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





                              




 
                            OVERSIGHT OF THE


                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 23, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-113

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
  
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

  
  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                             
                           ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 55-829PDF              WASHINGTON : 2024                           
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida               Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina      Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida

                                 ------                                
                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                Kim Waskowsky, Professional Staff Member
                     Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel
                          David Ehmen, Counsel
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

                                 ------                                
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page

Hearing held on May 23, 2024.....................................     1

                               WITNESSES

                              ----------                              
The Honorable Jennifer Granholm, Secretary, U.S. Department of 
  Energy
    Oral Statement...............................................     5

Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

  * Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

  * Letter, May 6, 2024, to Secretary Granholm; submitted by 
  Chairman Comer.

  * Article, CNN, ``Ford just reported a massive loss on every 
  electric vehicle it sold'', submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Staff Report on Energy; submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * U.S. Code, 15 U.S. Code  717b - Exportation or importation 
  of natural gas; submitted by Rep. Higgins.

  * Letter, December 5, 2023, to Sierra Club, from PJM; submitted 
  by Rep. Perry.

  * Article, Boston Globe, ``EV transition booming in 
  Massachusetts''; submitted by Rep. Pressley.

  * Questions for the Record: to Ms. Granholm; submitted by 
  Chairman Comer.

  * Questions for the Record: to Ms. Granholm; submitted by Rep. 
  Turner.

  * Questions for the Record: to Ms. Granholm; submitted by Rep. 
  Cloud.

  * Questions for the Record: to Ms. Granholm; submitted by Rep. 
  Fallon.

  * Questions for the Record: to Ms. Granholm; submitted by Rep. 
  Donalds.

  * Questions for the Record: to Ms. Granholm; submitted by Rep. 
  Perry.

  * Questions for the Record: to Ms. Granholm; submitted by Rep. 
  Fry.

  * Questions for the Record: to Ms. Granholm; submitted by Rep. 
  Luna.

  * Questions for the Record: to Ms. Granholm; submitted by Rep. 
  Langworthy.

The documents listed are available at: docs.house.gov.


                            OVERSIGHT OF THE



                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                              ----------                              


                         Thursday, May 23, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Comer, Grothman, Palmer, Higgins, 
Sessions, Biggs, Mace, Fallon, Donalds, Perry, Burchett, Fry, 
Luna, Burlison, Waltz, Raskin, Norton, Lynch, Krishnamoorthi, 
Bush, Brown, Frost, Lee of Pennsylvania, Casar, Tlaib, and 
Pressley.
    Chairman Comer. The Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability will come to order.
    I want to welcome everyone.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for being here today 
before the Committee. We are glad that you have returned safely 
after traveling to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates 
last week.
    I am sure you were well-received abroad, but I hope the 
purpose of your trip was not to urge these foreign nations to 
boost their output of fossil fuels, especially while President 
Biden and his Administration, including you as Secretary of the 
Department of Energy, have taken several actions to make the 
United States less energy independent, including by trying to 
shut down American fossil fuel production.
    President Biden and the Secretary should not be 
prioritizing foreign energy over American energy when we have 
the natural resources and producers to be energy independent. 
Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has pursued policies 
that have jeopardized economic opportunities, threatened U.S. 
energy security and national security, raised energy costs on 
Americans, and hurt American small businesses.
    Today marks the Committee's 15th hearing at the full and 
subcommittee level during the 118th Congress, specifically 
related to the Biden Administration's American energy policies 
and burdensome regulations. Our oversight hearings have 
examined a range of topics, including energy efficiency 
standards, critical minerals, nuclear energy, and the 
Administration's ban on liquified natural gas export permits to 
non-free trade agreement countries.
    Decisions like the Department's ban on new liquified 
natural gas export permits are just the most recent example of 
how the Department has jeopardized our energy security, jobs, 
and producers.
    According to the Center for LNG, increasing LNG exports 
provides great economic benefits, like bolstering labor incomes 
and lowering the cost of imported goods, thereby protecting 
consumers from inflation. Further, we know that increased U.S. 
LNG sent to Europe will safeguard the continent from reliance 
on Russian gas.
    Rather than ask questions about the consequences of the LNG 
ban or other Administration policies, however, today, we will 
likely hear Committee Democrats demonize U.S. oil and gas 
producers.
    While Democrats politicize energy and target American 
producers, average national gasoline prices surged on President 
Biden's watch to an all-time high, with an average national 
price of gas reaching more than $5 a gallon in the summer of 
2022. congressional Republicans share a different vision for 
America's energy future. On March 30, 2023, the Republican 
Majority House passed H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, which 
would reform the permitting process, lower process for 
consumers, and help restore U.S. energy leadership for the 
world. And today, the Committee has released a report detailing 
the harms the Biden Administration policies have inflicted on 
American consumers and the U.S. economy, which I will enter 
into the record with unanimous consent.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    It is undeniable that gas prices are higher under the Biden 
Administration, with gas prices surging to over $5 nationally 
in 2022 as a result of Biden Administration policies.
    And as the Biden Administration rapidly overloads our grid 
with its electrification-at-all-costs push, American consumers 
face skyrocketing electricity prices. Electricity prices have 
risen faster than the pace of inflation and more so than any 
other commodity.
    Our Committee's work in the 118th Congress has ranged from 
the Department's LNG ban, elimination of consumer choices for 
home appliances, historic depletion of the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve and, of course, the waste of taxpayer dollars on the 
Secretary's now famous and disastrous 4-day summer 2023 
electric vehicle road trip.
    This work has expanded to include the Committee's 
governmentwide investigation into the Chinese Communist Party's 
ongoing efforts to target, influence, and undermine every 
sector and community in the United States, including the energy 
sector.
    But the Biden Administration's rhetoric on climate change 
and adoption of radical Green New Deal policies, specifically 
its electronic vehicle mandates, play directly into China's 
hands.
    Committee Republicans will continue to conduct oversight of 
government waste, fraud, and abuse. We will not stand by 
silently as the Biden Administration subverts America's energy 
independence and demonizes this critical industry.
    I now yield to the Ranking Member for his opening remarks.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Thank you, Secretary Granholm, for joining us today. And I 
also hope that you are not traveling around the world promoting 
more fossil fuel combustion and use.
    My colleagues had invited you here today to testify about 
President Biden's so-called war on energy, which we know does 
not exist. For better or worse, the United States is producing 
record high levels of oil and natural gas today. It has never 
been so high, so our colleagues can breathe easy if that is 
their principal interest.
    At the same time, President Biden and the Department of 
Energy, in partnership with Democrats in Congress, are making 
historic and necessary investments in clean energy technology. 
Climate change is the defining crisis of our time, and we know 
that burning fossil fuels is, by far, the leading factor in 
contributing to climate change, a fact that fossil fuel 
companies knew about decades ago but suppressed.
    Our recent joint staff report with the Senate Budget 
Committee showed the evolution of Big Oil's efforts to deceive 
the American public, from outright denial of the facts that 
they understood in the 1960s and 1970s, and then more up-to-
date subtle propaganda and disinformation efforts today to try 
to lead us away from the solutions that we need.
    Because of this deception, we have lost crucial decades in 
which we could have been systematically transitioning away from 
dirty, polluting fossil fuels to the cleaner alternative 
energies we need. Now we are forced to take much more dramatic 
actions to transition to clean energy as quickly as possible.
    With every passing day, the consequences of climate change 
grow in intensity. In just the last week, we have learned, not 
only are the sea levels rising, not only are we seeing record 
forest fires, record drought, record flooding in different 
parts of the country, hurricanes of record velocity, but there 
is even greater disruption taking place to people's daily 
lives. There are swarms of mosquitoes in Harris County, Texas, 
in unprecedented numbers and sizes. The oceans are actually 
changing colors. We are in a very rapid downward descent 
because of climate change.
    Researchers have found that the economic damage caused by 
climate change is six times worse than was previously 
predicted. A new paper estimates that just 1 degree Celsius of 
warming would cause the world's GDP to decline by 12 percent. 
We already hit more than 1 degree Celsius of warming since 
preindustrial times and are currently on track to hit 3 degrees 
Celsius of warming by the end of the century.
    We must break free from the carbon trap, which will require 
significant effort and investment into the clean energy 
transition. The Department of Energy, I believe, is doing that, 
thanks to funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Because of these historic 
investments the American people have made, the U.S. is on track 
by 2030 to double the amount of clean energy we generate and to 
cut emissions by 40 to 50 percent compared to 2005 levels.
    The Administration's focus on clean energy has also spurred 
over $400 billion of new investments in clean energy by private 
companies, about half of which is specifically being invested 
in manufacturing today. The U.S. economy has added 800,000 
manufacturing jobs since the start of this Administration, and 
the Inflation Reduction Act is anticipated to create more than 
1.5 million jobs over the next decade. We have not had an 
unemployment rate this low in more than 50 years, and the clean 
energy economy plays a very important role in this economic 
renaissance.
    Unlike my colleagues across the aisle who want to promote 
falsehoods about this imaginary war on energy, Democrats 
recognize that the transition to clean energy is not just good 
for our climate and good for our planet, but also good for our 
economy and good for our communities. Every single one of our 
districts is profiting right now from the benefits of projects 
funded by the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure legislation.
    In fact, a company in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, in the good 
Chairman's district, is receiving $480 million in Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law funding for sustainable battery 
manufacturing. Another company in Calvert City, Kentucky, also 
in the Chairman's district, which I use by way of illustration, 
is receiving up to $35 million in Federal cost share under the 
Inflation Reduction Act to electrify and decarbonize its 
heating process.
    This is taking place all over America today. This is 
happening now. These types of investments are significant and 
historic. They are exactly what we need to move away from the 
dangerous dependence on fossil fuels. And that is not a 
question of moral guilt. The whole society is implicated in it, 
but we have got to save ourselves from the implications of it.
    I commend the work of the Biden-Harris Administration. I 
commend you, Madam Secretary, for everything you have been 
doing to ensure the United States is able to transition 
effectively away from dirty energy to clean energy while also 
making sure that our economy is strong.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    Today we are joined by the Honorable Jennifer Granholm, who 
was sworn into office on February 25, 2021, as the Secretary of 
the U.S. Department of Energy.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witness will please 
stand and raise her right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Secretary Granholm. I do.
    Chairman Comer. Let the record show that the witness 
answered in the affirmative, and thank you.
    We appreciate you being here today. Look forward to your 
testimony. Let me remind you, Madam Secretary, that we have 
read your written statement, and it will appear in full in the 
hearing record. Please limit your oral statement to 5 minutes.
    As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in 
front of you so it is on, and the Members can hear you. When 
you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green. 
After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light 
comes on, your 5 minutes have expired. We would ask that you 
wrap up.
    I now recognize Secretary Granholm for her opening 
statement.

              STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JENNIFER GRANHOLM

                               SECRETARY

                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Secretary Granholm. Great. Thank you so much.
    Chairman Comer, Ranking Member Raskin, and Members of the 
Committee, I am so proud to be here representing more than 
100,000 talented, hardworking public servants who make up the 
Department of Energy.
    Three years ago, I joined this Administration, believing 
that if America could come together around a national energy 
strategy, we could restore American manufacturing, we could 
create jobs, we could address the climate crisis and become 
energy independent and secure.
    And today, we are doing just that. America is back. Thanks 
to Congress' efforts and the President's vision, we are 
executing a focused, deliberate strategy that positions our 
businesses to dominate, our workers to compete, and our 
communities to thrive. And it is working. We are rebuilding our 
manufacturing backbone.
    Since the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, for 
example, companies have announced more than 600 new or expanded 
plants on American soil just for clean energy, hundreds of 
billions in planned investment, for batteries, for electric 
vehicles, solar, wind, nuclear and more; tens of thousands of 
jobs being created from the industrial Midwest to the 
industrious mid-Atlantic to the Southern battery belt to the 
Southwest sunbelt to the West Coast to the Gulf Coast.
    By re-shoring and on-shoring manufacturing supply chains, 
we are also catching up to our global competitors. For example, 
right now, China possesses 65 percent of the world's lithium 
and 100 percent of its graphite, which are critical for 21st 
century technologies. But because of the President's 
investments, U.S. graphite production is expected to increase 
25 fold by 2030. Lithium production is expected to increase 85 
fold. And through it all, we have spurred a nationwide effort 
to modernize America's energy system, which will bring more 
clean power to more families at lower cost. For example, we are 
supporting the build-out of more than 600 miles of new 
transmission lines.
    This strategy to strengthen America's energy security, to 
protect American jobs, and to save American families money is 
guiding our work across the Department. It is behind our 
successful usage of the Strategic Petroleum Reserves.
    Our sales in the summer of 2022, kept Russia's 
weaponization of energy markets from hurting our consumers at 
the pump. And now, our replenishment strategy has almost 
finished restoring those supplies at a bargain for the 
taxpayer.
    The strategy has also guided our energy efficiency 
rulemaking process. For example, last month, DOE finalized 
energy conservation standards for domestic power transformers 
that will increase their efficiency and competitiveness, while 
saving American steel jobs.
    In short, Congress and the President have crafted a 
historic strategy to invest in America, and DOE is proud to 
help implement it. We recognize that we have been entrusted 
with unprecedented resources to do so, and that is why at every 
step of the way, we are taking extra measures to protect the 
American taxpayer's investment, to meet the goals set forth by 
Congress, and to avoid potential for waste, fraud, and abuse.
    We have set up new processes for our offices to coordinate 
on program designs so that we are eliminating redundancies, 
leveraging expertise across the Department, and learning from 
past experiences.
    From day one, we have prioritized hiring specialists in 
project and program oversight, in grant management, in 
contracting, financial and audit oversight. And we regularly 
and proactively seek guidance from DOE's Office of Inspector 
General on how to best protect the integrity of our 
investments.
    Our continued cooperation will be essential for keeping 
this momentum and building a stronger and safer future for the 
American people.
    I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
    We will now begin our questions. We will begin with the 
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, thank you for appearing before us today. 
We are going to be moving rather quickly today, so I am going 
to ask you to focus here.
    Has the Department of Energy determined whether exporting 
LNG to our allies around the world is in the public interest, 
yes or no?
    Secretary Granholm. We are in the middle of a study that is 
updating----
    Mr. Higgins. We are in the middle of----
    Secretary Granholm [continuing]. That is updating our 
assessment of what is in the public interest.
    Mr. Higgins. Would that be a no?
    Secretary Granholm. We are in the middle of updating our 
assessment.
    Mr. Higgins. So, you have not yet determined?
    Secretary Granholm. It will be complete in the first 
quarter of next year.
    Mr. Higgins. That would be a no, ma'am.
    Please, let us not effort to filibuster each other. I asked 
you a simple question. Has the Department of Energy determined 
whether exporting LNG to our allies around the world is in the 
public interest?
    Secretary Granholm. And I am answering in a simple way. We 
are in the middle of updating our assessment.
    Mr. Higgins. That would be a no.
    Have you made the touchdown? Have you got to the end zone? 
Well, we are working on it. We just got a first down.
    Secretary Granholm. We are in the middle of the play, sir.
    Mr. Higgins. That would be no, you have not made it to the 
end zone yet.
    This is what we are dealing with, Mr. Chairman. We cannot 
get a straight answer out of this Administration.
    We will see. You are on record today.
    Why have you issued a long-term ban on export permit 
approvals prior to determining whether or not exporting LNG is 
within the public interest?
    Secretary Granholm. No. 1, we have not issued a ban. No. 2, 
it is not long-term. It is a pause to update our assessment. 
The assessment will be done by the first quarter of next year.
    Mr. Higgins. Why have you issued the ban, according to your 
self-determination----
    Secretary Granholm. It is not a ban. It is not a ban, sir.
    Mr. Higgins. We are not going to get a straight answer out 
of you today, are we?
    Secretary Granholm. It is not a ban, sir. That is a 
straight answer.
    Mr. Higgins. It is a ban. What statutory authority do you 
claim to have to pause issuing permits--I will use your 
language--to pause issuing permits? What statutory authority?
    Secretary Granholm. The Natural Gas Act requires that we 
determine whether authorizations for export of liquified 
natural gas are in the public interest. We are determining what 
is in the public interest.
    Mr. Higgins. Precisely. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter 
into the record what I am about to read. Citing from Section 3 
of the Natural Gas Act, Title 15, U.S. Code 717(b), under 
commerce and trade, Exportation or importation of natural gas; 
LNG terminals. Under paragraph (a), Mandatory authorization 
order, it says, and I quote, ``The Commission shall issue such 
order upon application, unless, after opportunity for hearing, 
it finds''--not trying to find, in the process of finding, 
talking about finding, writing about finding--``it finds that 
the proposed exportation or importation will not be consistent 
with the public interest.''
    Mr. Chairman, I ask that it be entered into the record.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Higgins. In the Natural Gas Act, as I have just stated, 
it clearly states that you shall issue permits unless you find 
that it is not in the public interest, which has not yet 
happened. And yet you have issued--you have mandated a pause. 
You have not issued permits.
    How can you pause permits and approvals if you have not 
determined that exporting LNG is or is not in the public 
interest?
    Secretary Granholm. We are updating our assessment to make 
that exact determination, sir.
    Mr. Higgins. Is that your answer?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Mr. Higgins. That is your answer. I asked you how?
    Secretary Granholm. How? Because the act says unless----
    Mr. Higgins. You say you are updating. You are updating.
    Secretary Granholm. The act says unless it is in the public 
interest.
    Mr. Higgins. I have clearly stated, ma'am. The law requires 
you--does the law require you to issue permits unless you have 
determined that it is not in the public interest?
    Secretary Granholm. Correct.
    Mr. Higgins. All right. Have you determined that it is not 
in the public interest?
    Secretary Granholm. That is why we are doing the 
assessment.
    Mr. Higgins. No, you have not.
    Secretary Granholm. That is why we are doing the 
assessment, sir.
    Mr. Higgins. And yet you have paused permits.
    The Obama Administration conducted a study in 2014 and 
1915. During that study, the DOE continued to process non-FTA 
export authorization applications while updating its studies.
    You have precedent established by a former Democrat 
President in your Department that states that if you have 
pending applications that have been completed and are standing 
by, then you should move forward while you are in the process 
of not quite getting to the end zone on determining whether or 
not it is in the public interest.
    It is clear to me that the American men and women around 
the country are watching today and that we recognize that you 
do not have the authority nor the precedents to take the 
actions that you have indeed taken.
    This pause, Mr. Chairman, jeopardizes billions of dollars 
of interest, American jobs, American families, and a clean, 
reliable energy source that contributes to our national 
security and energy security and moral security for our allies. 
This is yet another illegal action by the Biden Administration 
being forced upon we the people.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields.
    The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Raskin from 
Maryland.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Granholm, welcome to the Oversight Committee.
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. And thank you for your great hard work on 
behalf of the American people.
    And let me start with something that I mentioned before, 
which is we actually have record high production of gas and oil 
right now. Isn't that right?
    Secretary Granholm. Correct.
    Mr. Raskin. Will you explain how that is measured and how 
that is monitored?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, we are--the oil and gas industry, 
we are record exporters of liquified natural gas. None of that 
has been stopped. We are the world's largest exporter of 
liquified natural gas. We are the world's largest producer of 
oil, crude oil, as well.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. So, you are undertaking this public 
interest process that the very distinguished gentleman from 
Louisiana just invoked. You are in the middle of that process, 
and so you have paused in the LNG export permit process.
    What effect will that actually have on LNG exports in the 
near and foreseeable future?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you for the question, 
because it has absolutely no impact on any exports that are 
happening now. We have authorized 48 billion cubic feet of 
export of liquified natural gas, 48 billion. That is three 
times what we are currently exporting.
    We are the largest exporter at 14 billion cubic feet. And, 
in addition to that, we have authorized another 22 that are 
under construction, 22 billion that are currently under 
construction.
    The bottom line is so much has happened in terms of exports 
of liquified natural gas since the last assessment was done, we 
have exploded our authorizations.
    So, this pause only applies to new ones coming down the 
pike. Everybody who is exporting now, everybody who is under 
construction, everybody who is authorized who does not have a 
final investment decision, all can proceed.
    We are the biggest exporter. We will continue to be 
exporting. And it will not affect the jobs. It will not affect 
what is happening already in terms of exports.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, our colleague invites us to imagine that 
there is some kind of categorical ban on exports of liquified 
natural gas and that there is some sort of cutoff taking place. 
Is there a cutoff?
    Secretary Granholm. There is no cutoff. There is no cutoff. 
We have to do an assessment of what is in the public interest, 
given the huge amounts that we have authorized.
    Mr. Raskin. But that assessment is going forward. It is not 
about any of the projects that are currently taking place now, 
right?
    Secretary Granholm. Correct. That is correct.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. So, we want to try to restore some sense of 
proportion and reality to the conversation. I know there is 
this effort to define your policies bizarrely as a war on 
energy. Can you just respond to that convoluted rhetorical 
claim?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, I think that the United States 
right now would be considered energy dominant. We are No. 1 in 
oil and gas. We are No. 1 in exports. And we are aggressively 
seeking to be larger in our deployment of renewable energy as 
well, which is what Congress has given us the authority to do.
    So, we are an energy country, and we will remain an energy-
exporting country even as we continue to deploy, deploy, deploy 
renewable energy for use at home.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. The ex-President just went before a whole 
bunch of oil and gas executives and essentially demanded that 
they give his campaign a billion dollars because he was going 
to release a rash of regulations reversing climate progress and 
reversing the policies of your Administration.
    He promised to auction off more leases for oil drilling in 
the Gulf of Mexico and has been repeatedly chanting at rallies 
``drill, baby, drill.''
    What would happen to our climate goals if we actually 
undertook to reverse all of the progress made under the Biden-
Harris Administration?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, obviously, we want to get to net 
zero by 2050 as a Nation, but also in conjunction with all 
other nations on the planet who are seeking to address climate 
change for the reasons that you stated in your opening 
statement, in terms of the number of extreme weather events, 
which costs us so much more than addressing climate change 
costs us.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes.
    Secretary Granholm. In the end, we have to--we have a 
responsibility to our citizens.
    Mr. Raskin. As Secretary of Energy, do you think climate 
denialism is dangerous to the future of our country?
    Secretary Granholm. Of course, it is. It is dangerous to us 
as humans. It is dangerous to our economy as well. The 
opportunity in clean energy is enormous across the country, 
so----
    Mr. Raskin. And I remember there was a time when the 
Secretary of Energy would appear to be at odds with the 
Secretary of the EPA and the people working on environment, but 
tell us about the inside of the Administration.
    You have these record levels of gas and oil production and 
other renewable energies moving forward, but do you see your 
job as opposed to the job of the people who are working to 
preserve our climate?
    Secretary Granholm. Not at all. We work in conjunction with 
the Department of Interior, the EPA. We work together. And we 
want to make sure that we are producing energy enough to keep 
the lights on and to keep people moving, but we do it in the 
cleanest way possible. And we can do both.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you for your hard work.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Sessions from Texas.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Secretary, welcome. We are delighted that you are here. We 
have had a series of days where, on both sides, we ask leading-
edge questions, expect leading-edge answers. And on a 
bipartisan basis, we are delighted that you are here.
    I spent the last 10 minutes hearing about how great of a 
job that the Secretary is doing in education. Tell me about 
LIHEAP's dumping billions of gallons of crude oil into the 
Northeast every year. And----
    Secretary Granholm. Did you say LIHEAP?
    Mr. Sessions. LIHEAP.
    Secretary Granholm. The Low-Income Heating----
    Mr. Sessions. Right. It uses diesel. That is the Federal 
Government's low-income opportunity and answer to keep people 
warm, poor people. 2008, a spike happened. We are putting an 
increasing amount of money into this. We are dumping billions 
of gallons of home heating fuel into the Northeast rather than 
going to a clean solution.
    So, you are talking about all these great things that 
happen, but this government, for the last 4 years, and 
President Obama dumped billions of gallons of home heating fuel 
into the air. And yet you are sitting here talking about what a 
threat all this is that the energy companies are doing.
    Why don't you tell us about LIHEAP.
    Secretary Granholm. Well, LIHEAP keeps the lights on for 
poor families.
    Mr. Sessions. I know it does.
    Secretary Granholm. It is a really important safety net----
    Mr. Sessions. I know it is.
    Secretary Granholm [continuing]. For poor people.
    Mr. Sessions. So, what have you done to turn that needle 
around----
    Secretary Granholm. Well, let me tell you.
    Mr. Sessions [continuing]. When you are trying to take 
care--when you want to ban natural gas?
    Secretary Granholm. What we want to do is to make sure that 
poor families have the same ability to----
    Mr. Sessions. Oh, I agree with that.
    Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Weatherize their homes, 
for example, as wealthy people. So, one of the programs that is 
under our jurisdiction----
    Mr. Sessions. Natural gas is far cheaper.
    Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Is weatherization. Natural 
gas is cheap right now. You are very correct about that.
    Mr. Sessions. And it has been.
    Secretary Granholm. But what I am saying----
    Mr. Sessions. And it is cleaner, which is your main thesis.
    All right, Madam Secretary, I would like to go next, and I 
want to talk about Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing 
Program. And this was designed as an opportunity that Congress 
gave the Secretary authority and money to innovate for ultra-
efficient vehicles.
    And yet it should contain, based upon the scenarios and the 
ratios, almost anybody that would qualify, based upon their 
ratio of making cleaner energy. And yet I see where over and 
over your department is going on the side of EV as opposed to 
other ideas.
    Yet we know that electronic vehicles--just ask Avis and 
Hertz--they cannot even get rid of them. The diminishing value, 
the loss of jobs, the amount of problems that come with these. 
And yet I see your department giving money, loans, entirely to 
EV projects as opposed to others that may qualify also.
    Could you please talk about that? You got a minute, 47 
seconds, ma'am.
    Secretary Granholm. OK. The ATVM Program, through the Loan 
Programs Office, was directed by Congress. And so, yes, it is 
encouraging the development of technologies and businesses who 
are building batteries or who are extracting the critical 
minerals and processing them for batteries so that the United 
States is not beholden to other countries but that we are 
building our own energy security here in this Nation. That is 
the intent of the Loan Program Office in the vehicle space.
    Mr. Sessions. And the amount of percentages or amount given 
to EV as opposed to other competing ideas?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, that particular program is 
designated largely for advanced vehicles. And so, advanced 
vehicles----
    Mr. Sessions. These would be advanced vehicles. These would 
be people who have offered a loan that is not EV.
    Secretary Granholm. It might be a fuel cell, for example.
    Mr. Sessions. It could be.
    Secretary Granholm. We are also interested in that. We are 
not foreclosing any of that. We are looking at emissions 
reductions.
    Mr. Sessions. Good. Well, I would like to followup with you 
and, politely, to ask that you provide me the information about 
the amount of people who have brought, under this vehicle 
program, manufacturing program, ultra vehicles, and to find out 
what percent that you have given and the amount of money to EVs 
versus other applicants that may have come under that, saying 
for a vehicle, not a battery, for the vehicle. And I would 
