this, a lot of the subject has been covered 
already, so I am going to go--I think I will address this to 
Mr. Menezes. It has to do with hydro.
    In our State, hydropower, 51 percent of our total in-State 
electricity usage, and it is great, at least for us. It is 
baseload, it is cheap, it is renewable. Comment on hydro as a 
source, and if you agree that it is effective and efficient. 
How do we ensure that that is an ongoing predominant baseload 
source?
    Mr. Menezes. Excellent question. Well, we should be allowed 
to continue to use the dams that are in operation to provide 
the hydropower, first of all. There is a big movement, of 
course, of dam removal, right? So a lot of communities are 
facing that. And so that is a real threat to the hydropower 
that we have today.
    The other thing is, it is going to be impossible to build 
any sizable--a new dam. So you are looking at incremental gain, 
incremental hydro. And so that is to make improvements in the 
existing hydro, perhaps some expansion. And on existing dams, 
perhaps you can put some electricity generating turbines there. 
But that is really the future on hydro that way.
    We do have other potential great technologies. I mean, we 
have tidal, we have run of river, we have a variety of other 
technologies in the using of hydropower. So I think the future 
is still bright on that, but it is going to be very difficult 
to maintain, the base load that we have now.
    The other thing, of course, is pump storage hydro.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK.
    Mr. Menezes. That is another good use of hydro power, 
that----
    Mr. Fulcher. I have heard it said that the greatest battery 
in the world is water behind a dam, storage.
    Mr. Menezes. Yes.
    Mr. Fulcher. I am going to shift to Mr. McNamee, if I may, 
please.
    Another asset we have in my State of Idaho is Idaho 
National Lab. And a lot of research is being done, a lot of 
work with small modular reactors is being done there. Talk 
about that a little bit. I hear various experts talk about the 
benefit of--the greatest benefit being able to decentralize the 
grid, for example. Of course, the no-carbon emission is another 
factor. Others say it is great for redundant backup.
    What is--in your view, what is the most appropriate use, 
the most appropriate role for small modular reactors as those 
come online?
    Mr. McNamee. Well, the ones that you have mentioned are 
absolutely important.
    And another one is reliability. SMRs are really, I think, 
going to transform the way we do the electric grid. And what is 
interesting is, because, you know, they are between 5 to 300 
megawatts, you can build them in a manufacturing facility, you 
can put them on a rail or on a truck, and put them to where 
they need to be. The price is going to come down for nuclear. 
They can run 24/7. They are designed to be much safer than--not 
that current nuclear isn't, but they are going to be safer, the 
way they operate.
    But what is really going to be amazing is, where we were 
talking earlier about having to build long transmission lines 
to get wind, let's say, from the Midwest to the coast, 
whatever, you can put SMRs on old coal plants and use the 
transmission. You are going to save billions of dollars in 
transmission. So SMR technology, it is--we are about to be able 
to embrace it, and it is going to be a big change.
    Mr. Fulcher. Great, thank you. Very helpful for me.
    Ms. Sweeney, you are not off the hook. I got a question for 
you. In your written testimony you talk about, I think, it is 
80 percent, nearly 90 percent of global rare earth elements 
from China.
    Ms. Sweeney. Yes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Is that mainly because that is where those 
earths are, or is that for other reasons?
    Ms. Sweeney. No, the U.S. was the leading rare earths 
producer throughout, I think, the early 1970s. It is really 
because China focused on rare earth development, and they 
started, you know, printing money and cornering the market, and 
then they were able to bring over anybody who wanted to be an 
end user of those products. They brought all the processing 
into China, and they were able to pretty much control that 
market, and still do.
    Mr. Fulcher. And here we are. Right, thank you. That is 
what I suspected. But one last question for you, and I only 
have 40 seconds left, but--and you did touch on this, but I 
would like you to touch on it again, please.
    Once again, in your written testimony you talked about the 
permitting process for mining projects. With the current 
administration that we have got, what are some of the things 
that that administration could do to make that permitting 
process better without going through the statutory process?
    Ms. Sweeney. There are a lot of commonsense solutions out 
there. I mean, really, it is looking at how to use NEPA the way 
it was intended to be used.
    So essentially, there are--agencies are supposed to try to 
avoid duplication. They are supposed to tier off of each 
other's environmental assessments, use the same information. 
There are a lot of commonsense solutions that don't need any 
changes statutorily.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair is--now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell, for--oh, 
I am sorry, Mrs. Dingell. Sorry about that. I got it out of 
order. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 
being here.
    I want to quote the great Thomas Sowell that the first 
lesson of economics is scarcity. There is never enough of 
anything for all the people who want it. And the first lesson 
of politics is to ignore the first lesson of economics. And 
that seems to be the rule that I think radical environmentalism 
plays when it comes to understanding basic supply and demand, 
and how that affects prices.
