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


 
                     DISCUSSION DRAFT OF H.R. ____,
                            ``CORE ACT''; 
                  H.R. 7053, H.R. 8665, AND H.R. 8954

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

                           LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                           MINERAL RESOURCES

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                         Tuesday, July 23, 2024
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-136
                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources





               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov         
                                 ______
          
                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

56-358 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2025

























                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

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

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

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

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

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

                                 ------                                





























                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing Memo.....................................................     v
Hearing held on Tuesday, July 23, 2024...........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota.........................................     2
    Ocasio-Cortez, Hon. Alexandria, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New York.................................     3

    Panel I:

    Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Arizona.................................................     5
    Hunt, Hon. Wesley P., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Texas.............................................    39

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel II:

    Van Liew, Dustin, Vice President, EnerGeo Alliance, Houston, 
      Texas......................................................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     7
    Rogers, Terra, Program Director, Superhot Rock Energy, Clean 
      Air Task Force, Boston, Massachusetts......................    13
        Prepared statement of....................................    15
        Supplemental documents submitted for the record..........    23
    Sandberg, J.C., Chief Advocacy Officer, The American Clean 
      Power Association, Washington, DC..........................    24
        Prepared statement of....................................    25
    Feldgus, Steve, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land 
      and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, 
      Washington, DC.............................................    28
        Prepared statement of....................................    30
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    33
    Wright, Jim, Commissioner, Railroad Commission of Texas, 
      Austin, Texas..............................................    34
        Prepared statement of....................................    35

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Thompson, Hon. Glenn ``GT'', a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of Pennsylvania, Prepared Statement for the 
      Record.....................................................    65
    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Statement for the Record 
      on the CORE Act............................................    67
    U.S. Geological Survey, Statement for the Record on H.R. 8665    70

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

        Cramer, Hon. Kevin, U.S. Senator, Statement for the 
          Record.................................................    41

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber

        Environmental Defense Fund, Letter to the U.S. Department 
          of Interior............................................    61
    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        Clean Air Task Force, ``Understanding Superhot Rock 
          Energy in Context''....................................    72
    Submissions for the Record by Representative Levin

        EDF Renewables, Letter to the Committee in support of 
          PLREDA.................................................    52
        Multiple Organizations, Letter to the Committee in 
          support of PLREDA......................................    53

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


To:        House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members

From:     Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Staff, Rob 
        MacGregor--Robert.MacGregor@mail.house.gov, x6-2466 and Will 
        King--Will.King @mail.house.gov, x5-9297

Date:     Tuesday, July 23, 2024

Subject:   Legislative Hearing on H.R. 7053, H.R. 8665, H.R. 8954, and 
        a Discussion Draft of H.R. ____ (Rep. Hunt)
________________________________________________________________________

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will hold a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 7053 (Rep. Thompson of PA), ``Orphan Well 
Grant Flexibility Act of 2024''; H.R. 8665 (Rep. Lucas), 
``Supercritical Geothermal Research and Development Act''; H.R. 8954 
(Rep. Gosar), ``Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act of 
2024''; and a Discussion Draft of H.R. ____ (Rep. Hunt), 
``Comprehensive Offshore Resource Evaluation Act'' or the ``CORE Act,'' 
on Tuesday, July 23, 2024, at 10:30am in 1334 Longworth House Office 
Building

    Member offices are requested to notify Jacob Greenberg 
(Jacob.Greenberg@mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, July 22, 2024, 
if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES

     Renewable energy projects on federal lands currently pay 
            fees to the federal government, but those fees are not 
            shared to host states in the same manner as conventional 
            energy production on federal lands. H.R. 8954 would fix 
            this problem by ensuring states and counties secure the 
            benefits of energy production within their borders.

     The Biden administration has unilaterally added new 
            requirements for funding to plug orphaned wells, resulting 
            in less wells being plugged. H.R. 7053 would further 
            clarify the law to ensure plugging of orphaned wells can 
            continue efficiently.

     The CORE Act addresses the urgent need to modernize Bureau 
            of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) resource assessments 
            and ensure more accurate data collection for offshore oil 
            and gas production. This will enhance U.S. energy security 
            and economic stability by bolstering domestic energy 
            supply, reducing reliance on imports, and increasing 
            support for local economies through state revenue and job 
            creation.

II. WITNESSES

Panel I:

     Members of Congress (To Be Announced)

Panel II:

     Dr. Steve Feldgus, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
            for Land and Minerals Management, Department of the 
            Interior, Washington, DC. [H.R. 7053]

     Mr. JC Sandberg, Chief Advocacy Officer, The American 
            Clean Power Association, Washington, DC. [H.R. 8954]

     Mr. Dustin Van Liew, Vice President, EnerGeo Alliance, 
            Houston, TX [``CORE Act'' Discussion Draft]

     Mr. Jim Wright, Commissioner, the Railroad Commission of 
            Texas, Austin, Texas, [H.R. 7053]

     Ms. Terra Rogers, Program Director, Superhot Rock Energy, 
            Clean Air Task Force, Boston, Massachusetts [H.R. 7053 & 
            H.R. 8665] [Minority Witness]

III. BACKGROUND

Discussion Draft of H.R. ___ (Rep. Hunt), ``Comprehensive Offshore 
        Resource Evaluation Act'' or the ``CORE Act''