appreciate knowing that.
    And I want to thank you for taking time with us today, and 
we will be following up on this LIHEAP issue to find out 
specifically what DOE thinks about this hundreds of billions of 
gallons of diesel being put--spewed into the Northeast on an 
annual basis.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Ms. Norton from Washington, DC.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Granholm, in the time since President Biden 
signed the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, communities across the country are already 
benefiting from historic investments in clean energy and 
climate resilience.
    In fact, right here in the District of Columbia, that I 
represent, the Inflation Reduction Act is enabling the General 
Services Administration to upgrade Federal Government buildings 
from fossil fuel steam power to electric heat pump technology. 
The upgrades to the Ronald Reagan Building and the 
International Trade Center alone will strengthen our climate 
future and are expected to save more than $6.2 million in 
taxpayer dollars every year.
    So, Secretary Granholm, how are projects like this one 
transforming communities across the country?
    Secretary Granholm. We are very interested in all projects 
that are community-based, by the way, that reduce costs for 
people. And so, whether it is energy efficiency or the 
generation of clean energy and giving people the ability to 
take control of their own energy future, in partnership with 
communities and on an individual basis. So, we are all in on 
all manner of efficiency and energy and supporting communities 
in doing so.
    Ms. Norton. Both the Inflation Reduction Act and the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are critical investments in our 
country's future. Within the first year of the Inflation 
Reduction Act's enactment, we added 170,000 new jobs in clean 
energy and climate resilience, with a projection of more than 
1.5 million additional new jobs over the next decade.
    Secretary Granholm, how has President Biden's investing in 
America's energy created new jobs and opportunities across the 
country, including the energy sector?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. To your point, so far it is about 
800,000 jobs that have been created as a result of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, 
with the projection that it will be 1.5 million.
    We have created over 15 million jobs. Over 15 million jobs 
have been created since this President took office, more than 
any President in any term in American history. And part of that 
has to do with the focus on clean energy and the opportunity 
that it brings to employ people.
    Ms. Norton. According to the Department of Energy, because 
of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, by 2030 we are projected to cut greenhouse 
gas emissions by 40 percent at 2005 levels. It is also 
projected that clean energy electricity will account for 80 
percent of the power generation by 2030, compared with 42 
percent in 2022. In addition, President Biden's leadership will 
help families save up to $38 billion in electricity bills by 
the end of the decade.
    So, Secretary Granholm, how have the Inflation Reduction 
Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law enabled the 
Department of Energy to invest in clean energy and fossil fuel 
alternatives?
    Secretary Granholm. The statistics that you cite are so 
wonderful because they happen to be accurate. And that 40 
percent reduction in CO2 emissions, it is actually 40 to 50 
percent, if you include what the private sector is doing and 
what other states are doing.
    What these laws have done, is enabled both the Federal 
Government but also the private sector to really do the 
investments, because they have contained carrots. And we are 
all about the carrots at the Department of Energy.
    So, the grants from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and 
the tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act have created 
an environment where America has become the irresistible Nation 
for investment in clean energy. We are the envy of other 
nations for having been so forward-leaning on creating jobs 
here. So, it is a very exciting time for both responsiveness to 
addressing climate change but also creating jobs in America.
    Ms. Norton. I am proud we passed the Inflation Reduction 
Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and I am thankful 
for the Biden Administration's leadership in addressing the 
climate crisis and securing our country's energy future.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Biggs from 
Arizona.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary, thank you for being here.
    When you talked about net zero by 2050, you are talking, 
essentially, about eliminating all hydrocarbon-based fuel. Is 
that correct?
    Secretary Granholm. Net zero suggests that it is also using 
some hydrocarbon-based fuel, but it has been decarbonized.
    Mr. Biggs. Can you name the benefits of fossil fuel, in and 
of itself?
    Secretary Granholm. Can I name----
    Mr. Biggs. As an energy source.
    Secretary Granholm. Well, it is dense. And it keeps the 
lights on, keeps transportation going. It is an important part 
of our energy mix.
    Mr. Biggs. It is cheap, it is reliable, it is abundant, it 
is predictable, it is distributable, right?
    Secretary Granholm. It's all of that, and it needs to be 
cleaned.
    Mr. Biggs. And so, when you have benefits to--the overall 
benefits, when you talk about net zero and when my climate 
friends, they do not really include the personal benefits or 
the economic benefits.
    Can you name some economic benefits that come from fossil 
fuels?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, clearly, our economy has been 
built upon fossil fuels. Our economy is driven by fossil fuels. 
But fossil fuels have also created an enormous problem, which 
is climate change, and that is impacting individuals and 
economies too. So, let us clean it up.
    Mr. Biggs. Let us talk about some other things. With fossil 
fuels, you saw dramatic increase over the last 130 years of 
longevity and mortality rates. Is that correct? That is true, 
right?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, yes.
    Mr. Biggs. You also saw a dramatic increase in sanitation 
and health impacts that were good, right?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, I would not know that I would 
attribute that directly to fossil fuels, but yes, we have seen 
an increase in longevity, increase in health.
    Mr. Biggs. So, most----
    Secretary Granholm. Maybe despite.
    Mr. Biggs. With the number of petroleum-based products that 
you have out there, it affects virtually every aspect of your 
life, whether it is what you are wearing, your health 
apparatuses that you use. All of those come from petroleum-
based products, right?
    Secretary Granholm. Petroleum-based products impact every 
aspect of our economy.
    Mr. Biggs. So, PJM Interconnection, the Nation's largest 
grid operator, released a report finding that the amount of 
generation retirement appears to be more certain than the 
timely arrival of replacement generation resources.
    What they are really getting at there, is that we are 
reducing reliable energy resources before reliable sources come 
online. And that is really what we see happening, and that's 
the anticipation. That is why some states talk about rolling 
brownouts that are coming their way. They are very concerned 
about that, as am I.
    Let us talk for just a second about electric vehicles, if 
we can. So, the funding came in the IRA, and the Federal budget 
estimated--let me get this right here.
    In the 117th Congress, we passed the IRA. My Democrat 
colleagues did, anyway. And they provided--CBO and JCT 
estimated that the eliminate spending and tax breaks would cost 
around $400 billion by moving to electric vehicles, commercial 
electric vehicles, heavy duty electric vehicles, tax credit for 
residential charging equipment, and $3 billion for postal fleet 
electrification. They estimated that would have a net of $400 
billion cost.
    Since that bill has passed, now for those same programs, 
the estimate is that the subsidies will be $1.1 trillion over 
the same period of time.
    Now, of that, $7.5 million was generated for a nationwide 
electric vehicle charging infrastructure. And yet it has been 
reported that we now have four charging stations, I believe it 
is, and that was reported by NBC.
    Does that sound accurate to you?
    Secretary Granholm. No, it does not.
    Mr. Biggs. Well, tell me how many new charging facilities 
do we have? I am sorry, seven? Seven. There has been seven 
built in four states.
    Secretary Granholm. So, let me just explain this. The 
National Electric Vehicle Initiative required states to develop 
a plan in order to be eligible for that $7.5 billion. All 
states did. We approved all of those plans. All of the funding 
has been released to the states. These are all state programs.
    So now, 36 states have released solicitations to be able to 
build out those charging stations. Twenty-two states have 
announced awards. There will be an additional 2,000 stations 
built by the end of 2024. That is the plan.
    Mr. Biggs. But you are guaranteeing that there is going to 
be 2,000 EV stations.
    Secretary Granholm. That is what we forecast.
    Mr. Biggs. That is your forecast. And the result is, you 
are putting those in--the taxpayers are putting those in. All 
of these are taxpayer subsidized. And yet Ford cannot even sell 
their cars. Most of these lots cannot sell--and I would like 
introduced into the record the article where Ford is announcing 
massive losses of $1.3 billion, that they are losing, on an 
average, $132,000 for every EV that they sell.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome, Madam Secretary. Good to see you. Thank you for 
all your good work.
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
    Mr. Lynch. Just really quick on LIHEAP. Look, LIHEAP, the 
reason we have to give people low income--excuse me, low-cost 
heating oil is because a lot of poor folk have oil-fired 
furnaces, right? That is why we are doing that.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, unfortunately. But that is why we 
are working so hard to weatherize and to update people's homes 
so that they do not----
    Mr. Lynch. Exactly. We have a whole--and we are working 
with the gas company, actually, to try to modernize some of 
these furnaces and make it a cleaner energy source. So, I 
appreciate the work you are doing on that.
    Really interested in re-shoring some of the energy supply 
chain back to the United States. There is a grant that we put 
in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that allows battery 
material. So, EV batteries, all the components that go into 
that, we want to bring that home.
    So, right now, there is one U.S. company that is competing 
for that grant. They are headquartered in my district, the 
Cabot Corporation, but they do all their manufacturing in Texas 
and in Michigan. So that is where the jobs would be created.
    But they do great work. They are the only U.S. company 
bidding for this. And I just want to, you know, put a stake in 
the ground, put a flag in the ground on that for you to take a 
good hard look at that. It has been a while. It has been a 
while.
    Secretary Granholm. What is the name of the company?
    Mr. Lynch. Cabot Corporation. And they are a U.S.-based 
company. They do their work here. And they create carbon 
nanotubes and other things that go inside these batteries. So, 
I am just flagging that for you if you could look at that.
    Third, so, we--myself, Mr. Connolly, and some others, Mr. 
Raskin--put in $3 billion for the post office to electrify 
their fleet. The post office has something like 237,000 
vehicles. It is the second largest--after Department of 
Defense, they are the second largest owner of vehicles in the 
United States. We put $3 billion to help them convert to 
electric vehicles.
    I talked to Postmaster General DeJoy. He is doing it as 
fast as he can, but, you know, they are doing what the 
resources that we gave them. And we need to do this faster.
    When you think about--this is a wonderful opportunity for 
us to accelerate and amplify the use of electric vehicles. 
Think about the pattern in which the post office uses their 
vehicles. They charge them overnight. They use them in the 
morning. They deliver during the day, and then they come back 
and charge overnight. Those charging stations, if we had 
charging stations at every post office that were available to 
the public completely during the day--and post offices are 
everywhere, everywhere.
    So, there is an opportunity here, but we have got to deploy 
the charging stations. They are close to everybody's homes. We 
have, you know, general mail facilities that could house 
hundreds of these charging stations. We could use them for our 
postal fleet overnight when nobody is using them, and then we 
could offer them to the public, perhaps, during the day. And it 
would--I just think it would give a real boost to the use of 
EVs, the ease of which needs to be enhanced.
    Your thoughts on that.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, 100 percent. We are interested in 
seeing 500,000 charging stations across the country at all 
locations that are easy, but even in some of the locations 
where you have not seen a big uptake in electric vehicles, like 
in rural areas, which is why postal services are everywhere and 
they are a great example of what we would like to see happen.
    We have now, 180,000 charging stations across the country, 
180,000. The goal is to get to 500,000 by 2030. And the private 
sector has stepped up a lot, but that is why the states are 
looking to fill in the gaps where charging stations do not 
exist. Every 50 miles along transportation corridors, for 
example.
    Mr. Lynch. Great. Thank you. I have 45 seconds left.
    So, there is a program that we are bidding on in New 
England. It is called Power Up New England. So, it is a 
combination with us and all Massachusetts and all the other New 
England states. It would allow us to repurpose Brayton Point 
and one of the other power plants in our area in southeastern 
Massachusetts and connect them to the wind turbines that we 
have got going offshore.
    So, it is a joint program. We have got facilities in 
southern Connecticut, Maine, northern Maine. And that is 
really, really, really important to us if we are going to 
convert--you know, that is a heavily populated area, New 
England, and we have got to upgrade our grid.
    So, that is the Power Up New England program that 
Eversource and others are pushing. So, just ask you to take a 
good hard look at that as well.
    Secretary Granholm. OK.
    Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy, and I 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary, I appreciate you being here answering questions 
for us.
    I have got a letter here from the PJM regarding the Brandon 
Shores Power facility in Anne Arundel County, and I am just 
going to read from it.
    According to the PJM Interconnection spokesman, ``the PJM 
region and the state of Maryland are facing future reliability 
challenges as a result of the announced retirement of Brandon 
Shores unit specifically. PJM analysis showed that the 
deactivation of the Brandon Shores unit would cause severe 
voltage drop and thermal violations across seven PJM zones, 
which would lead to widespread reliability risk in Baltimore 
and the immediate surrounding area.''
    So, let me make that plain for everybody. Brandon Shores, 
owned by Talen Energy, has entered into an agreement with the 
Sierra Club to not produce power, to not produce power. And so, 
the PJM, which operates in multiple states and schedules the 
power from various facilities, is asking that that agreement be 
held in abeyance until a reliable source can be built. But they 
are not going to do that.
    The only thing that is going to save Baltimore from 
blacking out, from going without power, right, is an emergency 
designation from the Secretary and the Department of Energy. 
There is not enough time. Even if we wanted to build it--and we 
do not.
    And let me be clear here. The alternative is that 
Pennsylvania, where I live, provides the power, and our land is 
taken by eminent domain to send the power to Baltimore, who has 
a perfectly functioning power plant right now in Anne Arundel 
County, but because of the agreement, they are going to shut it 
down.
    So, my two questions to start with for this are, is the 
Department of Energy in support of these type of agreements 
between the Sierra Club--like this--between the Sierra Club and 
Talen Energy to shut down plants, No. 1?
    And, No. 2, are you committed to the emergency declaration 
that is going to be required when the plant shuts down for over 
a million customers to have power and live in the 21st century?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, I am not familiar with that 
agreement. I would have to take a look at it. We certainly want 
to make sure that power stays on and that we add additional 
power to make sure that there is enough for people. So that is 
why we're working so hard to ensure that we are deploying clean 
energy solutions.
    Mr. Perry. OK. Well, ma'am, I have the letter. I assure you 
it is real. And it is dated December 5th of 2023. So, it is not 
new. It is not a new concept. This is coming.
    And so, assuming--let us just do it this way. I do not want 
to assume on your behalf. But assuming this is valid--you can 
see the logo up there. I will have it entered into the record. 
I will stake my reputation on what the PJM has offered.
    Assuming that is correct, are you willing to commit to an 
emergency declaration so that the lights and the power can stay 
on for a million customers? It is going to require the 
Department of Energy.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. We are always willing to exercise 
emergency authority if lights are going out.
    Mr. Perry. Do you think it is fair that the people of 
Pennsylvania have to watch their land chewed up to send power 
to Baltimore when they have got a perfectly well-operating 
facility? Is that fair that we do that?
    And the facility can be transitioned. It is coal now. I 
know everybody hates coal. I do not, but a lot of people do. I 
am sure there are scrubbers on the plant. And the requirements 
just keep on increasing, such that the plant can no longer 
remain viable economically under the conditions that the 
Federal Government has set.
    But is it fair that Pennsylvania then has to provide the 
power and the transmission across its land for Baltimore?
    Secretary Granholm. I think there are other solutions, 
though. I think that the notion that we are not able to----
    Mr. Perry. I think there are too, and I hope we can pursue 
them. I hope we can pursue them. I appreciate that, Madam 
Secretary.
    In the little bit of time I have left, as Representative 
Biggs talked about, the loss of money to the car companies. 
Ford is delaying introduction of its all-new electric SUV. It 
lost $130,000 on every EV. The division will lose $5.5 billion 
in 2024. Tesla saw an 8.5 percent decline in deliveries. GM 
lost $1.7 billion in Q4 of 2023.
    This is all happening at taxpayer expense. The increase in 
EV usage and sales is wholly by the Federal Government, right? 
It is not because of the private sector. Private sector is 
actually declining.
    And so, with that, while you are here, as a current Cabinet 
Secretary, would you commit to saying on the record that you 
will not support a bailout of the car companies once we 
bankrupt them, once these policies bank--because that is where 
we are headed, ma'am. We have already done this before. It cost 
us $81 billion in 2014.
    What will you commit to today regarding the car companies 
that are going to go bankrupt based on these requirements from 
the Federal Government?
    Secretary Granholm. The car companies do not say they are 
going bankrupt.
    Mr. Perry. When they do. When they do.
    Secretary Granholm. They are excited about the trajectory 
of electric vehicle sales into the future.
    Mr. Perry. They do not seem excited to me from----
    Secretary Granholm. They are continuing with their plans. 
They may have slowed them a little, but they are continuing 
with their plans to build electric vehicles.
    Mr. Perry. Because they are forced to by the Federal 
Government.
    Secretary Granholm. Because there is a 30 percent increase 
year over year in demand for electric vehicles.
    Mr. Perry. Only by the Federal Government, ma'am, Madam 
Secretary.