    Now, we can engage in wishful thinking, and we can wish for 
a reality that is different than the one we live in, where 
supply and demand aren't real forces, and that we can just make 
them up and demand the prices that we feel like having and 
expect the supply to then be there when we need it. Of course, 
that is not reality. We can we can go write fiction novels 
about it, I suppose, if we would like. That might be fun.
    So I want to talk about supply and demand on something very 
specific, and that is our refineries, because this EPA rule has 
gotten a lot of attention, and our bill, in response to that 
EPA rule, has gotten a lot of attention today.
    It is worth noting, first, that 8 refineries have shut down 
in the last 5 years. It is one of the great reasons for the 
bottlenecks in refinery production and, of course, the reason 
for prices going up and staying up. When demand post-COVID shot 
up and recovered, the supply could not recover accordingly. 
Just the basics here.
    Now the EPA wants to make that supply harder. The EPA wants 
to target hydrofluoric acid using refineries. That would affect 
41 of our 130 refineries. That is 50 percent of all the product 
refined.
    Mr. Garcia, you talked about this today. I mean, what is 
really the intent behind this? And you have said it, so I am 
going to paraphrase you, which--the intent is to get them to 
change to a sulfuric acid-type refinery. Is that correct?
    Mr. Garcia. No, the intent is for them to actually take the 
time to explore alternatives that are going to make it safer.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Well, there is only one alternative. So you 
want them to change, though, right? I mean, you want them to 
use the different ingredient for the refineries, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Garcia. We have talked about innovation. And so the 
analysis actually leads to innovation. And so the idea is that, 
while there might be one today, there could be more in the 
future. But you have to do the analysis in order to discover 
what that innovation is going to look like.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Would a risk analysis discover innovation? I 
have never heard of an innovation, a new technology, discovered 
by a risk analysis.
    Mr. Garcia. If you are taking into account--if you are 
exploring what alternatives are out there, then yes, it will.
    Mr. Crenshaw. How?
    Mr. Garcia. Again, if you are exploring----
    Mr. Crenshaw. Like, you are a----
    Mr. Garcia. If you are looking at new science----
    Mr. Crenshaw. Is there any idea?
    Mr. Garcia. You are looking at new science. I mean, you are 
looking at new science, new developments in technology that 
come about. And so, as those new developments in technology 
come about----
    Mr. Crenshaw. OK, so we can write a fiction novel about it.
    Mr. Garcia [continuing]. Into which you can actually 
implement them, into the refinery----
    Mr. Crenshaw. I understand, I understand. There is no 
answer.
    Mr. Garcia [continuing]. That is how you get progress.
    Mr. Crenshaw. There is no answer. Again, we could write a 
fiction novel about it. That would be fun. But this is reality. 
So in reality, there is one other alternative, which is the 
sulfuric acid use of--type of refinery.
    Now, if we shut down the 41 refineries to transition to 
that, which I suppose is deemed safer for some reason, that 
would take 50 percent of our refining capacity offline.
    Mr. Menezes, what would that do to our economy and our gas 
prices?
    Mr. Menezes. Fifty percent of our refined products offline? 
Well, we have a demand of about 20 million, 17 million barrels 
per day, you know, for refined products. If we lost half of 
that, I can only imagine what it would do on all the economies 
that depend on trucks, on, you know, transportation, your 
constituents that need to drive.
    I am not even sure our national energy modeling system at 
DOE can model a 50 percent reduction----
    Mr. Crenshaw. And we have gotten some numbers on this. It 
would take 2 to 3 years for each facility to change. It would 
take a minimum of $200 million, or potentially $800 million, 
depending on the size. So we are talking billions and tens of 
billions of dollars in costs. For what benefit? I don't even 
know.
    And a guaranteed increase in prices. I mean, we are 
fighting for the disenfranchised here, for people who can't 
afford to fill up their tanks, and yet all but guaranteeing 
that they can't do so for almost no benefit. And that is the 
theme, that is the general theme of radical environmentalism: 
great cost for almost no benefit. That is a problem.
    And so our bill that has been chastised quite a bit in this 
hearing is simply in response to that, and says, look, if the 
plant already exists, if the refining plant already exists or 
is in construction, it is exempt from this new rule. If it is 
being planned, then by all means, take into account this 
particular rule and risk assessment. That is just--that is 
commonsense environmentalism.
    And I urge this committee--because we all want clean 
energy. Anybody who follows me knows that I am constantly 
battling for it. But we have to do so in a way that doesn't 
hurt people more than we want to help them.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. And now the Chair 
is honored to once again recognize the gentlelady from 
Michigan, Mrs. Dingell, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 
the witnesses who have to be ready to end this.