    The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) plays a critical role in the 
United States' energy strategy, providing substantial oil and gas 
resources that contribute to national energy security, economic 
stability, and coastal resiliency goals. The BOEM periodically conducts 
resource assessments and regularly prepares 5-year leasing plans as 
mandated by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).\1\ These 
assessments, which include Undiscovered Technically Recoverable 
Resources (UTRR) and Undiscovered Economically Recoverable Resources 
(UERR), are crucial for informed decision-making and contribute to 5-
year program planning and development.\2\ UTRR and UERR are critical 
components of BOEM's comprehensive inventory and analysis of oil and 
natural gas resources beneath OCS waters. These components are reported 
to Congress every five years, as required by the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 (EPAct05).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Congress. (1953). Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as 
amended. Pub.L. 83-212.
    \2\ BOEM. (2021). 2021 Undiscovered Technically Recoverable 
Resources (UTRR) by Play. Retrieved July, 2024, from https://
www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oil-gas-energy/resource-
evaluation/2021%20UTRR%20by%20Play.pdf
    \3\ U.S. Congress. (2005). Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended. 
Pub.L. 109-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CORE Act seeks to amend EPAct05 to incorporate specific 
instructions for future comprehensive inventories, ensuring that 
resource assessments include the latest data and methodologies for 
accurate and reliable estimates. BOEM's current processes face 
challenges in data acquisition, technological integration, and 
environmental impact considerations.
Resource Assessments and Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing
    The resource assessment process has unfortunately become weaponized 
under the Biden administration. The assessments, conducted every five 
years and historically two years before the comprehensive inventory 
mandated by the EPAct05, are critical for accurate resource estimation. 
These undiscovered resource assessments aim to provide appraisals of 
unknown, technically, and economically recoverable oil and gas on the 
OCS. BOEM asserts that these assessments utilize the latest 
geophysical, geological, technological, and economic data to draw their 
conclusions but massive fluctuations in resource potential from report 
to report, outdated inputs, and seemingly outdated methodology and 
processes have sparked oversight of BOEM's procedures.\4\ Further 
underscoring their importance, UTRR and UERR assessments influence the 
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) required under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for 5-year leasing programs. Accurate 
assessments ensure that potential oil and gas resources are thoroughly 
analyzed, which is essential for informed decision-making and planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ House Committee on Natural Resources. ``Hearing on Offshore 
Energy Development.'' February 26, 2020. https://
naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID= 415851
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before unveiling their abhorrent 5-year plan, the Biden 
administration issued the 2021 Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas 
Resources of the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf. This assessment 
showed dramatic fluctuations from the previous estimate under the Obama 
administration. In 2016, BOEM reported 91 billion barrels of oil (BBO), 
328 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of gas, and 149 billion barrels of oil 
equivalent (BOE).\5\ By 2021, these figures had dropped to 68 BBO, 229 
TCF of gas, and 109 BOE.\6\ Such changes, not primarily attributable to 
drilling, production, or seepage, indicate potentially poor data or 
possible manipulation by insertion of inconsistent assumptions, leading 
to reduced estimates and misguided policy decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. ``2016 Undiscovered 
Technically Recoverable Resources (UTRR) by Play.'' 2017. https://
www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-program/Resource-
Evaluation/Resource-Assessment/2016-UTRR-by-Play_2017-update-%281% 
29.pdf
    \6\ BOEM. (2021). 2021 Undiscovered Technically Recoverable 
Resources (UTRR) by Play. Retrieved July, 2024, from https://
www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oil-gas-energy/resource-
evaluation/2021%20UTRR%20by%20Play.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This assessment informed an unacceptable 5-year leasing plan which 
offered the lowest number of offshore oil and gas lease sales in the 
nation's history. This has raised concerns about the United States' 
long-term energy strategy, economic impact on Gulf Coast states, and 
national energy security.
    The CORE Act seeks to address these issues by improving the 
resource assessment process and ensuring comprehensive and up-to-date 
data inform federal decision-making. By stipulating specifically what 
BOEM should consider in each assessment, there is a lesser chance that 
future assessments will be subject to weaponization.
National Security and Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements

    Bilateral maritime boundary treaties, such as the 1990 US-Soviet 
Union (now Russia) Maritime Boundary Agreement and the 2000 US-Mexico 
Maritime Boundary Agreement, include provisions on sovereign rights 
over natural resources.\7\ These agreements ensure that neither country 
can claim resources on the other's side of the boundary. The 2000 US-
Mexico Agreement also addresses transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, 
establishing a framework for equitable and efficient development of 
such resources.\8\ The 2012 US-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbon 
Reservoirs Agreement further promotes unitization and cooperation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ U.S. Department of State. ``Agreement Between the United States 
of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime 
Boundary.'' June 1, 1990. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/
2020/02/US_Russia_1990.pdf#page=5
    \8\ U.S. Department of State. ``Treaty Between the Government of 
the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican 
States on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf in the Western Gulf 
of Mexico Beyond 200 Nautical Miles.'' June 9, 2000. https://
www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/
US_Mexico_2000_withExtension.pdf#page=4
    \9\ U.S. Department of State. ``U.S.-Mexico Transboundary 
Hydrocarbons Agreement.'' May 2, 2013. https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/
pa/prs/ps/2013/05/208650.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CORE Act addresses the critical need for enhanced assessment of 
transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, which are essential in areas 
where the U.S. shares oil and gas reserves with neighboring countries. 
The current lack of comprehensive data and clear frameworks leaves BOEM 
ill-equipped to assess resource potential, jurisdiction, and bilateral 
collaboration opportunities in these shared reservoirs. The CORE Act 
seeks to rectify this by mandating improved data acquisition and legal 
frameworks, ensuring that the U.S. can effectively lease and manage its 
resources while coordinating with other nations for equitable and 
efficient development. This approach secures our national interests and 
fosters international cooperation in resource management.
Geological and Geophysical Permitting

    Geological and Geophysical (G&G) surveys are crucial to the 
exploration and development of offshore oil and gas resources. These 
surveys employ advanced technologies such as 3-D and 4-D seismic 
imaging to map and assess the subsurface geological structures beneath 
the ocean floor.\10\ Accurate G&G data is essential for identifying 
potential hydrocarbon deposits, estimating their size, and 
understanding their characteristics. Modern seismic imaging also 
reduces risk for exploration and production companies by increasing the 
likelihood that exploratory wells will successfully tap hydrocarbons 
and decreasing the number of wells that need to be drilled in a given 
area.\11\ This information is foundational for resource assessments, as 
it provides the data needed to estimate UTRR and UERR.\12\ Reliable G&G 
surveys reduce uncertainty in resource estimates, inform drilling and 
production decisions, and ultimately support the creation of 
comprehensive and accurate inventories of offshore oil and gas 
resources. This process aids in the efficient development of energy 
resources and ensures BOEM, policymakers and investors have the 
necessary information to make informed decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. ``Geological & Geophysical 
(G&G) Data.'' Accessed July, 2024. https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/
resource-evaluation/geological-geophysical-gg-data
    \11\ EnerGeo Alliance. ``Introduction to Marine Seismic 
Technologies.'' September 6, 2022. https://energeoalliance.org/Marine-
Seismic-Technologies
    \12\ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. ``2021 Assessment of 
Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Nation's Outer Continental 
Shelf.'' Accessed July 2024. https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/oil-gas-energy/2021-Assmt-of-Undiscovered-Oil-Gas-Resources-
OCS.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The provisions in Section 4 of the CORE Act related to G&G 
permitting aim to stimulate exploration activity, which informs future 
assessments and improves the operating environment for geophysical and 
geotechnical permit applicants. By easing the burdens of permitting 
delays at BOEM and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association and 
mitigating related litigation, these reforms support the timely 
delivery of necessary data for accurate resource estimates and energy 
supply.
Environmental and Economic Benefits of Offshore Development
    Undiscovered oil and gas resources in the OCS have the potential to 
significantly boost the U.S. economy while promoting a healthier 
environment. Improving BOEM's data acquisition methods will prompt an 
increase in domestic oil production which will bring greater energy 
security, more affordable energy prices, a lower national trade 
deficit, and increased revenue passed to states for vital coastal 
restoration and infrastructure projects. Furthermore, energy production 
occurring in the Gulf of Mexico is 46% less carbon intensive when 
displacing global production in countries like Russia, China, and 
Iran.\13\ Economic and environmental studies commissioned in this bill 
will ensure that these benefits are adequately considered in BOEM's 
leasing programs and across the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ National Ocean Industries Association. ``GHG Emission 
Intensity of Crude Oil and Condensate Production.'' May 2023. https://
www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/NOIA-Study-GHG-Emission-
Intensity-of-Crude-Oil-and-Condensate-Production.pdf