    Secretary Granholm. By individuals out there who want to 
save money as they drive.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Before I recognize Ms. Bush, did you have something, 
gentleman, you were wanting to enter into the record?
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to enter this order from the PJM, must produce 
power, to Brandon Shores and Talen Energy.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Now the Chair recognizes Ms. Bush from Missouri.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Granholm, it is good to see you again. And thank 
you so much for speaking with me at length when you were in the 
St. Louis area the last time about these issues.
    St. Louis and I are here today to discuss the climate 
crisis, of course, and the need for clean energy, as well as 
the devastating impact of nuclear waste created and completely 
abandoned by the Federal Government that continues to devastate 
my community to this day. And we know you were not in the seat 
at the time. I just want to say that.
    Secretary, as you know, Black and Brown communities are on 
the front lines of the climate crisis, and we have been the 
most impacted by the failure of the government to clean up 
toxic waste. And also, it is essential that, while we 
prioritize the transition to clean energy, we also address the 
legacy of the pollution in our communities.
    World War II is still killing people in my district. For 
over 80 years, we have been grappling with the nuclear 
contamination left over from the Manhattan Project, 
particularly in Coldwater Creek, which is a main waterway 
central to our community, as well as West Lake Landfill.
    In March of this year, the Senate passed legislation that 
would reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or 
better known as RECA, which provides health screenings and 
compensation for people sickened by the U.S. testing of nuclear 
weapons, as well as expanded to include St. Louis and other 
areas that have been historically excluded.
    But now we are running out of time in the House. RECA is 
currently set to expire on June 7. We only have four 
legislative days left.
    Secretary Granholm, do you support the reauthorization of 
RECA?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you.
    Could you tell us what impact would a lapse in RECA cause 
on our victims?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, I think it is critical that the 
United States take responsibility for the fallout of its 
activities in World War II on humans, no matter where they are. 
And, unfortunately, in a lot of our cleanup communities, it 
takes a long time to eradicate all remnants of radiation. So, 
we have a responsibility as a Nation, and I hope we live up to 
that responsibility.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. And thank you for listening when you 
and I had such a deep conversation about this and thank you for 
your desire for action.
    I know that if we do not extend and expand RECA, victims 
will continue to suffer. And I have seen my community members--
I actually know some who have died.
    But while RECA is key to making our communities whole, we 
also must do the work to actually cleanup the waste. I 
recognize that a lot of the cleanup has been dumped on the Army 
Corps, but I would like to ask you about this as well.
    We often hear a lot about the purported benefits of nuclear 
energy, painting it as the clean alternative to fossil fuels. 
Madam Secretary, how is the Department ensuring that the new 
waste by nuclear energy is handled and disposed of properly?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, thank you for that question. We 
are in the middle of a site-based process, a community-based 
siting process for nuclear waste.
    Currently, as you are aware, civil nuclear waste is largely 
stored around those plants, which is safe, but it would be very 
helpful to the United States to have a national repository of 
nuclear waste that is safe.
    We are in the process of this consent-based siting effort. 
There has been 12 entities that have been funded to reach out 
to communities who are potentially going to raise their hand 
and to decide how to compensate those communities for doing 
that service for our Nation.
    That process is in the middle. It will take--it takes a bit 
of time. We are modeling it after a couple of other nations 
that did the same thing. It takes a bit of time to ensure that 
we get it right. But we are in the process of doing that, and 
we hope that will come out with a community or communities that 
are willing to do that.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. Thank you. So--and I appreciate that, 
that the community is also involved in these decisions. That is 
really important.
    When we spoke in person during your visit to the St. Louis 
area, we spoke about the cleanup specifically in St. Louis. 
And, as you know, the Army Corps is the cleanup administrator 
for these sites.
    Madam Secretary, how can I work with you to followup on 
your commitment to work with the Army Corps of Engineers to get 
a jobs training program funded by DOE to train members of our 
community to expedite the cleanup of the Manhattan project 
waste throughout my district?
    Secretary Granholm. Let us, you and I, followup on that 
together.
    Ms. Bush. OK. OK. I sincerely appreciate the Department of 
Energy's efforts to ensure that this cleanup happens. And 
communities like mine, the people depend on it. So, thank you 
for your work, and I look forward to working with you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Burchett from Tennessee.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary, Tennessee is a massive hub for nuclear energy. 
Is the Biden Administration supportive of new nuclear 
deployment, especially the small modular reactors?
    Secretary Granholm. We are, and we----
    Mr. Burchett. Can you tell me how you all are helping with 
that deployment?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. We thank very much Congress' 
funding in the 1924 budget for small modular reactors, as well 
as the approval to be able to advance nuclear reactors, 
different designs. We have got about $12 billion that we are 
funding nuclear, writ large, including the uranium strategy and 
the HALEU strategy that will be the fuel for the small modular 
reactors.
    Mr. Burchett. Can you give me a timeline? They keep telling 
me 10 years before those are rolled out, and that was about 5 
years ago.
    Secretary Granholm. I sure hope not. I know the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission has approved a design of one of the small 
modular reactors and others that are in the mix. That is the 
first step, of course.
    But we are eager to partner with utilities, the tech 
community who are, obviously, going to be needing clean 
baseload power and could have small modular reactors attached 
to, for example, data centers. That kind of strategy, we are 
very----
    Mr. Burchett. Do you have a timeline? Could you give me a 
date where----
    Secretary Granholm. Well, if----
    Mr. Burchett. [continuing]. They will turn the switch on 
one of these?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. Here is what we would like to see, 
is that the utilities step up to be able to do this----
    Mr. Burchett. All right.
    Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Because it is the 
utilities who want to--but we are--it is certainly not the 
Federal Government that is holding it back.
    Mr. Burchett. Let me switch gears. What is the 
responsibility of the Federal Protective Services within the 
Nuclear Security Administration?
    Secretary Granholm. Are you talking about transporting 
fuels?
    Mr. Burchett. No, ma'am. I want you to speak--I was going 
to followup with the numerous reports by the Federal Protective 
Services officers describing suspicious occurrences of UAPs 
over nuclear facilities.
    Secretary Granholm. Let me just say, the Defense Department 
has said there is no evidence of UFOs, et cetera, or aliens in 
the United States. However, at those sites, there may be drones 
that may be nefarious. And so, we are definitely looking at 
that and making sure that our national security sites are 
protected.
    We have a whole program related to counter--countering 
drones that may be coming from areas----
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Well, this is not about drones, and this 
is prior to drones, even.
    What protocols does the Department of Energy have for 
reporting and responding to any UAP sightings near nuclear 
infrastructure?
    And people joke about this, but I get a lot of questions 
about this, concerning this and about this hearing today from 
my constituents. So, I would appreciate you answering that if 
there are any protocols.
    Secretary Granholm. Well, certainly there are protocols 
whenever we see anything unusual around our nuclear sites or 
our national security sites writ large.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. We will switch gears. The proper use of 
the reserve--is the proper use of the reserve, the strategic 
petroleum reserve in particular, considering its intended 
purpose is to provide an emergency stockpile of crude oil to 
protect against significant supply distributions from more 
natural disasters? Is that the proper use of that reserve?
    Secretary Granholm. It is.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Should the U.S. face--say the U.S. were 
to face an actual military threat. How would you describe our 
ability to respond to extreme energy disruptions?
    Secretary Granholm. We would have an ability to respond. We 
have the largest reserve in the world right now.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. What is your strategy to help lower the 
prices at the gas pump without robbing our emergency reserves? 
It seems we do these things around election times, and both 
parties are guilty here.
    Secretary Granholm. No. The reason why barrels were sold 
from the strategic petroleum reserve in 2022 is because Russia 
invaded Ukraine, and there was a disruption in global supply. 
That emergency caused the President to release barrels so that 
he could temper that global supply disruption, including asking 
our allies from around the world to do the same, which they 
did.
    Mr. Burchett. How many of our military bases in Europe 
depend on or utilize Russian energy?
    Secretary Granholm. Our bases in Europe?
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, ma'am.
    Secretary Granholm. I am not aware.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Good deal. Under your leadership, the 
Department of Energy has targeted gas stoves, washing machines, 
refrigerators, and clothes dryers based on what was called 
unquantified benefits related to climate and public health.
    How do you balance the meager unquantified benefits of 
these rules with the massive cost burdens imposed on American 
manufacturers and consumers?
    Secretary Granholm. First of all, they are quantified. 
Americans will save $2 trillion in energy savings because their 
appliances are more efficient. We are required to do that 
under----
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, ma'am. But poor folks have to--when they 
do this, they have to buy these things. I think we are taking 
that--and I know the corporations love it when you all put 
these new rules and regulations in, ma'am, but I really wished 
we had a little more time, and I wish you would show up when we 
ask you to. I think that shows a lot of arrogance.
    And Tennesseans are reminded of this leadership every time 
they go to the pump, and you all should be ashamed, I think, 
for your lack of accountability to Congress by not showing up 
when you are asked. I mean, we had to threaten you with a 
subpoena just to get you all here.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Ms. Brown from Ohio.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Granholm, it 
is great to see you again. I am glad we had a chance to hear 
about, a couple of weeks ago, the Biden-Harris Administration's 
historic efforts to invest in diverse and disadvantaged 
communities as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act, the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the CHIPS and Science Act, 
which I was proud to help pass these bills into law under the 
leadership of Speaker Pelosi and President Biden, which are 
already making a difference in the communities across the 
country, including my district.
    Last year, the East Cleveland City School District received 
$100,000 under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to make 
critical energy upgrades to lower energy use and costs, improve 
indoor air quality, and promote healthier learning 
environments. I would like to thank you firsthand for that 
investment in Ohio's 11th congressional District.
    Now, Secretary Granholm, can you share with us the size and 
scale of the investments the Biden-Harris Administration has 
been implementing since these laws were passed and, 
specifically, how they have brought investment and opportunity 
to disadvantaged low-income and marginalized communities?
    Secretary Granholm. Great. Thank you so much for the 
question and thank you for raising the Renew America's Schools 
program.
    Way oversubscribed, I will say. If Congress has anything to 
consider into the future, we need to provide more school 
districts and disadvantaged communities the ability to upgrade 
their schools because it was so successful. The Department of 
Energy, under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the 
Inflation Reduction Act, is responsible for about $98 billion 
worth of funds to be able to make our Nation more energy 
independent and more--and have our energy run cleaner.
    We have, as a result, given out grants, and they have taken 
advantage of tax credits, too, to companies that are producing 
the products to get us there. As we give out grants, we want to 
make sure that all communities benefit. So, we require, for any 
business that is seeking a grant, to do a community benefits 
agreement, so that shows how they are employing the local 
community, how they are benefiting the local community, and it 
is an agreement. So, we are monitoring, and we are enforcing 
those agreements.
    And as a result, we are seeing that double the amount of 
job creation and benefits are going to disadvantaged 
communities than the rest of the population relative to size. 
So, we are excited about that, and we are excited about--thank 
you--the incentives that have been built into the tax credits 
to locate in disadvantaged communities, because that, too, is 
causing great--you know, much more investment in communities 
that might not have seen it otherwise.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. And as we continue our 
transition to a clean energy economy, I want to touch on one 
point in the National Blueprint for Transportation 
Decarbonization, which you put forward, along with Ohio's 
11th's very own Former Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development, Marcia Fudge, and Environmental Protection Agency 
Administrator Michael Regan.
    This blueprint highlights the need for investments and 
expansion of electric vehicle charging stations. These stations 
must be constructed, distributed, and built equitably, 
prioritizing low-income and underserved communities. Since 
nearly every major auto manufacturer, from GM to Ford to Jeep, 
has plans to expand and convert to fully electric fleets within 
the next decade, along with other vehicles, like school buses 
and postal vans, we cannot leave these communities behind with 
this vital aspect of energy security and access to 
transportation.
    So, Secretary Granholm, can you speak to how the Biden-
Harris Administration is supporting construction of charging 
stations for marginalized communities?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you so much. The $7.5 
billion that Congress approved under the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law for charging includes a significant 
component to go to communities that do not have access to 
charging right now, particularly in cities, particularly poor 
communities, particularly rural communities, places where the 
private sector has not yet built out charging stations.
    And so, the challenge for all of that--so, for example, if 
it is in a dense, urban environment, where do you put the 
chargers, what if people do not have garages or access to a 
garage, what if they are in an apartment building? All of those 
questions, as a business model, we are trying to figure out how 
to incentivize access to charging stations in an easy way.
    Of course, putting them in parking lots that are available 
to the public is one thing, but along street parking, can you 
create chargers that you pull down from the street lamps, for 
example? Are there other ways, creative ways to use technology 
to be able to give people access to charging?
    So, the bottom line is, we want charging to be ubiquitous, 
we want it to be accessible by everybody.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. Even my Republican colleagues 
who did not vote for these groundbreaking bills continue to 
take credit for the investments they are bringing to every 
corner and every sector of our country and economy. This is a 
testament to the value and need for these unprecedented and 
historic Biden-Harris and democratic-led investments in the 
American people, the economy, and our future.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Donalds from 
Florida.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Chairman.
    Secretary Granholm, real quick, on January 18, 2024, House 
Oversight held a hearing called ``The Next Generation: 
Empowering America's Nuclear Energy.'' I submitted several 
questions to be answered at a later date. The NRC and FERC have 
both responded, but the DOE has not.
    Do you have a commitment--are you going to commit to 
responding to my questions over the next 30 days?
    Secretary Granholm. I am not sure about over the next 30 
days, but definitely we will commit to responding to your 
questions. I know it's in a review process. But we are also 
happy to sit and--with you in person and brief, too, on 
answers, but it is in a review process right now.
    Mr. Donalds. Madam Secretary, this was January. It is now 
May. You have got four or five people sitting behind you. What 
other review process do you need to answer just one Member's 
questions from Congress?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, believe it or not, it is beyond 
them.
    Mr. Donalds. Oh, I know it is beyond them. Let us move on. 
Let us talk spent nuclear fuel.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Mr. Donalds. We have roughly 88 metric tons of spent 
nuclear fuel. For the people watching this hearing, it 
basically takes up the size of one Olympic pool.
    Many countries, including France, one of our great friends 
and partners around the globe, they have invested in recycling 
spent nuclear fuel now, and the amount of spent nuclear fuel we 
have in the United States, we could power the United States for 
roughly 400 years.
    Is the DOE actually going through and exploring recycling 
spent nuclear fuel rods instead of the constant conversation 
and dogma about nuclear waste that is present in the United 
States? Do you think recycling spent rods is actually in the 
Nation's interest?
    Secretary Granholm. I do. And we are looking at that, and I 
am excited that you are interested in it as well, because I 
think that is a program that we should continue to fund.
    Mr. Donalds. All right. So, when you say ``interested,'' 
what does that mean?
    Secretary Granholm. It means we have got labs that are 
working on the research related to it. I know that we have 
funded a couple of companies as well that are also doing that.
    We think that it is an important aspect of how we deal with 
nuclear waste.
    Mr. Donalds. OK. All right. Good. I want to followup with 
you on that because we should be using all that stuff at our 
disposal.
    I am glad that my colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Burchett, 
spent time with you talking about modular reactors and micro 
reactors, so I am not going to go down that line. I think it is 
important for the American people to understand that the future 
of baseload power in the United States, everything from AI 
Quantum, digital assets, to our current needs from an energy 
apparatus, we are going to need massive amounts of baseload 
power.
    And wouldn't you agree that solar panels and wind turbines 
are not going to be able to fulfill that need?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, if you add batteries, they become 