    And I do have to say I am worried about the number of 
pieces of this legislation, because I care deeply about making 
sure that we are taking care of everybody and that they can 
afford the energy of the future. And yet it is many of our 
children that are suffering from asthma and many other things, 
and that what we are talking about here is going to give 
handouts to oil and gas and undermine our Nation's 
environmental laws and actually rescind programs that are doing 
something about greenhouse gas.
    But I want to get to two very specific issues today. I want 
to start with the draft legislation to repeal the Greenhouse 
Gas Reduction Fund and close by focusing on our critical 
minerals supply.
    The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which was established in 
the Inflation Reduction Act and based on original legislation I 
authored--so yes, I care about it--will invest $27 billion to 
develop clean energy projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions. Over 40 percent of the funding will also target 
disadvantaged communities, communities that for far too long 
have carried the brunt of environmental pollution.
    For years I have been a champion of a clean energy 
accelerator similar to this fund because of its potential to 
accelerate the clean energy transition. Therefore, I am 
disappointed to see my colleagues on the other side propose 
repealing this historic program, which the EPA has yet to even 
fully implement, and the benefits which have yet to be 
fulfilled.
    I am going to start with Mr. Garcia. My first question is 
simple.
    How will repealing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund affect 
our ability to meet our climate goals?
    Mr. Garcia. Well, in a lot of the calculations that we are 
talking about in terms of economic investment across the 
country for energy production, no one is accounting the actual 
harm that is coming our way because we keep investing in dirty 
fuels.
    And so that is one thing that I have noticed about the 
proponents of these bills, and it is a larger narrative, is 
that they want to sweep all of these consequences under the 
table.
    You know, if you have hydrofluoric acid in a refinery, yes, 
it can blow up. I think that might hurt the economy, right?
    So the same thing happens when we are talking about 
investment. It is making sure that we are making investments 
for the right long-term outcomes. And so that is what the 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund really does.
    Now, it is not a slush fund. People keep calling it a slush 
fund. It is really not. Fifty-five percent of the overall 
program funding will be dedicated to projects in low-income and 
disadvantaged communities. Eight billion of the 20 billion is 
earmarked for low-income and disadvantaged communities, plus a 
separate 7 billion program. And so that is something that we 
have to keep in mind.
    For--since the last industrial revolution, communities of 
color and low income have bore the burden that all of these 
industries put on their shoulders. And so this is the least 
that we could do at this point, and it is something that we 
need to see fulfilled, and we need--and it is something that 
won't cure the sins of the past but will certainly help get us 
to better consequences in the long term.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. I had a couple more questions, but 
I am down to almost a minute.
    So this fund is specifically designed to provide funding 
for projects where investment is lacking, effectively filling 
in a funding gap rather than duplicating Federal programs.
    Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask if I can submit some 
further questions on this, because I think it is really going 
to hurt frontline communities.
    And I would also like to request unanimous consent to 
submit a letter for the record from the environmental community 
expressing strong opposition to the legislation repealing the--
--
    Mr. Johnson. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. My remaining time is on critical 
minerals.
    Strengthening supply chains for electric vehicles and 
batteries is a top priority for me. We cannot and will not be 
dependent on China. And I want to keep my own State of Michigan 
as a leader in this sector.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law made historic investments 
in battery manufacturing and recycling facilities, battery 
reprocessing, and critical minerals mining and recycling 
research. These investments are a critical down payment, but we 
all know that more work needs to be done to meet the demand for 
these critical minerals.
    Mr. Garcia, what policies should this committee be 
exploring to develop and strengthen our critical mineral supply 
chains in an equitable, sustainable way?
    And you may need to provide more on that for the record.
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely. I will say quickly that it has to 
look to strengthen and enforce the laws that are in the books 
right now in order to make sure that that extraction and that 
recycling happens in a way that protects communities first but 
still yields the adequate production that is needed in order to 
get new kinds of transportation methods, clean types of 
transportation methods on the roads.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I will yield back, and I do want to work with 
you in a bipartisan way, but I have some real concerns. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. And now, seeing 
there are no further Members wishing to ask questions, I would 
like to thank all of our witnesses once again for being here 
with us today.
    I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the 
documents included on the staff hearing documents list.
    Without objection, that will be the order.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Johnson. And pursuant to committee rules, I remind 
Members that they have 10 business days to submit additional 
questions for the record, and I ask that witnesses submit their 
response within 10 business days upon receipt of those 
questions.
    Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the subcommittees were 
adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record 
follows:\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Legislation and some submitted material have been retained in 
committee files and are available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/
Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=115306.


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                                 [all]