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


H.R. 7053 (Rep. Thompson of PA), ``Orphan Well Grant Flexibility 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Act of 2024''

    Orphan wells are oil or gas wells that were not plugged and 
remediated by energy companies post-production and have no legal owner. 
The Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA) directed the 
Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to plug orphaned wells 
on Federal and Tribal lands and to supplement state orphaned well 
programs.\14\ The IIJA provided $4.7 billion for orphaned well site 
plugging, remediation and restoration activities on Federal, Tribal, 
state, and private lands.\15\ The IIJA created three types of grants 
for states to receive funding: Initial Grants, Formula Grants, and 
Performance Grants.\16\ The Initial Grants are for states to bolster 
their longstanding well plugging programs and build capacity for states 
to expand or begin well plugging activities. Formula Grants also 
bolster states' well plugging programs to plug, remediate, and reclaim 
orphaned wells on state and private lands. Performance Grants are 
separated into two categories, Matching Grants and Regulatory 
Improvement Grants. Matching Grants are intended to encourage state 
orphaned well spending above 2010-2019 spending levels and Regulatory 
Improvement Grants are intended to incentivize states to enact laws or 
regulations that will reduce future orphaned wells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ 42 U.S.C. 15907.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ 42 U.S.C. 15907(c).
    \17\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Orphaned Wells Program Annual 
Report to Congress, November 2023, https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/
files/fy-2023-orphaned-wells-congressional-report.pdf.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Through Fiscal Year 2023, $560 million was distributed to 
twenty-four states through Initial Grants, $102 million was distributed 
for the federal program and $39 million of Tribal grants were 
issued.\18\ While the Initial Grants have been successfully utilized by 
states, the Department of the Interior (DOI), through guidance,\19\ has 
added burdensome, non-statutory requirements to the Formula Grants. In 
the guidance, DOI requires pre and post plugging measurement of 
potential air and water pollution for each well.\20\ While the language 
in the IIJA does allow for states to use funding to measure and track 
pollution, it is clearly optional and not required.\21\ This 
requirement has greatly driven up the cost of plugging wells and has 
forced some states to forgo the Formula Grant funding. To make matters 
worse, DOI has added more requirements in their Formula Grant awards 
\22\ that force states to comply with the Endangered Species Act and 
the National Historic Preservation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Department of the Interior, Orphaned Wells Program Annual 
Report to Congress, November 2023, https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/
files/fy-2023-orphaned-wells-congressional-report.pdf.
    \19\ U.S. Department of the Interior, State Formula Grant Guidance, 
7.07.23, https://www.doi.gov/media/document/state-formula-grant-
guidance-07-07-2023-pdf.
    \20\ Id. at 13.
    \21\ 42 U.S.C. 15907(c)(2).
    \22\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Notice of Award, Texas 
Railroad Commission, 1/12/24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 7053 aims to solve this problem by clarifying that states are 
not required to conduct pre-plugging or post-plugging pollution 
monitoring. By cutting this unnecessary red tape, this bill will 
unencumber states so that they may plug more orphaned wells. The bill 
would also direct the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to evaluate 
the results of the program with a specific focus on the impacts on 
economic development, housing trends, and other potential benefits.
    This bill has bipartisan support, with 10 Republicans and 3 
Democrats in the Senate including Senators Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, Mike 
Lee, John Fetterman, and Robert Casey. On the House side, it is 
cosponsored by 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat, including Rep. Estes, Rep. 
Reschenthaler, Rep. Hunt, and Rep. Deluzio.
H.R. 8665 (Rep. Lucas), ``Supercritical Geothermal Research and 
        Development Act''

    Supercritical geothermal is an experimental technology that 
requires deep drilling to access dry rocks at temperatures around 400+C 
or greater. Water or other liquids are then injected at depths of 4 
kilometers or deeper and, utilizing natural heat deep within the 
Earth's crust, returned to the surface at supercritical conditions to 
power a turbine and generate energy.\23\ If commercialized, 
supercritical geothermal has the potential to produce energy at 
significantly higher capacities compared to conventional geothermal 
systems.\24\ The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that next-
generation geothermal technologies including supercritical geothermal 
could provide 90 GW or more of clean firm power to the U.S. grid by 
2050.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ https://science.house.gov/_cache/files/e/e/eebed5c7-3784-4b3b-
b0c5-04c5456dfa77/8600498 DE7130020CA43490E64B3ACBA.h.r.-8665-one-page-
summary.pdf
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/
LIFTOFF_DOE_NextGen_Geothermal _v14.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States Geological Survey (USGS) currently operates 
several programs that support research and development of geothermal 
energy resources. The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 directs USGS to 
conduct national scale assessments of geothermal resources, the most 
recent of which was published in 2008.\26\ Additionally, the agency's 
Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI) coordinates priorities 
with DOE's Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) to collect useful data 
for both critical mineral and geothermal resources.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ https://www.usgs.gov/centers/gmeg/science/geothermal-resource-
investigations-project
    \27\ https://d9-wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/
production/s3fs-public/media/files/USGS%20BIL%20Spend%20Plan_FINAL.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 8665 establishes a supercritical geothermal research program 
at DOE and provides grant opportunities for supercritical geothermal 
technologies. The bill also requires DOE and DOI to enter a memorandum 
of understanding (MOU) on geothermal data collection and analysis and 
directs USGS to update its national geothermal resource assessment 
within 180 days of enactment. Lastly, H.R. 8665 orders DOI, in 
consultation with DOE, to commission the drilling of exploration 
boreholes deeper than 8 kilometers to provide control points for 
supercritical heat mapping and geothermal development. H.R. 8665 
authorizes $5 million for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030.
H.R. 8954 (Rep. Gosar), ``Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act 
        of 2024''

    Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) \28\ 
generally requires right-of-way (ROW) grant holders, leaseholders, or 
both to ``pay in advance the fair market value'' for use of the public 
lands, subject to certain exceptions. For solar and wind generation, 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) collects from ROW holders the 
greater of either an acreage rent or a capacity fee.\29\ The BLM 
assesses acreage rent by applying the rate schedule, based on a survey 
of values for pastureland from the National Agricultural Statistics 
Service Cash Rents Survey to the number of acres that the ROW 
authorizes for use. Capacity fees reflect the value of generating 
electricity from solar and wind energy resources, which are quantified 
by the number of megawatt hours of electricity produced on public 
lands.\30\ Under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970,\31\ geothermal 
energy producers on federal lands pay royalties on electricity produced 
and mineral byproducts derived from production along with rental fees 
for the leased acreage. Unlike solar and wind energy revenues which are 
not shared with states and counties, 50 percent of geothermal 
development revenues are disbursed to the states and 25 percent of 
revenues are disbursed to the counties where production occurs.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ 43 U.S.C. 1761-1772.
    \29\ Bureau of Land Management, Rights-of-Way, Leasing, and 
Operations for Renewable Energy, 5,01,24, 89 FR 35634, https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/01/2024-08099/rights-of-way-
leasing-and-operations-for-renewable-energy
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ 30 U.S.C. 1004.
    \32\ 30 U.S.C. 1019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 8954, the Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act 
(PLREDA), would establish a revenue sharing mechanism with renewable 
energy producing states and counties while also supporting conservation 
efforts to offset the footprint of renewable energy projects on federal 
lands. Specifically, the bill would disseminate revenues for onshore 
wind and solar production on federal lands according to the following 
formula: 25% to the State hosting the production; 25% to the county 
hosting the production; 25% to the Renewable Energy Resource 
Conservation Fund (established by PLREDA to facilitate conservation, 
habitat restoration, and outdoor access); and 25% to aid agencies in 
the processing of renewable energy permits on federal lands.
IV. MAJOR PROVISIONS & ANALYSIS

Discussion Draft of H.R. ___ (Rep.), ``Comprehensive Offshore Resource 
        Evaluation Act'' or the ``CORE Act''

     Enhances offshore resource assessments by mandating the 
            use of advanced data and modeling technologies.