more baseload-like. But certainly, I am not saying that one has 
to be at the expense of another. I think both can happen.
    Mr. Donalds. Secretary, I think you would agree that 
battery technology really has not changed that much since the 
Duracell. And even the capacity has not changed that much.
    Secretary Granholm. Oh, it has. Sir, it really has.
    Mr. Donalds. I think you would agree with that.
    Secretary Granholm. We can have a conversation about that. 
It definitely has changed.
    Mr. Donalds. All right. I want to go back to a colleague--
what the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, because he went 
down a line of questioning with you about the Administration's 
pause on liquid natural gas.
    For decades, the Department of Energy's position on 
liquefied natural gas has been that it is safe, it is clean, 
and it is actually in the Nation's interest for it to be 
procured and then also used in the United States and, 
obviously, transported and traded around the globe.
    In short, what has changed at the Department of Energy?
    Secretary Granholm. The only thing that has changed is that 
the volumes that have increased so much, we need to take 
another look. It is not that the ones that have been approved 
are not in the Nation's interests. They were, and they are, and 
they are going to continue to operate.
    It is the question of how much more new expansion and what 
will be the impact in the United States. So, if we export our 
natural gas, what does that do for--if we export--we produce 
right now about 100 BCF of natural gas, a little bit more. If 
we export the amount that is authorized currently, which is 48 
BCF--that is about half--what does that do to prices at home? 
That is a question.
    Mr. Donalds. Let me ask you this question: Do you believe 
that just in basic supply and demand, that more supply in the 
market actually decreases prices? And wouldn't a decreased 
price actually be to the benefit of the public interest?
    Secretary Granholm. Oh, for sure. For sure it would be.
    Mr. Donalds. So, what are we talking about, Secretary?
    Secretary Granholm. So, this is what we have to look at. 
This is one of the questions--one of the questions that we are 
looking at. We also have to take a look at what it does for 
global supply, our allies, all of that.
    Mr. Donalds. And again, this is good conversation, but, you 
know, congressional hearings, our time is limited.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Donalds. Considering what is happening right now in 
Ukraine, isn't it in the public's interests here in the United 
States to increase exports of liquefied natural gas to cut down 
the ability of the Russian regime to actually earn money in the 
open market?
    Secretary Granholm. We are exporting natural gas. We are 
not stopping that. We are----
    Mr. Donalds. Hold on. Hold on. Secretary--Secretary--
Secretary----
    Secretary Granholm [continuing]. The world's largest 
exporter. We have authorized----
    Mr. Donalds. [continuing]. I am going to reclaim my time 
because I have got 18 seconds now. We are not in a debate. This 
is a hearing.
    Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Forty-eight million cubic 
feet, but I am just--something is wrong.
    Mr. Donalds. You have put a pause, and you are saying it is 
in the public interest. But you cannot really identify what the 
public interest is, because it is in the public's interest for 
prices to go down.
    It is in the American public interest to try to limit the 
ability of the Russian regime to earn more money on the open 
market with their resources. Wouldn't you agree with that?
    Secretary Granholm. The pause does not affect that. The 
pause does not affect that. Everything is still going forward.
    Mr. Donalds. The price does affect their ability to earn 
money to wage war, Madam Secretary. You know that just like I 
do.
    Secretary Granholm. It does not right now. This pause is 
for a brief period of time to update a study. It does not 
affect any of that.
    Mr. Donalds. How long is the pause?
    Secretary Granholm. It will be finished----
    Mr. Donalds. I would argue, Madam Secretary, that the pause 
that you are doing is against the law because you have not 
finalized your parameters in what you are looking at. And in 
the event of that being finalized, you do need to execute the 
permits that are waiting.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Casar from Texas.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you, Chairman. Madam Secretary, I first 
want to thank you for your strong leadership at the Department 
of Energy.
    Today, I want to talk a little bit with you about the 
broken and disconnected Texas grid, ERCOT, not just on behalf 
of Texans, but also because of the national implications of not 
fixing the Texas grid.
    I want to start off by thanking you and the Department of 
Energy for putting millions of dollars toward electric 
reliability in Texas, including a recent $30 million investment 
to help keep the lights on in San Antonio, Texas, but we still 
have a long way to go.
    We have had so many mass power outages--in fact, hundreds 
of mass power outages--over the last few years in Texas, making 
us one of the most unreliable electric grids in the country. 
And most people remember and think about this as it relates to 
Winter Storm Uri where over 10 million Texans lost power, 
hundreds of people died.
    And in the wake of that storm, you, Madam Secretary, said 
many things I agree with. You said that interconnecting Texas' 
grid will be great for Texas. It will be great for Texas to 
consider connecting to its neighbors.
    You said that interconnecting Texas could also benefit the 
rest of the country because in good times, Texas is generating 
all sorts of clean energy, which we could send those clean ions 
out from Texas to take advantage of a market that is eager to 
accept it and could not agree more.
    That is why I introduced the Connect the Grid Act, which 
would require Texas to interconnect with its neighbors. My 
office worked with your Department to draft this legislation, 
and we relied heavily on your excellent transmission needs 
study, which pinpoints our Nation's most significant 
transmission needs and identifies national interest electric 
transmission corridors known as NIETCs.
    Just last week, the Department of Energy announced its 
preliminary list of NIETCs, a designation that is really 
important because it unlocks Federal financing for 
transmission, but Texas was missing from your list. And that 
was confusing to me because you and I agree that 
interconnecting Texas provides reliability, could save American 
lives, save tons of money, is an economic winner, and we cannot 
reach our climate goals without interconnecting the grid.
    That is, in part, because Texas leads the country in wind 
generation. We are only second to California in solar 
generation. An upcoming MIT study finds that between 9 
gigawatts and 36 gigawatts of interconnection between Texas and 
its neighbors could get us a 4 percent CO2 reduction nationwide 
and a 33 percent CO2 reduction in the state of Texas.
    So, in the next few weeks, I want to send a letter to your 
Department urging you to do everything you can to interconnect 
the Texas grid, whether that is through funding transmission or 
through transmission planning and more. And I am interested in 
hearing from you, Madam Secretary, if you are considering 
adding Texas to your final list of NIETC designations, where 
does Texas fit into your transmission planning?
    Secretary Granholm. Thanks for that. Thanks for your 
leadership on this.
    I think one of the NIETCs covers the panhandle of Texas. 
But you are right, it does not connect to ERCOT. And I stand by 
saying, of course, this is Texas' call, and so respect state 
sovereignty on this.
    But I do think that when you consider the ability for a 
neighboring state to help in a time of crisis--and there is 
more and more of these extreme weather events that are 
happening and stressing grids--I think the Nation would love 
that. And, similarly, for those developers who are in Texas and 
who want to take advantage of the economy of clean energy to be 
able to export that power, I think, would be good for Texas, 
too.
    But that is just me. I am just the Secretary of Energy. I 
am not in Texas, and I am not running Texas.
    So, I look forward to working with you to see how we might 
be able to get there, but I do think it would be important to 
create a national grid that would include Texas at some point.
    Mr. Casar. I appreciate that. There already are 
interconnections, minimal interconnections in and out of Texas. 
And there is actually huge market demand----
    Secretary Granholm. Right.
    Mr. Casar [continuing]. To make further interconnections. 
It is just oftentimes that the politics has gotten in the way 
of the state interest and the national interest. And I would 
argue that this is not just a Texas issue, in that neighboring 
states badly need the power, and Texas has to be a part of the 
solution.
    In the meantime, between here and full interconnection, are 
there any other actions that DOE could take to enhance grid 
reliability, or that kind of transmission in and out of the 
state?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, grid reliability, yes. We, 
obviously, thanks to Congress, have this grid resilience 
innovation program which we are funding to make sure that all 
states have the ability to access clean power and upgrade their 
grids.
    We are really interested as well in funding things like 
advanced grid technologies, grid-enhancing technologies, like 
advanced conductoring, dynamic line rating, et cetera, which 
would make it more efficient for energy to be transmitted 
across grids.
    In the connectivity part, though, I would hope that in the 
next round of NIETCs, we could have this conversation about, 
actually, a firm connection to Texas. But, again, we do respect 
how the state views this and, you know, perhaps things will 
have changed at that point.
    Mr. Casar. I think that the vast majority of Texans would 
agree that grid connection and fixing the grid should overcome 
those sort of smaller level politics.
    So, I appreciate your time, and I yield back.
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Luna from 
Florida.
    Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Chairman.
    Secretary Granholm, earlier when Representative Burchett 
asked you about some UAP stuff, you said that the DoD 
essentially had denied any existence of that, and you referred 
to them as drones, correct?
    Secretary Granholm. It has my understanding that the 
Department of Defense has looked at this----
    Mrs. Luna. OK.
    Secretary Granholm [continuing]. And issued a report about 
it.
    Mrs. Luna. I have a lot of questions. So, just quick and 
concise, if possible.
    There have been persistent claims and reports, including 
those from credible whistleblowers to this Committee, 
suggesting that the U.S. Government, potentially including the 
Department of Energy, has been involved in reverse engineering 
technologies recovered from UAP. For example, the Pentagon's 
proposed Kona Blue program aimed at reverse engineering such 
technologies, although it was ultimately not established.
    Can you clarify whether the Department of Energy has been 
involved in any such efforts, either historically or currently, 
to analyze reverse engineering materials from/related to UAPs?
    Secretary Granholm. I have no knowledge of that.
    Mrs. Luna. OK. There are several reports indicated frequent 
drone incursions over DOE nuclear facilities, including an 
incident on April 1, 2021, at Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory, also known as LLNL.
    Can you detail the DOE's current security measures to 
prevent unauthorized drone activities or UAPs and what steps 
are being taken to enhance these measures of frequencies of 
incidences?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. We have a whole counter-drone 
effort to make sure that all of our national security sites and 
our labs are protected from incursions from drones, I will just 
say, that are not authorized. So, there is a whole series of 
protocols probably not ripe for discussion in this public 
setting.
    Mrs. Luna. Correct. So, I reviewed some unclassified 
materials from around the 1940's and 1950's, and so they were 
not just being reported as drones back then, and I encourage 
you to look over those materials because I think that you guys 
should be upgrading that program to cover down on UAPs.
    There have been documented sightings of metallic spheres 
over DOE facilities--if you want to call them drones in this 
instance--such as one report on April 30, 2019, over LLNL.
    What investigations have been conducted in regard to these 
sightings, and what conclusions do you guys have about the 
nature and origins of these objects?
    Secretary Granholm. I am happy to followup with you on 
that.
    Mrs. Luna. OK. We will be submitting also, too, for public 
record some questions after this, if you could please answer 
those.
    Considering the DOE's involvement in nuclear and sensitive 
research facilities, how does the DOE coordinate with agencies 
like the Department of Defense and ARROW to investigate UAP 
sightings?
    Secretary Granholm. We are part of--we, obviously, are 
teamed with the Department of Defense because of our national 
security and nuclear mission.
    Mrs. Luna. Are you able to cite any specific investigations 
or shared data analysis efforts?
    Secretary Granholm. I do not have information on that.
    Mrs. Luna. OK. As of right now, again, we will be 
submitting some questions for you after this, so I hope that 
you guys can answer those in a timely fashion.
    And again, for those that might be tuning in to this, I 
would encourage you to look at some of those unclassified 
materials, and we will be happy to provide your office with 
that.
    I will just followup by one other question, I guess, to 
close it out. Does the DOE currently work with JSOC in order to 
handle security measures?
    Secretary Granholm. We work with all of the security 
entities around the Federal Government. We are part of an 
overall, all-of-government effort, on both cyber, as well as 
national security.
    Mrs. Luna. Do you guys work with JSOC, yes or no?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, we do.
    Mrs. Luna. OK. All right. Thank you very much, ma'am.
    I yield the rest of my time, Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Would the gentlelady yield your remaining 
time?
    Madam Secretary, what is the exact position of this 
Administration with respect to nuclear?
    Secretary Granholm. We are in favor of nuclear power.
    Chairman Comer. Has the Biden Administration identified 
communities that are welcome to nuclear--there are communities 
around America that would welcome nuclear. I represent one, 
Paducah. There are communities that I do not think would be 
very receptive to nuclear.
    Does the Administration have a data base of communities--I 
mean, you could say you are for it, but is it a sincere support 
of nuclear?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. We are investing huge amounts in 
nuclear power and advancing small modular reactors, advanced 
nuclear reactors. We are supporting them with Congress' help. 
We firmly believe that nuclear is an important part of our 
trajectory to get to net zero.
    Chairman Comer. What is the timeline?
    Secretary Granholm. It is now. I mean, we are always 
encouraging utilities--for example, Vogel, as you are probably 
aware, has just turned on its fourth unit. We are very 
supportive of that. It was through the loan program office.
    Chairman Comer. All right.
    Secretary Granholm. And that was made possible. We are----
    Chairman Comer. With respect to that, Louisville or--what 
about coal, what is the exact position of the Administration 
with respect to coal? Because there is still an effort to 
continue to shut down more coal-fired plants.
    I personally believe that coal needs to be in the entire 
energy portfolio in America. I represent a huge coal-producing 
district. We also have a lot of coal-fired facilities left in 
Kentucky that have uncertain futures. What is the position on 
coal?
    Secretary Granholm. I mean, obviously, coal is--coal burns 
and has a huge CO2 footprint, and so----
    Chairman Comer. Clean coal.
    Secretary Granholm. Well, is there a good clean coal? We 
are excited to be able to continue to pursue that. We have been 
looking at all sorts of technologies through our national 
energy technology lab on coal and how you can capture and 
sequester the CO2.
    We know that a lot of coal plants are shutting down because 
of economics, not because of the regulatory footprint----
    Chairman Comer. I do not know.
    Secretary Granholm [continuing]. But we also--I mean, I--we 
also want to help energy communities to be able to produce the 
power for the next 100 years, too.
    And that is why a lot of the incentives that have been 
adopted by Congress and that we are implementing are to put 
facilities on those coal plants that would--for example, 
nuclear. Nuclear facilities on coal plants would enable us to 
be able to continue to employ those workers and power our 
Nation for the future.
    Chairman Comer. My time has expired. I will have some more 
questions letter. The Chair recognizes Ms. Pressley.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you for joining us, Madam Secretary. 
Always a pleasure.
    The climate crisis is real. The planet is not warming, as 
many experts have cited. The planet is burning. It is on fire. 
And the Department of Energy is essential to mitigating its 
harms while ensuring a healthy environment with clean air for 
all. Policymakers at all levels of government have a 
responsibility to do everything we can to transition from dirty 
fossil fuels. That is why I was really pleased to partner with 
the city of Cambridge, in my district, the Massachusetts 7th, 
to deliver $1 million in Federal funding to create publicly 
available and community accessible electric vehicle charging 
stations.
    Madam Secretary, while some of my colleagues across the 
aisle have spread disinformation about EVs, as co-founder and 
co-chair of the Future of Transportation Caucus, I would like 
to set the record straight. Investing in electric vehicles is 
good for the environment. It is good for people's pocketbooks. 
It is good for public health, and it is good for job creation.
    Secretary Granholm, regarding that last piece in 
particular, can you speak to how the Office of Energy Jobs is 
helping folks take advantage of opportunities from the 
proliferation of electric vehicles?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. We are seeing, as you have noted, 
all of these job sites opening up factories to create batteries 
for electric vehicles, or electric vehicles, or assembling the 
batteries into the vehicles. And it is a new thing.
    And so, the question is, how do you create a workforce that 
is capable of taking on this whole new sector of the economy. 
So, the Office of Energy Jobs has been working with our friends 
in labor to be able to create--and with our community colleges, 
to be able to create a workforce curriculum, for example, for 
batteries for electric vehicles that can be adopted in any part 
of the Nation, but can have certified workers to be able to do 
that.
    Every time you have a new factory open up, there is an 
opportunity for an economic cluster and that cluster has to 
include the workforce component of it, and that is what the 
energy jobs office is doing.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you. I know certainly in the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we are encouraged by the 
developments in the space that we are already seeing and 
certainly look forward to our continued partnership with your 
agency.
    Mr. Chair, I want to ask unanimous consent to enter into 
the record a Boston Globe article titled ``What EV Slowdown? 
Electric transition is still booming in Massachusetts.''
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Pressley. Now I want to discuss another priority in the 
Commonwealth, which should come as no surprise to you, and that 
is wind energy. Earlier this year the Department of Energy 
announced a multimillion-dollar center of excellence to 
accelerate the domestic wind energy industry-based in 
Massachusetts, ARROW, which stands for Academic Center for 
Reliability and Resilience of Offshore Wind, is led by the 
University of Massachusetts Amherst, with partners from across 
the Nation from Northeastern University in my district to 
Morgan State, an HBCU in Maryland, to the University of Puerto 
Rico.
    ARROW will help propel us toward a 100 percent clean 
electricity grid, a goal outlined in the Green New Deal, and a 
key part of the Biden-Harris Administration's climate agenda. 
Excited to see this work take off because there are significant 
benefits in harnessing wind as a renewable energy source, and 
one of those benefits is jobs, well-paid, union-backed jobs.
    Secretary Granholm, how can Congress help support workforce 
development in the domestic offshore wind energy industry to 
fill those roles from manufacturers to electricians and beyond?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you so much for that. I 
mean, I think the biggest thing that Congress can do, Congress 
has done, in terms of providing the incentives for these wind 
developers for the ability for us to build the wind turbines in 
the United States instead of importing them from, especially 
offshore wind from Europe, and so there has been a huge cluster 
of activity around just that, creating the workforce for those 
jobs.
    Once the jobs are coming, you want to train people for jobs 
that are there rather than the hypothetical job that might 
come. And so that is exactly what is happening all across the 
country.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you. And one more, in these last 30 
seconds or so.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Ms. Pressley. I just want to buildupon the question posed 
by my good colleague there, Congresswoman Brown from Ohio.
    How is the Department of Energy ensuring that marginalized 
communities benefit from job opportunities in the green 
economy? How do we ensure that the green economy is inclusive 
to Black, Brown, low-income folks, especially those who have 
been hardest hit by this climate crisis representing frontline 
communities?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. Two things: I mean, Congress has 
done its part by providing additional incentives, tax credits, 
like an additional kicker if a development goes into a 
disadvantaged community, which is great, and that is doing a 
lot of the work.
    DOE is doing our part by requiring these community benefit 
agreements for the grants that we give out, requiring that 
those private sector entities who get a grant from us have to 
have an agreement with the community about how people will be 
employed and trained and how the community will benefit that 
their presence.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now acknowledges Mr. Palmer from 
Alabama.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, in response to a question a little while 
ago about the sale of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve, 
you said that that was in response to the war in Ukraine. Is 
that correct?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Mr. Palmer. The first sale under the Biden Administration 
occurred in November 2021. Sold 50 million barrels in an 
attempt to lower gasoline prices. That is 3 months before the 
war began. So, I think you need to reevaluate your answer.
    By the way, the price of a gallon of gas in December 2020 
was $2.28. December 1921 it was $3.41. That is according to the 
Energy Information Administration. December 1922 it was $3.32. 
So, the Administration sold 50 million barrels, plus the 
additional barrels they sold later, as you say, because of the 
war in Ukraine, to affect gasoline prices by nine cents.
    And, by the way, according to EIA, the price of a gallon of 
regular gasoline right now is $3.73, $1.45 a gallon higher than 
it was in December 2020.
    You made a comment while you were in Paris that China's 
dominance in the world's critical mineral supply chain is one 
of the pieces of the supply chain that we are very concerned 
about in the United States.
    Do you stand by that?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Mr. Palmer. I am very appreciative of that because I agree 
100 percent that China is the existential threat to our economy 
and to our national security.
    But what is interesting is Alabama just rejected a Chinese 
Communist party-tied EV company's project that would have been 
located in northwest Alabama near Muscle Shoals that is now 
being located in Michigan.
    Did you have any role in the decision to locate that plant 
in Michigan?
    Secretary Granholm. No.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you for the answer. Because I think it is 
interesting that decisions are being made to bring companies in 
that have direct ties to the Chinese Communist party to build 
EV batteries when we are already overly dependent on China for 
our critical minerals.
    As a matter of fact, China is responsible for 60 percent of 
the worldwide production and 85 percent of the processing 
capacity. It is not just a matter of whether or not we mine the 
minerals here. It is a matter of whether we are able to process 
them or refine them. And I am not--I do not think there is a 
major rare earth refinery in the Western Hemisphere.
    So, I just am concerned about where we are on critical 
minerals. I do not think our future is in electric vehicles, 
not in the short-term definitely, but I do think that this mass 
transition to renewables is making us even more--is creating an 
even greater national security risk because of our dependence 
on China for critical minerals and rare earths and the 
processing and refining.
    Secretary Granholm. Can I--may I respond to that?
    Mr. Palmer. Yes, ma'am.
    Secretary Granholm. The Administration shares your concern, 
and that is why the President has signed into law and Congress 
has passed all of these incentives to bring critical minerals, 
extraction, refining, processing, incorporation into the 
battery in to the United States.
    As I was saying at the very beginning, because of this--
these incentives, our U.S. graphite production, for example, is 
expected to increase 25fold by 2030. Our lithium extraction and 
processing is expected to increase 85-fold. So, we want to get 
those processors here so that we can be independent.
    Mr. Palmer. And I appreciate what you are trying to do 
there, but the problem with us is the permitting. We need to 
take an attitude, a position that this is so critical to our 
national security that we permit some of these mines 
immediately and we are not subjecting ourselves to endless 
litigation on the permitting.
    We are going to abide by all the environmental rules, but 
your goals of achieving 100 percent renewable are not 
achievable with our dependence on China. Our goals of our 
national security and the security of our economy are not 
achievable as long as we have this dependence on China. And we 
are not going to get there in the mining, the processing, and 
refining unless we reform our permitting process.
    So, are you willing to participate in that effort?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, absolutely. I agree with you on 
that. And that is the whole point is that we want to become 
independent of China. And bringing all of that here or with 
allies is so important, the full steps of the supply chain.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, I really would encourage the 
Administration to be more sensitive to our positions on energy, 
critical minerals, rare earths, and on not inviting China to 
come in and build facilities here that will compromise us.
    And I do appreciate your responses. It is one of these rare 
times that you and I have agreed, but I do appreciate that.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Ms. Lee from Pennsylvania.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we have heard today, my 
Republican colleagues would like to use this hearing to bolster 
this narrative that the Biden Administration is enacting a war 
on energy, and we recognize that that is a false--as falsely 
promoting this idea that combating the climate crisis is 
somehow mutually exclusive with promoting economic security.
    But we know that this is a decades-old myth that has been 
used to excuse the unmitigated polluting of frontline 
communities especially, communities like mine and Braddock and 
the Mon Valley of Western Pennsylvania. For generations, 
communities like this, largely Black or Brown, or poor and 
working-class communities, have been kind of made into these 
sacrificial lambs, right, left to sacrifice their health, to 
sacrifice the air quality or the water quality in their 
communities, mostly for the sake of good jobs, but also for the 
economic prosperity that the Nation has enjoyed.
    Passage of the Inflation Reduction Act serves to prove that 
this argument is not just a false choice, but that we can, and 
we will, and we have the tools to fight the climate crisis 
while creating high-quality and union jobs.
    In Pennsylvania, the IRA is expected to create more than 
200,000 jobs over the next decade, and it will incentivize 
investments in low-income and disinvested communities that have 
been harmed the most and that stand to lose the most. But to 
make these goals and the intent of the IRA a reality, 
implementation matters, of course.
    President Biden's Justice40 initiative, for instance, aims 
to ensure that 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain 
Federal investments, including investments in clean energy, 
workforce development, and the remediation of legacy pollution, 
go to disadvantaged communities.
    However, prioritizing grants funding through Justice40 is 
not enough on its own to combat decades of underinvestment and 
disinvestment of frontline energy communities.
    I am happy because I feel like in years past, some of these 
questions about how do our policies impact marginalized and 
frontline communities probably would have gone unasked. And I 
am proud that we have had several folks sitting here today ask 
these very questions.
    I do want to leave a second. If there is anything specific 
or even more specific, like, for instance, a community like 
mine that is a community that, for a long time, has not had the 
opportunity to turn a corner because we have not had the 
opportunity to think about the future economies, particularly 
as we think about steel, how can communities like mine, in the 
shadows of the steel industry, as it is struggling to figure 
out how and where it goes next, how does this--the IRA and the 
DOE impact our communities?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. I mean, let me just say, the great 
thing about the President having signed that first executive 
order on Justice40, that means that everybody is thinking about 
how do we make sure that we do right by communities that have 
stood at the back of the line.
    And so, what Congress did in providing, for example, a 10 
percent incentive, additional stackable tax credit for locating 
in a disadvantaged community, that has achieved--policy works. 
That has actually achieved and steered and drawn investment to 
disadvantaged communities.
    We are doing our part with our community benefits 
agreement. We have just stood up an entity called Ready, which 
is working with communities to know how to negotiate a 
community benefit agreement on their behalf--what do I ask for, 
et cetera--giving them technical assistance and making sure 
they have got a level playing field in negotiating.
    But all of the work that Congress has done has given us the 
ability to help communities that have been at the back of the 
line.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. And, similarly, again, as someone from 
Pittsburgh, I represent both a marginalized frontline 
community, and also a community where labor is incredibly 
important.
    Part of building a new energy economy is the development of 
a workforce that is high quality and unionized. A 2023 DOE 
Office of Energy Jobs report found that workers in the energy 
sector were more than 1.5 times more likely to be represented 
by a union or covered under a project labor or collective 
bargaining agreement.
    In Western Pennsylvania, we know the value of good union 
jobs. So, it is crucial that Federal investments coming to our 
region and every other region benefit and strengthens our 
robust unionized workforce. And as we grow our unionized 
workforce, to be very clear, we also have the dual 
responsibility of ensuring we are creating pathways for those 
traditionally underrepresented in the trade unions, and 
particularly women and people of color, to participate.
    Secretary Granholm, how is the DOE working to ensure that 
the growing energy workforce includes high-quality union jobs, 
and even more specifically, the intent is to focus on labor 
agreements specifically, right? So, how is the Department 
prioritizing project labor agreements and competitive grants at 
locations to ensure we are supporting unionized workforce?
    Secretary Granholm. We encourage project labor agreements, 
and projects that come to us are evaluated on the strength of 
their community benefit plans, which also require paying of 
prevailing wage and having strong labor practices. So, we are 
doing our part to embed a movement that will allow for more 
unionization, but we cannot require unionization.
    We can just say we expect people to be treated well and 
paid well and, hopefully, the private sector takes it from 
there.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate your 
time. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Grothman from 
Wisconsin.
    Mr. Grothman. Yes. I will point out, I think we have the 
most divisive Administration I have ever seen. And one of the 
things that bothers me--I have union workers in my district. I 
get along with them well. Some of them support me, but there is 
this almost hatred for non-union workers.
    And I hope the--there are rumors out there that, maybe, 
illegally on some contracts--and you do not do a lot of the 
contracting--they are giving preferences to unionized 
companies; in other words, discriminating against non-union. I 
know that should not be done, but that rumor is out there. And 
certainly, statements like that in which we, in essence, run 
down non-union workers and imply that we should not care about 
them are not helpful in an already divided country.
    In any event, there is the mandate that we have a lot more 
electric vehicles within the next 7 years. I talked to a lot of 
my car dealers about it. They feel that we are--there is no way 
we are going to be generating enough electricity in this 
country to deal with this many.
    I would like to ask you, how much additional electricity do 
you think this country is going to have to generate in order to 
prepare for this onslaught of electric cars in 8 years?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, we are going to see demand 
increase, not just because of vehicles, but because of data 
centers and AI, as well as the additional manufacturing 
facilities that are coming online. NERC has projected that it 
will--in the next decade, we will see about a 15 percent 
increase in electricity demand. But the good news is, we have 
got the tools to be able to respond to that demand increase.
    Can I just say one other thing? Just to be very clear, we 
care about all workers, union or not. Just to make it very 
clear, we care about all workers having the benefit of a good 
paying job, and that is what we are working for.
    Mr. Grothman. You ought to sit on this Committee for a 
couple of months. I mean, some of the Members on the other side 
of the aisle, they--it is like all they care about is if you 
are unionized. I know so many good people, great people who are 
not unionized. They should represent them as well.
    The next question I have--and you can tell me whether this 
is true. I knew a guy with a car and--electric car, and he had 
to hook up stuff in his garage, he wanted to be prepared to 
hook up right there. And he felt for the hookup it cost him 
$8,000. Is that possible?
    Secretary Granholm. I do not know. I do not know the 
circumstances or how far away he was from the line, et cetera.
    Normally, that is definitely way more expensive than what 
it would cost to just plug in in your garage.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. I kind of want to followup here on what 
Mr. Donalds said.
    Right now, we are kind of cutting back a little bit on the 
amount of natural gas we are producing, which will result in 
raising the cost of natural gas, which will be bad for the 
American middle class, like a lot of policies. Maybe the poor 
are subsidized, and the rich do not care, but it hurts the 
middle class. Not to mention it is going to drive up the price 
of natural gas for countries that export it, like Iran and 
Russia.
    Could you comment on that? I mean, the fact that, 
obviously, if we are restricting natural gas production, we 
will be driving up the cost or we could drive down the cost by 
producing more?
    Secretary Granholm. We are not doing anything to restrict 
natural gas production.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. You do not feel that your policies are 
increasing the price of natural gas on the world markets?
    Secretary Granholm. No, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. With regard to the strategic oil 
reserve--I am not sure that is true. With regard to the 
strategic oil reserve, do you know right off your hand how many 
billions of barrels we had when President Biden took office and 
how many we have today?
    Secretary Granholm. We have 365 million barrels today. The 
maximum that the reserve holds is over 700, but I do not know 
the exact number the day he took office.
    Mr. Grothman. I think it is about a 40 percent reduction 
since he took office.
    Secretary Granholm. Could be.
    Mr. Grothman. Does that concern you? I mean, you always 
figure you can get a short-term benefit in getting rid of our 
strategic oil reserves, but if it ever comes down to when we 
really need them, if this country was at war or whatever, then 
we would have a big problem.
    Do you have any goals--if it has dropped from 630 to 368, 
do you have any goals between now and the end of President 
Biden's term as far as where you want to have that wind up? Are 
we going to work our way back to 630? What do you think?
    Secretary Granholm. We are in the process of solicitation 
for refilling. We have been refilling. We have refilled about--
--
    Mr. Grothman. Just very mildly.
    Secretary Granholm. Pardon me?
    Mr. Grothman. Very mildly. Do you think we can get back to 
the 630, or how close to the 630?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, let me just say, part of the 
reduction was because of congressionally mandated sales as 
well. We have got about 100 million of congressionally mandated 
sales that are still on tap. We can talk about that. We worked 
with Congress--thank you--to cancel 140 million.
    So, we are basically back to where we would have been had 
we not been doing the releases in response to the war in 
Ukraine.
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    Secretary Granholm. And we have the largest in the world. 
So, I am not concerned--to your initial question, I am not 
concerned that we would----
    Mr. Grothman. We started it at 630. Where do you think we 
will be next January?
    Secretary Granholm. I think we will be back to where we 
would have been, again, because of congressional sales, absent 
the release of the 180 million barrels.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Frost from 
Florida.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much, 
Madam Secretary. It is great to be here with you.
    The Department of Energy has sent a lot of money to the 
state of Florida, to strengthen and modernize our power grid, 
build resilience as the climate crisis worsens, creating better 
jobs, reducing energy burden and costs for disadvantaged 
communities. And this money is made possible thanks to the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Florida was not the only recipient. Obviously, you were 
also able to get the DOE to award funds directly to community 
organizations and solar companies in Puerto Rico, in a model 
that I have heard a lot about on a trip, actually, recently I 
took to Puerto Rico ensuring that the award was not 
bottlenecked with an administering agency.
    My constituents want to see this model used more broadly 
across the Federal Government, especially for folks in Puerto 
Rico, for HUD awards, Department of Justice awards, et cetera.
    So, I am just curious, how exactly does this model work, 
specifically as it relates to Puerto Rico? And can you talk 
about anything that you had to overcome, any administrative 
hurdles you had to overcome to make that happen?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you so much for this 