     Requires BOEM to analyze economic impacts and greenhouse 
            gas emission reductions of increased offshore energy 
            production.

     Assesses the impact of withdrawals on oil and gas 
            exploration and production.

     Analyzes existing and potential transboundary hydrocarbon 
            reservoirs.

     Enhances cooperation and coordination with neighboring 
            countries.

     Maintains incidental take regulations for geophysical and 
            geological surveys.

     Authorizes geological and geophysical surveys in the Gulf 
            of Mexico.

     Establishes expedited judicial review and enforcement 
            processes.

     Requires monthly reporting on permit application 
            processing times.

H.R. 7053 (Rep. Thompson of PA), ``Orphan Well Grant Flexibility Act of 
        2024''

     Amends the Orphaned Well Site Plugging, Remediation and 
            Restoration program in the IIJA by further clarifying that 
            pre and post environmental measuring is not mandatory.

     Requires the NAS to evaluate the results of the program 
            with a specific focus on the impacts on economic 
            development, housing trends, and other potential benefits.

H.R. 8665 (Rep. Lucas), ``Supercritical Geothermal Research and 
        Development Act''

     Establishes a program at DOE to focus on supercritical 
            geothermal research and provides grant opportunities for 
            supercritical geothermal technologies.

     Requires DOE and DOI to enter a MOU on geothermal data 
            collection and analysis.

     Directs USGS to update its national geothermal resource 
            assessment within 180 days of enactment.

     Orders DOI, in consultation with DOE, to commission the 
            drilling of exploration boreholes deeper than 8 kilometers 
            to provide control points for supercritical heat mapping 
            and geothermal development.

     Authorizes $5 million for each of fiscal years 2026 
            through 2030.

H.R. 8954 (Rep. Gosar), ``Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act 
        of 2024''

     Creates a revenue sharing mechanism for wind and solar 
            energy on public lands (25% to the State hosting the 
            production; 25% to the county hosting the production; 25% 
            to the Renewable Energy Resource Conservation Fund; and 25% 
            to aid agencies in the processing of renewable energy 
            permits on federal lands).

     Establishes a Renewable Energy Resource Conservation Fund 
            to restore and protect landscapes in regions where 
            renewable energy development occurs.

V. COST

    The Congressional Budget Office has not scored any of these bills.

VI. ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION
    Unknown.

VII. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW (RAMSEYER)
Discussion Draft of ``The CORE Act''

https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-
law_discussion_draft_of_h.r.______rep._hunt.pdf

H.R. 7053

https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-
law_118hr7053ih.pdf

H.R. 8665

https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-
law_h.r._8665.pdf
                                     


 
  LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON DISCUSSION DRAFT OF H.R. ____, TO AMEND THE 
  ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 TO IMPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF 
 OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND NATURAL GAS RESOURCES, AND FOR OTHER 
PURPOSES, ``COMPREHENSIVE OFFSHORE RESOURCE EVALUATION ACT'', OR ``CORE 
  ACT''; H.R. 7053, TO AMEND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 TO ADDRESS 
  MEASURING METHANE EMISSIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``ORPHAN WELL 
    GRANT FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2024''; H.R. 8665, TO AMEND THE ENERGY 
INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007 TO DIRECT RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, 
  DEMONSTRATION, AND COMMERCIAL APPLICATION ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF 
    SUPERCRITICAL GEOTHERMAL AND CLOSED-LOOP GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS IN 
       SUPERCRITICAL VARIOUS CONDITIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, 
  ``SUPERCRITICAL GEOTHERMAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT''; AND H.R. 
 8954, TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY ON PUBLIC LANDS, 
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``PUBLIC LAND RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT 
                               OF 2024''

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, July 23, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:17 a.m. in 
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Stauber, Gosar, Graves, Fulcher, 
Tiffany, Hunt, Westerman; Ocasio-Cortez, and Kamlager-Dove.
    Also present: Representatives Carl, Lucas, Thompson of 
Pennsylvania; and Levin.

    Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California, 
Mr. Levin; the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Carl; the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson; and the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, be allowed to participate in today's 
hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

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

    Mr. Stauber. I want to thank you all for being here today 
to discuss these important pieces of legislation.
    The bills we have before us today would continue building 
on our commitment to an all-of-the-above energy approach, while 
also reining in executive action that defies logic as well as 
law.
    H.R. 7053, the Orphan Well Grant Flexibility Act of 2024, 
introduced by Representative Thompson from Pennsylvania, would 
further clarify language from the IIJA on orphan well plugging. 
There are thousands of orphan wells across the country, most of 
which are on state and private lands, and are legacy wells that 
were drilled before state and Federal regulatory statutes were 
put in place to ensure good practice. The IIJA included 
bipartisan language to provide the Federal Government, tribes, 
and states with money to plug these wells. Specifically, states 
were provided nearly $4.3 billion out of the total $4.7 billion 
included for remediation efforts.
    Most states with orphaned wells already have programs to 
plug and remediate these wells, and do great work in doing so. 
Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior has fumbled 
management of the state program. In the Department's formula 
grant guidance, they included requirements for states to 
conduct pre and post-plugging groundwater and methane 
monitoring on each orphaned well, even though the law very 
clearly states that those actions are optional, and that 
funding ``may'' be used for these purposes. The practical 
implications of these requirements are devastating. And not 
only have these requirements resulted in fewer wells being 
plugged and reclaimed, but they have also dissuaded states from 
applying for the funding entirely.
    I look forward to examining these decisions today, and 
again appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania for taking the 
lead on this bill to right this wrong.
    H.R. 8954, the Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act 
of 2024, would simply ensure that states and counties receive 
the benefits of revenue sharing from solar and wind energy 
projects on Federal lands within their borders. The bill would 
provide 25 percent of the revenues from these projects to host 
states, 25 percent to host counties, 25 percent to the BLM to 
facilitate processing renewable energy permits, and 25 percent 
to a newly-created Renewable Energy Conservation Fund to offset 
the impacts of renewable energy on Federal lands and wildlife. 
This would ensure that renewable energy production on Federal 
lands contributes to local communities and states like oil and 
gas development does.
    H.R. 8665, introduced by Congressman Lucas, would require 
the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy to 
enter into an MOU on geothermal data collection and analysis. 
The bill would also require the U.S. Geological Survey to 
update its National Geothermal Resource Assessment, and 
commission the drilling of exploration boreholes to provide 
control points for supercritical heat mapping for geothermal 
development.
    Lastly, Representative Hunt's discussion draft, the CORE 
Act, would enhance and modernize our nation's resource 
assessment process for offshore oil and gas exploration. The 
United States is endowed with vast offshore energy reserves, 
yet our current methodologies fall short of providing the 
precision and reliability necessary for informed decision 
making. The CORE Act addresses these deficiencies by 
instructing acquisition of advanced geological and geophysical 
data, and incorporating the latest resource evaluation 
technologies to ensure that our resource estimates are both 
accurate and comprehensive.
    The bill also is necessary. It details economic and 
alternative energy impact analysis, ensuring that we understand 
the full implications of resource development. These 
enhancements will ensure that the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management's resource assessments are thorough and include the 
best available information, reducing uncertainty and providing 
benefits to taxpayers and coastal communities. The provisions 
within this bill will also streamline the geophysical and 
geotechnical permitting process, the linchpin of offshore 
exploration and a prerequisite to performing these analyses.
    It is imperative that we act now to solidify our leadership 
in offshore energy development and secure a sustainable 
offshore energy future for the United States.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these 
bills, and will now yield to the Ranking Member for her opening 
statement.

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

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Chair Stauber.
    As we all have experienced, this summer has been the 
hottest ever recorded in Washington, DC. The same is true 
across many of our districts. Climate change is here, and it is 
putting Americans' lives in danger. But we do not have to 
accept an unlivable planet. As policymakers, we have the power 
and responsibility to act. The bills we are considering today 
are steps towards different futures, some brighter, some 
darker.
    H.R. 8665, Mr. Lucas' Supercritical Geothermal Research and 
Development Act, presents one important move towards a clean 
energy future. Supercritical geothermal is a recent innovation 
that unlocks massive potential to produce reliable, always 
available clean energy using the heat from the Earth's core. 
H.R. 8665 supports much-needed research at the Departments of 
Energy and the Interior to catalyze the deployment of these 
experimental forms of geothermal.
    H.R. 8954, the Public Land Renewable Energy Development 
Act, or PLREDA, would support solar and wind development on 
public lands. As we make the necessary transition from fossil 
fuels to renewable energy, we can't leave the counties and 
states that rely on oil and gas revenue high and dry. This bill 
would establish a much-needed mechanism to share renewable 
energy revenues with local communities, similar to oil and gas.
    While I fully support renewables revenue sharing, we can 
and should go further. Mr. Levin recently introduced a more 
comprehensive version of the Public Lands Renewable Energy Act, 
H.R. 9012, reflecting a wider range of renewable energy 
incentives that industry and environmental groups have been 
advocating for years. As we move towards marking up PLREDA, I 
hope we can work together across the aisle to incorporate these 
incentives for rapid renewable development from Mr. Levin's 
bill.
    Mr. Hunt's discussion draft, the Comprehensive Offshore 
Resource Evaluation Act, would take us in the wrong direction. 
Although my colleagues across the aisle often mention an all-
of-the-above energy approach, this bill is oil and gas above 
all. The discussion draft before us today further skews the 
Federal offshore oil and gas program towards development. Who 
does this help? It is clear that big oil is the only winner.
    The United States is currently producing more oil and gas 
than any nation in history, and is the No. 1 exporter of oil 
and gas in the world. But Americans aren't seeing any of the 
promised benefits of this so-called energy dominance. Prices 
are still high, and communities are still paying the costs of 
increased pollution and an increasingly unlivable climate. 
Meanwhile, big oil has been accused by the FTC in multiple 
class action lawsuits of illegally colluding with the global 
oil cartel to keep prices and their profits high while 
Americans suffer soaring costs of living.
    However, this draft bill only calls for increased 
exploration for offshore oil and gas and skewed studies that 
downplay all the public health and environmental costs the 
American public pays for oil and gas development. This draft 
even strips protections for wildlife against deafening air gun 
blasting, potentially putting the critically endangered Rice's 
whale on a path to extinction.
    And the final bill on today's docket, H.R. 7053, highlights 
one of the immense liabilities Big Oil has for the public: 
orphaned wells. Wells abandoned by the oil and gas industry 
without money to clean them up are a liability for the taxpayer 
and a public health risk to communities that live nearby.
    Democrats won billions of dollars in the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act to clean up orphaned wells across the 
country, but H.R. 7053 would make emissions testing optional 
and eliminate other grant requirements such as prioritizing 
plugging wells within half a mile of low-income Black and 
Indigenous communities. Eliminating these requirements 
altogether would cost essential emissions data and endanger 
communities already most at risk of health impacts.
    I hope we can work together to use funds as efficiently as 
possible to plug as many wells as we can without sacrificing 
communities.
    I look forward to today's discussion, and I yield back.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now begin our 
Member panel, who will speak on their legislation, and I will 
recognize Mr. Paul Gosar from Arizona's 9th Congressional 
District for his testimony on his bill.
    Mr. Gosar.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Stauber.
    I introduced the first version of the Public Land Renewable 
Energy Development Act, or PLREDA, in 2012 to ensure that the 
emerging renewable energy technologies were treated similarly 
to other types of energy projects operating on Federal lands. 
Over the years, the bill has morphed as these technologies have 
become more mainstream, while pieces of the bill have passed 
over the years, and some pieces have become unnecessary.
    One aspect of the bill that has remained is in regard to 
dispensation of revenue. Currently, solar and wind developers 
on Federal lands pay rental fees and royalties in the form of 
capacity fees. All the revenue from these payments goes to the 
Treasury. Now, this differs from the revenue generated by other 
energy sources on Federal lands, including oil and gas and 
geothermal, which are shared with states and local governments. 
This bill would ensure that the same is true for wind and 
solar.
    The bill would provide 25 percent of the revenues go to the 
host county, 25 percent of the revenues go to the host state, 
25 percent go to the BLM to improve their permitting process 
procedures, and 25 percent to a newly-created Renewable Energy 
Conservation Fund to offset the impacts of renewable energy 
production on Federal lands. This funding will allow rural and 
Western communities to benefit from energy production on 
Federal lands to support essential services.
    While I recognize that permitting of energy projects on the 
Federal lands is a serious problem, I believe robust permitting 
reform language should be addressed in ways that will help all 
energy sources.
    I want to thank the American Clean Power Association for 
testifying and am looking forward to working with my colleagues 
on this bill moving forward.
    With that, I yield back.