question. Puerto Rico, as you know, is very unique in the fact 
that there are layers of bureaucracy there to get anything 
done. Congress gave us $1 billion to be able to do rooftop 
solar. Thank you so much for supporting that.
    What we have done is we went throughout all of the island 
to hear how we should be distributing this--how should we be 
prioritizing the putting of solar panels on homes? And citizens 
there said, to a person, please prioritize people with 
disabilities, people who are poor and in last mile communities, 
and people who have got a health issue. So, we have done that.
    And we have done this by tapping local community members 
who are in the best position to identify who those people are, 
verified, of course, through their--you know, are they 
qualified for SNAP, et cetera. They have to be a verification. 
But they are our eyes and ears and arms, really, on the ground 
to identify who should be able to get rooftop solar.
    So, we are excited to begin that process. We hope that this 
summer we call the summer of solar for Puerto Rico and to be 
able to make people energy-independent in light of how fragile 
the grid is there.
    Mr. Frost. Yes, of course. Thank you so much for sharing 
that.
    You know, what Americans want when it comes to Federal 
funding is more community engagement, empowerment by directly 
granting awards to local governments, community groups, 
advocacy--or nonprofits, organizations, and small businesses.
    Now, a lot of my colleagues on this Committee have been 
talking about their concern for American-made energy, and I 
want to talk about that. Fossil fuels, like coal, natural gas, 
petroleum products are driving the climate crisis, as we know. 
Clean energy comes from renewable, zero-emission sources, like 
solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass sources.
    And the clean energy transition is urgent for humanity, but 
also for the state of Florida, as we are a frontline community 
in the climate crisis. Advances in technology and grid 
management, like those facilitated by the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, shore up reliability of renewable energy.
    Madam Secretary, how can we combat the climate crisis 
without transitioning to clean energy?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, you cannot.
    Mr. Frost. OK. And if we fell behind other countries in 
following these advancements in solar, wind, hydroelectric, 
geothermal, and biomass energy, how might that impact our 
ability to sustain and meet our growing energy needs?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, let me just say that this is--you 
know, our allies, our economic competitors out there, they are 
all vying for a piece of this from an economic point of view. 
They see the fact that this is a $23 trillion global market, 
this clean energy. All of these countries are going to need the 
products to be able to get them to their goals.
    So, we have friendly competition with our allies and our 
adversaries about who is going to get those jobs. And so, on 
the jobs front, this is very important, and it is why the 
Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
have been so impactful that we have got 600 factories so far 
that have announced that they are expanding as a result of 
those incentives in the United States making us competitive 
globally.
    So, from a global competition, economically, it is vital. 
Obviously, we have got to do our part from a climate change 
perspective as well. All of the countries do. So, we are 
working on both fronts, and actually, one complements the 
other. And it is a win-win.
    Mr. Frost. Exactly. I think it is a really exciting time in 
this work, too. I mean, we have the opportunity to build a new 
green economy, centers workers, fights the climate crisis, and 
where everybody can do well.
    And we cannot shackle America, shackle our country because 
not only are we going to suffer as a humanity, but we lose out 
on the economic benefit.
    And last question, Madam Secretary. Can we invest in clean 
energy while also looking out for the workers who currently 
work in fossil fuel production?
    Secretary Granholm. Absolutely. Absolutely. It is really a 
primary focus. And I know, Mr. Chairman, you raised this as 
well. It is a primary focus of this Administration. Leave no 
worker behind. Give them an opportunity to have a future-facing 
job, for their children to have a future-facing job that pays 
well. That is the MO of this Administration.
    Mr. Frost. Of course. Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burlison from 
Missouri.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you. Secretary Granholm, we have talked 
in this hearing about the overregulation of gas stoves, the 
washers, dryers, refrigerators, but I wanted to kind of dive 
into the subject of light bulbs.
    In July of last year, the Department of Energy made 
manufacturing or selling most incandescent light bulbs illegal. 
In the U.S., violators who manufacture an illicit light bulb 
are charged a penalty of $542 per bulb. To add insult----
    Secretary Granholm. I am sorry, can you say that one more 
time?
    Mr. Burlison. Yes. The fine for an illicit bulb is $542 per 
bulb.
    You are shaking your head.
    Secretary Granholm. That is news to me.
    Mr. Burlison. You might want to look into that.
    To add insult, April 12 of this year, you released a new 
rule for the LED light bulbs, OK? Now, and even your agency 
estimates that this new rule will cause the price of LED bulbs 
to nearly double. Are you aware of that?
    Secretary Granholm. I think that is an incorrect statement.
    Mr. Burlison. Elaborate. Because your agency says that they 
estimate that the current light bulb's average price is $2.98 a 
bulb. After this new rule, which will--right now, 99 percent of 
LED bulbs do not comply with the new rule. The price would go 
to $5.68 per bulb, which is a $2.70 increase per bulb, nearly 
doubling.
    Secretary Granholm. No. I think you are cherry-picking a 
bulb, a bulb, not the overall bulbs. The bottom line is LED 
light bulbs have been an enormous success. They are hugely 
impactful for everyday citizens. They save average households 
$225 a year. They last 25 times longer. They are 89 percent 
more efficient.
    Mr. Burlison. Yes.
    Secretary Granholm. They save people money.
    Mr. Burlison. Then why are you issuing new rules on them 
that cost----
    Secretary Granholm. Well, we are required to issue rules 
pursuant to the EPCA and the----
    Mr. Burlison. I would think you would want to encourage 
people who now cannot buy an incandescent bulb, because it is 
illegal to manufacture. I would think that you would want them 
to----
    Secretary Granholm. They will be saving money with an LED 
bulb, though. They will be saving money, significant amounts of 
money.
    Mr. Burlison. Well, and I think that there--the question 
is, do you think American people, do you think the American 
consumer is dumb?
    Secretary Granholm. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Burlison. So, if someone is buying an incandescent bulb 
and choosing to do that over an LED bulb, are they incompetent?
    Secretary Granholm. Of course not. Of course not. But we 
all know that industry can have very persuasive advertising 
that may not fully reveal the pluses and minuses.
    And the whole point----
    Mr. Burlison. That is another way of saying that they are 
not educated.
    Secretary Granholm. No, no, that is not a way of saying 
that at all, sir. Please do not put words in my mouth.
    What I am saying, though, is that LED bulbs are incredibly 
efficient. And the conservation standards that we roll out, we 
are very proud of, because they have saved consumers--they will 
have saved consumers $2 trillion by 2030, making more efficient 
appliances.
    Mr. Burlison. By making all of them--the upfront cost is 
going to be more. Anyway, you are taking away choice, 
ultimately, from consumers. You are taking away that choice.
    I want to talk about electric vehicles. Last year, you had 
an EV trip in 2023. How did that go?
    Secretary Granholm. It was a great trip. There was one 
glitch, but it was a great trip other than that.
    Mr. Burlison. OK. What was the glitch?
    Secretary Granholm. Which was that we could not get a 
charging port, but that is part of what the trip was 
identifying--both barriers as well as how well things are 
going, including the visiting of all of these electric vehicle 
manufacturing, battery manufacturing----
    Mr. Burlison. And you had the privilege of having staff 
painstakingly even map this trip out, correct?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Mr. Burlison. And did you have a situation where they 
locked down a charging station and made it unavailable for 
consumers?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Mr. Burlison. Were you aware that there was a family that 
was impacted?
    Secretary Granholm. No. I only--I learned about this 
afterward. It was a mistake.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you for admitting that. Have you 
reached out to that family and apologized to them?
    Secretary Granholm. I will apologize to them now. I do not 
know who they are, but I saw--I heard about it in the story, 
and it was not appropriate for staff to do that.
    Mr. Burlison. I appreciate those remarks. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Tlaib.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    We always talk about choice in this Committee. You know, 
there is a really big choice that I think a lot of my residents 
want to make, which is the choice to breathe clean air.
    Secretary Granholm, you know this, throughout my public 
service career, I have represented numerous communities, 
frontline communities, that have had really some of the highest 
burden of hosting fossil fuel infrastructure.
    It has never been clearer that we must rapidly phaseout 
fossil fuel production and transition to clean renewable 
energy. It is deeply disturbing to me that fossil fuel 
production is at a record high under the current 
Administration. And I know President Biden is fully aware of 
that position.
    I grew up in southwest Detroit, where I thought smelling 
like rotten eggs was normal, that all my friends had asthma was 
normal. To see in one of my communities I represented in the 
State House and then 4 years in Congress, 48217, to see white 
crosses in front of people's homes, I thought, you know, what 
is this about? It was a white cross campaign to say if anybody 
had cancer or survived cancer or somebody in their family died 
of cancer, they put a white cross on their front lawns, trying 
to humanize and understand the toll of hosting corporate 
polluters.
    Even now, in 48120 in my community, I have two very, very 
dense populated schools. And in their background is literally 
just--I mean, just one of the largest polluters in the state of 
Michigan. And I always look at Wayne County's Clean Air Act 
standards, and continuously we do not follow sulfur dioxide, 
and a number of other issues comes up over and over again with 
my residents.
    So, it is important to me the decision what you all are 
doing regarding liquified natural gas. It is documented, well-
documented, public health harms caused by LNG exports and how 
they are associated to larger harms to Black, Brown, indigenous 
communities, low-wealth communities. And so, LNG exports 
perpetuate, I think, systematic environmental racism and really 
just embedded in our fossil fuel economy.
    So, Secretary Granholm, as a member of the White House 
Environmental Justice Interagency Council, do you believe DOE 
should consider environmental justice implications of approving 
additional LNG exports and extending the life of LNG terminals?
    Secretary Granholm. One of the factors that we are 
evaluating in our review is what the impacts are on 
communities.
    Ms. Tlaib. Does this warrant additional study, though, by 
DOE prior to resuming LNGs, the licensing?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, that is why we are going through 
this. We have two national labs who are looking at a variety of 
factors, and this is one of them.
    Ms. Tlaib. We all know--and I know, Secretary, you know--
DOE has a statutory duty to conduct these public interest 
determinations before authorizing exports to certain countries 
and has a mandate to deny projects that are not in the public 
interest.
    It should not be controversial. And these are for my 
colleagues, please. It should not be controversial that the 
public interest determination should consider the most up-to-
date science and best practices. This is so critical in 
understanding and mitigating the short-and long-term health 
problems that toxic LNG export sites cause, including heart 
disease, cancer, and organ damage.
    Secretary Granholm, how is DOE working to protect health, 
the health, the public health, and economies of the 
marginalized communities that most often are forced to live 
near these export facilities?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, in general, we have a whole 
effort that is particularly focused on the Gulf Coast, which is 
where so many of these facilities are, not just LNG terminals 
but the petrochemical industry. It is one of the reasons why we 
are enthused that there is a whole component, for example, of 
the hydrogen hub that is focused on electrification of diesel 
trucks, of making sure that there are less--fewer particulates 
in the air that people are breathing.
    It is clearly environmental justice, Justice40. Ensuring 
that we get clean investments into communities is embedded 
throughout not only the Department of Energy but the 
Administration.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes. And it is important for my colleagues to 
know both Trump and the Obama Administrations have done this 
before. This is not the first time.
    Last, this is just a friendly request. Please, as DOE 
updates its studies that inform the public interest 
determination, that it would include meaningful public 
engagement with host communities as part of that process. I 
think that is incredibly important for the American people to 
be part of this process, that it is not a closed-door process, 
that they understand that they have a say in what they have to 
live with.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes the Committee's 
energy expert, Representative Fallon from Texas.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Granholm, when were you confirmed, roughly, month 
and year?
    Secretary Granholm. In February 2021.
    Mr. Fallon. February 2021, right after the Administration 
started. So, I was a little bit concerned when I saw the news 
report that, in November 2021, you were asked how many barrels 
of oil the U.S. consumes daily, and you did not know at the 
time. Do you remember that?
    Secretary Granholm. I remember.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. So, chance for redemption. How many barrels 
of oil do we consume every day?
    Secretary Granholm. We consume about--well, the world does 
a hundred. We do about 20. Again, these are ballpark.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes. I just saw it on your website. It was 102 
in 1922.
    So, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we were talking about 
that before, founded I believe it was 1975. And do you know at 
the height--and I think one of my colleagues just asked you--at 
the height of the prior Administration what the number was?
    Secretary Granholm. It was--well, I can tell you that the 
maximum was about 720.
    Mr. Fallon. Right. And that under the Trump Administration, 
at one point it was at 695 million barrels. When you all took 
office, do you have any idea where it was at?
    Secretary Granholm. What was it at?
    Mr. Fallon. I believe it was 638. And today it is at, you 
just said 365, I think?
    Secretary Granholm. 365.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. So, it is a 42 percent reduction. And you 
testified, before I came in the Committee, that it was--the 
Ukrainian war had something to do with the sale. That was not 
accurate, because 50 million barrels was sold in November 2021, 
before the invasion.
    And then you just said, when I did get here, that it was 
congressionally mandated. But according to the congressional 
Research Service, the congressionally mandated is only a 
fraction of that 270 million. Are you aware of that?
    Secretary Granholm. There was 140 million in 
congressionally mandated sales that we have canceled to be able 
to give back.
    Mr. Fallon. I understand that.
    Secretary Granholm. And then there is another 99 million 
that is teed up to go.
    Mr. Fallon. But that congressionally mandated, some of that 
that was canceled was for Fiscal Year 1924 to 1927, was it not?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, it is multiple years.
    Mr. Fallon. So, I am talking about what actually has 
physically happened. We have sold 270 million barrels. That was 
not--those 270 million barrels were not--the majority of that 
was not congressionally mandated sales.
    Secretary Granholm. Well, because we have canceled, because 
we have ended up canceling. But my point is----
    Mr. Fallon. We are going around in circles. But that 
cancellation was from sales that would have occurred in the 
future, not what has already happened in the past.
    Secretary Granholm. Correct, correct.
    Mr. Fallon. So, if it was not Ukraine and it was not 
congressionally mandated----
    Secretary Granholm. It was Ukraine. 160 million--180 
million barrels were from the Ukraine war--the war in Ukraine.
    Mr. Fallon. No, you did it after they happened to have 
invaded, but that was not the reason. I think the reason was 
because you were trying to depress the price of gasoline at the 
pump before----
    Secretary Granholm. There was a constriction on the global 
market.
    Mr. Fallon. Ma'am, excuse me, I am reclaiming my time. I am 
not going to be interrupting you.
    It was before the midterm elections in November. Because 
this in 1975 was designed for, I do not know, an act of God, 
natural disaster, national emergency, time of war, none of 
which has occurred in this country. And 270 million barrels 
were sold inexplicably.
    And by the way, I don't think that--was it your testimony 
that we have the largest reserve, Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
in the world?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. Not China?
    Secretary Granholm. We have the largest in the world. That 
is publicly made available.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. So, the Chinese do not have a billion 
barrels in reserve?
    Secretary Granholm. They do not publicly report what they 
have.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Because that is what the experts believe it 
is. So, we have a fraction of what they have.
    Secretary Granholm. Well, I do not know what they have.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. So, over the past 20 years, has the United 
States increased or decreased our carbon footprint?
    Secretary Granholm. Over the past?
    Mr. Fallon. Twenty years.
    Secretary Granholm. We have decreased.
    Mr. Fallon. We have decreased it by about 20 percent. Has 
China increased or decreased?
    Secretary Granholm. They have increased, sir.
    Mr. Fallon. Increased by? Do you have any idea?
    Secretary Granholm. I do not know their----
    Mr. Fallon. I am talking Energy 101. I am not going to get 
complicated.
    Secretary Granholm. I do not have the percentage in front 
of me.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. It is triple, about 300 percent. So, we 
have done exceptionally well.
    So, would you agree that the United States has a greater 
commitment to protecting the environment than, let us say, 
China?
    Secretary Granholm. I think we have a great commitment, a 
greater commitment to protecting the environment than China, 
yes.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes, I think that is manifestly obvious, 
considering what they have done the last 25 years or so.
    And incidentally, for the record, our economy is larger 
than theirs. And yet they are far more apt to, unfortunately, 
ignore their responsibilities for the environment.
    Do you think that we have a greater commitment to protect 
the environment than, let us say, Venezuela?
    Secretary Granholm. I think we have a greater commitment to 
protecting the environment, yes.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes. And Qatar as well?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Because we have a strong environmental 
lobby. We have rule of law. None of those countries have those 
kinds of things.