    Mr. Stauber. I thank you very much. We have one more 
individual who wants to testify, and it is Mr. Wesley Hunt from 
Texas. He is on his way. I am trying to get to see how far he 
is, because I don't want to wait too long.
    OK, we are going to start, and when Mr. Hunt comes in, at 
the nearest break, we will allow him to speak on his bill. We 
will now introduce our second panel of witnesses.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their 
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button 
on the microphone.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn 
yellow. And at the end of the 5 minutes, the light will turn 
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    Our first witness is Mr. Dustin Van Liew. He is the Vice 
President of EnerGeo Alliance, and he is stationed in Houston, 
Texas.
    Mr. Van Liew, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF DUSTIN VAN LIEW, VICE PRESIDENT, ENERGEO ALLIANCE, 
                         HOUSTON, TEXAS

    Mr. Van Liew. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and 
members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to 
testify today. As was introduced, I am Dustin Van Liew, Vice 
President of Global Policy and Government Affairs for the 
EnerGeo Alliance. I spearhead our policy efforts here and 
internationally.
    EnerGeo members are the geoscience companies and energy 
developers that use Earth science to discover, develop, and 
deliver energy to the world. Our members operate in the United 
States across the Outer Continental Shelf and extensively in 
the Gulf of Mexico. EnerGeo commends Congressman Hunt for his 
leadership authoring the Comprehensive Offshore Resources 
Evaluation Act, or CORE Act, and we strongly support the 
legislation.
    But first let me provide some context. Exploration is 
critical for ensuring global access to energy. Total energy use 
is estimated to increase 34 percent to support a world 
population of 10 billion by 2050. Even with high growth 
expected in alternative energy, by 2050 we will need to 
discover about 17.56 billion barrels to meet global energy 
demand. In contrast, last year we discovered about 5 billion 
barrels globally, with eight discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico. 
By 2050, about half of the expected global oil supply will come 
from fields and projects that are not in production today.
    Global industry investments are influenced by where it can 
acquire geoscience data through supportive policy structures. 
BOEM, however, last updated its reserves report in 2019, and 
there is a lack of updated reserves information for the Gulf of 
Mexico, Alaska, and the Atlantic. The CORE Act would rectify 
this.
    Seismic and geoscience surveying is well understood and 
safe. Tens of thousands of surveys have occurred throughout the 
world over the last 60 years using conventional compressed air 
arrays. After covering millions of kilometers, there is no 
credible scientific evidence that sound from geoscience surveys 
has had any significant impacts on marine life, populations, or 
the marine environment.
    Unfortunately, geoscience permitting is too often stalled 
within regulatory agencies or impeded by extreme environmental 
organizations exploiting existing regulatory and litigation 
processes. The CORE Act will advance responsible and 
sustainable exploration and production.
    Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5, as a whole, provide clarity and 
helpful actions that will support the nation's energy goals. 
Section 4, in particular, removes onerous procedural roadblocks 
and litigious obstacles that hinder domestic energy security.
    History has shown that the 5-year period effectiveness for 
ITRs is counterproductive, creates an inefficient permitting 
process, and leads to repetitive lawsuits by advocacy 
organizations only seeking to halt energy development. Indeed, 
many meritless lawsuits have been filed over two decades 
challenging Alaska North Slope ITRs. Section 4(a) resolves 
these issues by eliminating the 5-year expiration date and 
tedious ITR renewal process. The ITR governing incidental take 
for marine mammals on geoscience surveys in the GOM is a prime 
example showing why NMFS lacks the capacity and ability to 
issue ITRs every 5 years.
    The original ITR petition for the GOM was submitted 22 
years ago. NMFS at the time and BOEM since have submitted 
revised petitions in 2004, 2011, and 2016 to account for 
updated information that had accumulated while NMFS lacked the 
resources to take action on the petitions. NMFS eventually 
issued the final rule in 2021, only to be reassessed to correct 
math errors, and finally issued the revised ITR this year with 
the same mitigation and monitoring requirements included in 
2021.
    Even after the ITRs are issued, the current regulatory 
framework requires NMFS to jump through additional procedural 
hoops to issue letters of authorization before geoscience 
activities can proceed. Subsection 4(c) seeks to streamline 
this onerous process, and offers a pragmatic approach that both 
conserves agency resources and maintains the integrity of the 
mitigation requirements to comply with the MMPA and the 
Endangered Species Act. Further, Subsection 4(c) provides a 
clear timetable for surveys to proceed under BOEM permits, 
while still complying with most all the existing mitigation 
requirements in the GOM.
    We strongly support the proposed legislation to ensure U.S. 
energy supplies are rigorously assessed with a more efficient 
and predictable permitting process. Likewise, reducing the 
ability of outside special interest groups to obstruct energy 
geoscience exploration is a necessary step to ensure continued 
development of energy resources and low carbon solutions for 
future generations.
    I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Van Liew follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Dustin Van Liew, On Behalf of the EnerGeo 
                                Alliance
    on ``Comprehensive Offshore Resource Evaluation Act (CORE Act)''

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee:
    For the record, my name is Dustin Van Liew, and I am the Vice 
President of Global Policy & Government Affairs at EnerGeo Alliance. I 
spearhead EnerGeo's legislative and regulatory engagement efforts at 
national and international levels. Our membership base includes 60 
companies spanning 50 countries. EnerGeo's mission is to advance the 
energy geoscience and exploration industry through global governmental, 
regulatory, and legal advocacy, communications, environmental and 
scientific research, and standard development. We aim to drive 
excellence in health, safety, environmental performance, and 
sustainability.
    I joined EnerGeo (then IAGC) in 2015 and have extensive experience 
and background in policy and government affairs. Before joining 
EnerGeo, I served as the Executive Director for the Public Lands 
Council and National Cattlemen's Beef Association--Federal Lands. Since 
2014, I have served as Board Member of the Western Resources Legal 
Center, having recently served as Board Chair from 2018 to 2023. I am 
well-versed in navigating the challenges that face natural resources-
based industries and am a leading authority on public and government 
lands and international natural resource policy issues.
    I present this testimony as Vice President of Global Policy & 
Government Affairs at EnerGeo Alliance. Founded in 1971, EnerGeo is the 
non-profit global trade alliance for the energy geoscience and 
exploration industry. EnerGeo member companies include onshore and 
offshore geoscience survey operators and acquisition companies, energy 
data and processing providers, energy exploration and development 
companies, equipment and software manufacturers, industry suppliers, 
service providers, and consultancies. EnerGeo advocates for connecting 
more people and communities with access to energy around the world--by 
communicating factually, securing science-based policies, and promoting 
the geoscience companies, innovators and energy developers that use 
earth science to discover, develop and deliver energy, sustainably, to 
our world. Together, we are Making Energy Possible.
    Many EnerGeo member companies operate in the U.S., both onshore and 
offshore across the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and extensively 
within the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). These companies play an integral role 
in the successful exploration and development of offshore hydrocarbon, 
wind, and low-carbon solutions such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) 
resources through the acquisition and processing of geophysical and 
geological data.
    Through reliable science- and data-based regulatory advocacy, 
credible resources and expertise, and future-focused leadership, 
EnerGeo continuously works to develop and promote informed government 
policies that advance responsible energy exploration, production, and 
operations. As the U.S. and global energy demand evolves, we believe 
that all policymakers and energy companies pursuing mainstay, 
alternative, and low-carbon solutions should have access to reliable 
data and analysis to support their forward-moving efforts.
    At EnerGeo, we are proud of our unique collaborations among 
industry, scientists, and governments to support sustainable energy 
access. In the U.S., this includes EnerGeo's Gulf of Mexico Proactive 
Regulatory Observational Program (GOM-PROP) to provide a self-
sustaining structure for the continued successful implementation of, 
and compliance with, both present and future Incidental Take 
Regulations (ITRs) applicable to geoscience surveys in the Gulf of 
Mexico, and to provide comprehensive marine mammal monitoring data.

    Energy Demand: The global economy and oil demand are set to achieve 
consecutive record highs in 2024 and 2025, alongside record lows in oil 
intensity and consecutive global oil supply records, per U.S. Energy 
Information Administration (EIA) projections.
    Natural gas experienced record-breaking global demand, production, 
and consumption levels in 2023--and these records are expected to be 
broken again this year and in 2025 per the International Energy Agency 
(IEA).
    Global natural gas demand is also predicted to reach record highs 
in 2024 and 2025 with natural gas remaining an integral and competitive 
source for global electricity generation, heating, cooking, and 
industrial demands, as well as environmental progress.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ TXOGA Quarterly Energy Economics Outlook
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Exploration will continue to play a critical role in ensuring 
global access to energy in the future and now in the midst of the 
energy evolution. By 2050, the world population is estimated to 
increase to almost 9.8 billion.\2\ Total energy use is expected to 
increase 34%, with an expected steady growth in mainstay sources of 
energy (petroleum and natural gas constituting 50%) and faster growth 
anticipated in all other sources.\3\ In this scenario, exploration will 
be critical for the energy evolution. While about 5 billion barrels of 
oil were discovered in 2023, by 2050 we will need to discover 17.56 
billion barrels per year to match the global energy demand.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Source: 2023 Population Data Sheet https://www.prb.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/12/2023-World-Population-Data-Sheet-Booklet.pdf
    \3\ Source: EIA International Energy Outlook--October 2023 https://
www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/
    \4\ Source: RystadEnergy UCube; Rystad Energy U.CubeExploration; 
Rystad Energy research and analysis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the U.S. has been blessed with energy abundance, roughly 
10% of the world does not have reliable access to electricity. 
According to the Rockefeller Foundation, more than 840 million people 
lack access to electricity and over 3 billion people currently live in 
countries with per capita energy consumption below the Modern Energy 
Minimum--1,000kwh per year. Together, it is estimated that over 3.5 
billion people do not have reasonably reliable access to electricity, 
meaning that they spend more than 56 days per year without power.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ John Ayaburi, Morgan Bazilian, Jacob Kincer, Todd Moss, 
Measuring ``Reasonably Reliable'' access to electricity services, The 
Electricity Journal, Volume 33, Issue 7, 2020, 106828, ISSN 1040-6190, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2020.106828.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Currently, 30% of the world does not have access to clean fuels for 
cooking. Cooking with kerosene, coal, or biomass is directly linked to 
over 3 million premature deaths per year with women and children 
disproportionately impacted.\6\ Removing access to unfavored energy 
sources has disproportionate impacts on marginalized populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ World Health Organization, ``Household air pollution'', https:/
/www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-air-pollution-and-
health#::text=Each%20year%2C%203.2%20million%20 
people,air%20pollution%20data%20for%20details)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Populations around the world will need greater access to reliable 
and affordable energy to not only thrive, but for the movement of goods 
and people and for climate resilience, providing the necessary 
feedstock for fertilization, refrigeration for foods and medicine, 
irrigation, heating and cooling, and more. As a top priority of U.N. 
Sustainable Development Goals, we need all sources of energy at the 
table, to meet skyrocketing demand for energy security and energy 
accessibility.
    While we are at the start of what is being called an 
``international upcycle,'' where the industry invests now will be 
influenced by where it has access to insight through geoscience data, 
infrastructure, and supportive regulatory and policy structures. 
Unfortunately, the United States is falling behind due to unnecessary 
bureaucratic delays and shortsighted policies that elevate certain 
forms of energy over others.

    Our Surveys: Meeting growing demand for energy that is more 
accessible, affordable, reliable, and cleaner will require greater 
collaboration and geoscience-driven energy policies. The reality is, no 
matter the preferred or prioritized energy source, virtually all 
sources of energy needed to support the world's energy evolution 
require ``eyes'' on something going in, out, or through the ground. 
That sight is only made possible through the innovation and insight of 
the energy geoscience industry.
    Mainstay energy sources such as petroleum and natural gas, and the 
lower carbon energy solutions such as offshore and onshore wind, depend 
on geoscience. Similarly, carbon capture, utilization, and storage 
projects are simply not possible without geoscience surveys to ensure 
that those projects are properly sited, designed, and managed. Energy 
literally starts with the geoscience industry.
    By providing invaluable information about the resources beneath us, 
energy companies and policymakers can identify and prioritize high-
density, lower-carbon-intensive energy sources, locate where offshore 
wind facilities are best suited for harnessing the energy from wind, 
prolong the life of existing natural gas and petroleum assets, make it 
possible to store carbon beneath the surface, and more.
    As nations develop and implement their energy evolution goals to 
make reliable, affordable energy available to their citizens and meet 
Net Zero Emissions (NZE) policy ambitions, it is essential to 
understand that those goals cannot and will not be realized without the 
critical data and technology the geoscience industry provides.
    Even though, by current market cap, geosciences are a small part of 
the energy supply chain, when it comes to whether energy can be 
accessed in any given region, we are the first and most pivotal part.
Resource Evaluation in the United States

    The only viable process for the U.S. Government to understand the 
country's resource potential is through geoscience surveys conducted by 
advanced technology companies like those that comprise EnerGeo's 
membership. According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) 
website, regarding resource evaluation, ``Every five years BOEM 
provides a comprehensive assessment of undiscovered oil and gas 
resources on the OCS. The results are presented as both Undiscovered 
Technically Recoverable Resources (UTRR) and Undiscovered Economically 
Recoverable Resources (UERR). The assessment utilizes a geologic play-
based approach that incorporates a complete analysis of geologic and 
petroleum system elements for the UTRR, and an assessment of 
engineering and economic considerations for the calculation of the 
UERR. DOI has released an Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas 
Resources on the US OCS regularly since 1975.''
    This information is not possible and would not be available to 
policymakers and U.S. citizens without the geoscience industry 
conducting surveys. By conducting surveys that image the subsurface 
below the ocean floor, geoscience surveys provide the information 
governments and policymakers need to make informed decisions in the 
best interest of their citizens regarding accessing and developing 
energy sources of all types, as well as developing low-carbon 
strategies.
    Based on information compiled by the subcommittee, BOEM last 
updated its reserves report in December 2019, with their 2023 
Comprehensive Inventory still relying on this outdated data for Gulf of 
Mexico. Notably, there is a lack of reserves information for Alaska and 
the Atlantic on their website.
    Seismic and geoscience surveying is a well-understood and safe 
industry practice, and informed policy decisions regarding offshore 
energy development of any type can only be made with the evaluation 
provided by modern seismic survey technology. In the more than 60 years 
of geoscience surveys in the Gulf of Mexico, there has not been a 
single reported incidence of sound from survey operations injuring 
marine life. Tens of thousands of offshore geoscience surveys have 
occurred throughout the world over the last 60 years using conventional 
compressed-air arrays. In all that time, and across millions of 
kilometres, there is no credible scientific evidence that sound from 
geoscience surveys has had any significant impacts on marine life 
populations or the marine environment.
    Unfortunately, the permitting of this activity, critical to 
identifying the nation's energy supplies, is too often stalled within 
regulatory agencies without accountable deadlines or timelines for 
review, or impeded by extreme environmental advocacy organizations 
exploiting existing regulatory and litigation processes.
Policy Challenges