    So, it perplexes me that we would put, essentially, a ban--
people call it a pause--on liquified natural gas exports. And 
we are just giving a gift to one of the most evil dictators in 
the world, Vladimir Putin.
    Secretary Granholm. We are not giving a gift to Vladimir 
Putin. We are pausing for months while we update a study, and 
it will resume after that update happens.
    Mr. Fallon. Oh, I bet you it is going to resume magically 
right after the November elections. But be that as it may, I 
have talked to prime ministers and foreign ministers in Europe, 
and they are not happy with this at all. I hope that you talk 
to the same people.
    Secretary Granholm. I have talked to them, and I explained.
    Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Secretary Granholm. And they----
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fry from South Carolina.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I am actually going to pick up right where Mr. Fallon 
kind of left off a little bit. But I want to focus, Madam 
Secretary, on the companies themselves.
    In April of this year, Brad Crabtree testified in front of 
the Subcommittee on Economic Growth and Energy Policy that 
companies were concerned about the pause.
    Will this pause, in your mind, impact the planning horizons 
of LNG producers and exporters?
    Secretary Granholm. No.
    Mr. Fry. No? So, you would disagree with the 
characterization by Mr. Crabtree?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, he said their companies are 
concerned. I understand that they were concerned, but once 
people explain that it is a pause, that none of the existing 
operations are going to be affected, none of the authorized 
amounts which have not even begun construction yet have been 
affected, none of the construction projects that they are 
undertaking have been affected--it does not affect any of that, 
none of that. They can proceed apace.
    Mr. Fry. Let me ask you this: How did the DOE factor in the 
pause on the companies in the critical aspect--I would say like 
how did they--how did you all weigh that on the production side 
for the companies?
    Secretary Granholm. The companies are able to produce right 
now. Nobody is stopping any of the companies that have 
authorization from proceeding. We export. We have capacity to 
export 14 billion cubic feet. That exists. That is not being 
stopped. We have authorized another 12 billion cubic feet, 
which are under construction. That is going forward. We have 
authorized up to 48 billion cubic feet, the difference of which 
has not even begun construction. That is not impacted by the 
pause.
    This does not impact anybody who is doing business or is in 
construction or even contemplating doing business. And it only 
will last until the first quarter of next year, when we 
complete the analysis of what is in the public interest.
    Mr. Fry. Recent reporting, Madam Secretary, from the Wall 
Street Journal noted that Sarah Brennan, the Associate Director 
at the Rockefeller Family Fund, which has a history of funding 
anti-fossil fuel groups, stated in an email to environmental 
groups that, quote, ``The pause is the result of a sustained 4-
year push that built upon years of opposition to gas exports by 
community groups and lawyers.''
    So, I would ask you, can you tell us how much advance 
notice was provided on the pause before it was publicly 
announced?
    Secretary Granholm. This was DOE's decision. We announced 
it when we announced it. We did not provide advance notice to 
groups or anything. We announced it when we announced it.
    Mr. Fry. Madam Secretary, has it always been the intent of 
the Administration, the Biden Administration, to enact this 
pause from the beginning?
    Secretary Granholm. I am not aware of what the intent was 
inside the White House. As I say, this is the Department of 
Energy's evaluation and decision.
    Mr. Fry. I am going to switch gears here.
    Despite decarbonization policies being a key contributor to 
the premature retirement of fossil fuels, demand for 
electricity is going to continue to rise throughout the United 
States.
    My home state of South Carolina will need new generation as 
coal plants close or potentially close in the coming years. But 
without proper and realistic guidance from DOE and the EPA, 
there is little hope that the grid will actually be as 
resilient as the Administration claims.
    Madam Secretary, the DOE signed a memorandum of 
understanding with the EPA to ensure grid reliability. Is that 
correct?
    Secretary Granholm. That is correct.
    Mr. Fry. Do you believe that the MOU process can still 
function properly if all the entities obligated to ensure 
reliability say that it actually is not achievable?
    Secretary Granholm. The EPA is not saying that it is not 
achievable.
    Mr. Fry. No. The entities are saying that it is not 
achievable.
    Secretary Granholm. Oh, I am sorry. I thought you said the 
entities who were parties to the MOU.
    I think the entities are concerned about whether it is 
doable. But our experience at Department of Energy--and we 
consulted with EPA on this--and our knowledge of carbon capture 
technology tells us that that technology is ready, and it can 
be installed, and it is doable.
    Mr. Fry. So, to me, the MOU seems, in a way, for the EPA to 
shift potential blame to the Department of Energy.
    Even before you testified before the Energy and Commerce 
Committee 3 weeks ago, at least three regional transmission 
organizations have cited premature retirement of fossil fuel 
resources as a growing concern with the future of America's 
grid stability. Couple these concerns with FERC's own forecast 
of summer supply shortfalls, and it is clear, I think, that we 
will have issues with reliability.
    Many experts have said that the Administration's ambitious 
power plant and carbon capture goals are not achievable in the 
desired timeframe with our current technology.
    So, who is wrong here?
    Secretary Granholm. The goals are achievable with current 
technology.
    Mr. Fry. Do you think it is the experts or the EPA for whom 
you have already provided this MOU to implement something that 
is illegal or harmful to American consumers?
    Secretary Granholm. We are not implementing anything that 
is harmful to American consumers. In fact, it is helpful to 
America to breathe clean air and have a clean power plant.
    We are the experts at Department of Energy. We have 17 
national labs that are working on this. We have an MOU with the 
EPA. We know what technology is available, and we believe it is 
doable.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Waltz from Florida.
    Mr. Waltz. Madam Secretary, thank you for coming in.
    In preparation for the hearing, I rewatched or I watched 
your appearance on The View. And after one of the hosts was 
kind of condescending and insulting the intelligence of the 74 
million people that voted for President Trump, you talked 
about--because they were talking about how the prices of 
everything are so high.
    You talked about, well, in response, what the American 
people need to do is take advantage of tax credits to 
weatherize their homes and take advantage of credits to buy 
EVs.
    I found it kind of astounding, because I did not hear 
anything in your response--and I want to give you a chance 
today--to talk about how the American people need to deal with 
this.
    Energy and Federal Government spending are the two greatest 
drivers of inflation, and it is eating Americans alive. They 
cannot afford rent. They cannot afford groceries. They cannot 
afford electricity, right there in your wheelhouse. They cannot 
afford gas.
    So how are we, with the energy prices so high, with 
spending so high on a lot of these credits--by the way, EVs 
only make up 1 percent of the cars on the road--how are we 
driving down prices to help the American people?
    Secretary Granholm. We are really obsessed with reducing 
prices for people too and totally get it.
    Mr. Waltz. Madam Secretary, it is not working. The 
inflation rate is up almost 20 percent.
    Secretary Granholm. Inflation----
    Mr. Waltz. Gasoline is up 55 percent.
    Secretary Granholm. Inflation is coming down. When you 
say--from what point is gasoline up 55 percent? I do not know 
what your measurement is. Is it from the start of the 
Administration?
    Mr. Waltz. Gas prices are high. I mean, look at where they 
were in the mid twos to now the mid threes. That is----
    Secretary Granholm. The mid twos were in the middle of a 
pandemic. All those prices that you are talking about, they are 
in the middle of a pandemic when prices are through the floor. 
It is not a normal time.
    However, let me say, we are obsessed with making sure we 
bring down prices for people. It's one of the reasons why----
    Mr. Waltz. Madam Secretary, I appreciate--I only get 5 
minutes.
    Secretary Granholm. Well, you have asked a question, so----
    Mr. Waltz. No. On behalf of the people I represent, I 
appreciate that you are obsessed with it. What you are doing is 
not working. These prices are still unacceptably high.
    Secretary Granholm. OK. This is why the President has 
focused on every way possible to help reduce prices for people. 
This means whether it is on prescription drugs or whether it is 
weatherizing your home to reduce your electricity bill, whether 
it is helping people to be able to get an electric car, so they 
do not have to pay gasoline prices, whether it is reducing 
student loans. Every pocket of way, the President is trying to 
reduce costs for people.
    Mr. Waltz. Except that he is doing that by printing money 
and throwing Federal dollars at the problem.
    You have got one group of Americans paying student loans 
for another group. You got one group of Americans paying 
through their taxes EVs for another group, which, by the way, 
are not environmentally sound, in terms of the materials that 
go in them.
    And I would encourage you to read the book Red Cobalt that 
talks about the 40,000 children that work in the cobalt mines 
of Congo, some as young as 6.
    But let us just stick with prices for a moment. Clearly has 
not worked here, but let us talk about abroad. The intelligence 
community has confirmed for me that--and a number of analysts 
have confirmed, I mean, obviously Russia fuels its economy on 
oil and gas. Iran fuels its economy on oil and gas. At about 
$55 a barrel, Russia can no longer fuel its war machine. It 
actually goes into kind of economic survival mode.
    So, wouldn't it make sense to flood the global market with 
cleaner--you admitted in prior testimony American gas is 
cleaner than what came through Nord Stream Two, correct?
    Secretary Granholm. Correct, it is cleaner.
    Mr. Waltz. So, why wouldn't we flood the world with 
cleaner, cheaper American oil and gas, drive down the prices? 
Now you have not only solved what is going on with the Iranian-
supported terrorists in the Middle East, you have put Putin on 
his back foot as well in terms of the war in Ukraine. You have 
now solved two global problems and the inflation problem here 
at home.
    But, instead, the climate agenda is counter to all of that. 
We are restricting our supply, and then we are allowing Iran to 
pump to China. We are allowing Venezuela to pump. Russia is 
pumping more than it ever has through India and China, for that 
matter, into Europe.
    How does this make sense?
    Secretary Granholm. This is such curious--this is so 
curious to me, because we are the No. 1 producer of oil and 
gas. We are the No. 1 exporter of liquified natural gas.
    Mr. Waltz. But we could be so much more if we were not 
tapping the brakes in ANWR, we were not putting a ban----
    Secretary Granholm. We have such oil dominance. We have--we 
are doing more than the previous Administration, significantly, 
by getting more.
    Mr. Waltz. How much more could we be doing, Madam 
Secretary? How much more could we be doing? Because the price 
of oil is still hovering around 80--demand is still out there. 
That is why the price of oil and gas are still so high.
    Secretary Granholm. Correct.
    Mr. Waltz. That is why everybody is still buying Russian 
oil and Iranian oil.
    Secretary Granholm. That is correct. But it is not this 
Administration that is hampering the production of oil and gas. 
I mean, you can make that face, but we are No. 1 in the world. 
We are at record levels.
    Mr. Waltz. OK. We are at 13. Could we be at 15 million a 
day?
    Secretary Granholm. Nobody is stopping----
    Mr. Waltz. Could we be at 16?
    Secretary Granholm. Nobody is stopping additional.
    Mr. Waltz. Could we be at 17?
    Secretary Granholm. Nobody is stopping----
    Mr. Waltz. Just final question, Mr. Chairman.
    I just had lunch with the speaker of the Parliament of 
Lithuania. She was in near panic mode. Lithuania right on the 
front line, probably next after Ukraine with Russia.
    She said, Congressman, we buy 85 percent of our gas through 
the terminals in Louisiana and in Texas. These are bought on 
very long-term contracts. We are having to think 10 years out. 
She said, ``I do not know what to do with the ban.''
    Secretary Granholm. There is not a ban.
    Mr. Waltz. She said, ``I am going to have to start looking 
elsewhere.''
    Secretary Granholm. We have spoken with her.
    Mr. Waltz. Our allies believe it is a ban.
    Secretary Granholm. No, they do not. We have spoken with 
them. They do not believe it is a ban. It is not a ban.
    Mr. Waltz. I encouraged her to come talk to you.
    Secretary Granholm. It is in order to be able to update an 
analysis of what is in the public interest. Nothing is stopping 
from what is currently being exported.
    Ms. Tlaib. Time is expired.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time is expired.
    I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    And Madam Secretary, let me go back and correct something 
you said earlier when we were discussing coal. You said coal is 
shutting down because of economics. It is shutting down because 
of the economics created by the Biden Administration, and even 
further back than that, the Obama-Biden Administration.
    But, Secretary, my congressional district is home to the 
former Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky, which is 
undergoing cleanup by the Department of Energy.
    As you are aware, the Fiscal Year 2024 appropriations 
package required the Department to conduct a cost-benefit 
analysis to determine whether a new administrative facility is 
the best benefit to the taxpayer versus upgrading the current 
70-year-old facility.
    Madam Secretary, what is the status of this cost-benefit 
analysis, and when can you expect that it will be available for 
review?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. Let me get back to you on that.
    Chairman Comer. OK. And just let me say, I urge you to move 
quickly on this analysis so that we can ensure that the 
upcoming appropriations bill allows the Department to move 
forward with the best option to support cleanup efforts, which 
is our goal there in Paducah.
    I was glad to see the Department of Energy award grant 
funding to the Paducah Chamber of Commerce to review how 
cleanup efforts can be complemented by future 
reindustrialization, which is a goal there.
    Can you provide an update to how the Department intends to 
ensure that cleanup complements reindustrialization?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, you are talking about that site 
or at any site?
    Chairman Comer. Yes. Or any site, but that one specifically 
would be great.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. I mean, this is one of the things 
that I think was so important in the passage of the Inflation 
Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is that it 
gave us an incentive to be able to offer, for example, 48(c) 
tax credits to former energy communities or energy communities 
that were challenged.
    And so, to be able to lure manufacturing to those 
communities is embedded in the tax laws that were passed by 
Congress. That is true for the way the Loan Programs Office is 
operating as well. There is a whole component there to be able 
to help loans for communities that have powered our Nation for 
the past 100 years.
    Chairman Comer. I strongly encourage the Department to work 
closely with the community to ensure that reindustrialization 
continues in parallel with the cleanup efforts.
    So, as you know, a crucial part of this reindustrialization 
will be attracting industries that recognize and utilize the 
specialized skills and knowledge of the existing regional 
nuclear energy workforce. To that end, I understand that DOE 
plans to issue a funding opportunity announcement for novel and 
innovative nuclear enrichment technologies.
    Given that DOE has had this funding for nearly 2 years, can 
you provide a timeline on when that funding opportunity might 
be released and when DOE plans to make those awards?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. Let me--I have to check with our 
Office of Nuclear Energy on the exact timing on it, but I can 
get back to you.
    Chairman Comer. Will that FOA be tailored to encourage the 
commercialization of new technologies, like laser enrichment?
    Secretary Granholm. I will have to check with them to see 
what exactly they are contemplating as new technologies.
    Chairman Comer. OK. Look forward to getting a response.
    In recent months, Congress has taken significant action to 
bolster the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including 
passing a ban on Russian uranium imports, passing the Nuclear 
Fuel Security Act, and appropriating $2.7 billion to 
incentivize the new LEU and HALEU capacity.
    Can you provide assurance that DOE will not establish 
criteria that would discourage or prevent new market entrants 
from participating in any competitive funding opportunities 
associated with this new funding?
    Secretary Granholm. Sure. If we are putting out an RFP, we 
would make sure that it is competitive. We encourage all 
suppliers.
    Chairman Comer. So, when does the DOE plan to make awards 
related to that new funding?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. We are going to--I mean, 
obviously, this is a whole strategy, this uranium strategy, the 
$2.7 billion. And so, we are really being thoughtful about it. 
I know you had a hearing with Dr. Huff about the way it is 
being implemented, both for HALEU as well as for low-enriched 
uranium. So, we expect that in the next few months we will be 
able to have more to say about the sequence and the timing of 
putting out funding opportunities.
    Chairman Comer. Well, we would like to work with you on 
that. And I have a community, Paducah, that is really ahead of 
the curve and working together.
    And I strongly encourage you--they have had a multiyear 
relationship with the DOE over the previous three or four 
administrations. So, we think there is a lot of opportunity 
there to where the community can work with DOE and lots of new 
opportunities for good-paying jobs.
    And in my remaining few seconds, I have to say that I want 
to make a plug. We are very blessed in America to have the 
greatest energy economy anywhere. That is anchored by the oil 
companies. And oil is something that--it is a commodity we use 
every day.
    I strongly encourage this Administration not to saddle the 
industry with excessive and burdensome rules and regulations 
that are only increasing the cost to consumers, which is 
fueling inflation in America.
    We believe that our--as many of my colleagues have stated--
our energy opportunity is much greater than what we are 
utilizing now. And we believe the thing that is holding us back 
are bad policies and burdensome rules and regulations by the 
Biden Administration.
    So, we strongly encourage you to work closely with the 
energy companies. Not only do they provide tremendous energy 
for American consumers; they provide good-paying jobs to their 
workers and pay a lot of taxes that keep our communities 
afloat. So, I wanted to mention that, because this was an 
energy hearing.
    I do not see any further questioners, so we will close.
    I want to thank you, Secretary, for being here today and 
for answering questions. The Oversight Committee is not as bad 
as they say on TV. Hopefully you will tell your colleagues in 
the Cabinet that this was a good experience, and hopefully we 
will see more of your Cabinet colleagues in front of this 
Committee, like we are supposed to do.
    So, with that and without objection, all Members will have 
5 legislative days within which to submit materials and to 
submit additional written questions for the witnesses, which 
will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]