    Because the energy geoscience industry provides access to develop 
energy through its imaging, it is very often the first presence of 
energy development or exploration in a geographic area. As a result, 
our members often encounter obstacles and opposition to their 
operations that are aimed at preventing the development of a certain 
energy source--whether that's petroleum, natural gas, or even wind.
    In some regions, extreme environmental advocacy groups prioritize 
preventing any energy geoscience surveys from occurring and even label 
geoscience research as ``the gateway drug to oil and gas.'' 
Policymakers and energy companies consequently are unable to access 
important data needed to make informed decisions about future energy 
development.
    This has led to increased regulatory scrutiny and misinformation 
about what geoscience research is and its impacts in frontier areas and 
even in mature basins. Recent eNGO advocacy focuses on geoscience as 
the linchpin to not only exploration but also increasing production in 
mature basins includes the Gulf of Mexico.\7\ This short-sighted 
advocacy ignores both the undisputed energy needs of the world and the 
fact that geoscience surveys allow for the identification of both the 
presence and absence of energy sources and, thus, more efficient and 
less-impactful development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.nrdc.org/stories/offshore-drilling-
101#environmental
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In order to stimulate new geoscience activity, policymakers must 
prioritize geoscience-driven energy policies and regulatory frameworks 
that remove uncertainty and delay, promote timely permitting decisions, 
and support a quick pace of return on investment. Regulations should 
provide predictability, promote competition, and provide fiscal 
certainty, through risk-and science-based processes.
BOEM Permitting & NMFS Authorization Delays

    In the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), Congress 
expressly mandated the ``expeditious and orderly development'' of the 
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) ``subject to environmental safeguards.'' 
43 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(3). Courts have confirmed that ``the expeditious 
development of OCS resources'' is OCSLA's primary purpose. California 
v. Watt, 668 F.2d 1290, 1316 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Congress enacted OCSLA 
to ``achieve national economic and energy policy goals, assure national 
security, reduce dependence on foreign sources, and maintain a 
favorable balance of payments in world trade.'' 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1802(1). 
Congress expressly intended to ``make [OCS] resources available to meet 
the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible.'' Id. 
Sec. 1802(2)(A).
    Geoscience surveying has been and continues to be essential to 
achieving OCSLA's requirements because it is the only feasible 
technology available to accurately image the subsurface of the OCS 
before a single well is drilled or a single energy source is developed.
    Offshore geoscience surveys require authorizations from BOEM, 
pursuant to OCSLA. See id. Sec. 1340. There is no requirement for an 
applicant for an offshore survey permit under OCSLA to obtain an 
incidental take authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(MMPA). However, unlawful ``takes'' of marine mammals incidental to 
lawful activities (such as a permitted offshore seismic survey) may 
nevertheless be subject to MMPA-based penalties. See 16 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1375. Accordingly, many applicants for offshore survey permits 
from BOEM also request incidental (i.e., unintentional) take 
authorization under the MMPA from the National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ FWS has jurisdiction over polar bears, walrus, sea otters, 
dugongs, and manatees. NMFS has jurisdiction over all other marine 
mammals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In this context, it is important to recognize that the permit 
issued by BOEM authorizes the seismic survey and the MMPA authorization 
narrowly addresses the incidental take associated with the seismic 
survey. NMFS and FWS do not have jurisdiction over the survey; their 
authority under the MMPA extends only to the authorization of 
incidental take. Notwithstanding the limited role of FWS and NMFS, MMPA 
authorizations are often the primary cause of administrative delay in 
the offshore geoscience survey permitting process.
    In the past decade, these problems have manifested in routinely 
delayed permitting processes, inconsistent and misguided analyses of 
potential impacts, and opportunistic advocacy litigation intended to 
block or impede offshore development.
    For example, in the Gulf of Mexico, BOEM requires an MMPA 
authorization from NMFS prior to the issuance of a geoscience permit 
under the current ITR. During the rulemaking process, industry pointed 
out mathematical errors in the ITR that was originally promulgated 
January 2021. As discussed further below, it took BOEM and NMFS an 
additional three years to re-evaluate the original analysis before NMFS 
amended the ITR in 2024, ultimately making few changes. This revision 
process was just one of many delays in the history of the GOM ITR that 
contributed to the steady decline of geoscience surveys mapping the 
Gulf of Mexico since at least 2014.
    In Alaska, unnecessary and unexplained delays in processing MMPA 
authorizations prevent planned geoscience surveys from providing the 
timely insight that would update resource estimates. Currently, at 
least one petition for MMPA authorization has stalled for more than two 
years preventing updated insight into the resource potential on 
Alaska's North Slope.
    In the Atlantic, approximately 30 years have passed since the 
potential hydrocarbon resource base has been assessed with seismic 
surveys. In the meantime, seismic surveys for ``scientific research'' 
have been conducted fairly regularly in the Atlantic OCS, in addition 
to other geophysical surveys used to characterize the seabed and 
subsurface for suitability of offshore wind energy facilities. Six 
companies applied to BOEM for permits to conduct seismic surveying in 
the Atlantic OCS--a process that started in 2011, when the first permit 
application was filed, and ultimately ended in 2018 after nearly six 
years of working to obtain MMPA authorizations from NMFS.
Support for Proposed Language

    In general, EnerGeo believes that the CORE Act as drafted will 
advance responsible and sustainable energy exploration and production. 
Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5, as a whole, provide clarity and helpful action 
items that will support the nation's energy goals. Section 4, in 
particular, removes onerous procedural roadblocks and litigious 
obstacles that hinder domestic energy security goals. Without a more 
efficient regulatory framework in place to support geoscience surveys, 
the country will not be able to keep up with the increased demand for 
reliable energy.
Subsections 4(a) and 4(b)

    History has shown that a five-year period of effectiveness for ITRs 
is counterproductive, creates an inefficient permitting process, and 
leads to repetitive lawsuits by advocacy organization seeking to halt 
energy development. Subsection 4(a) resolves these issues by 
eliminating the five-year expiration date and unnecessarily tedious ITR 
renewal process.
    The ITR governing the incidental take of marine mammals in GOM 
associated with offshore geoscience surveys is a prime example showing 
why NMFS lacks the capacity and ability to timely issue ITRs every five 
years.\9\ The original petition to initiate the rulemaking process for 
the GOM ITR was submitted 22 years ago by the Minerals Management 
Service (MMS), an agency that no longer exists and was reorganized to 
now-BOEM and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. MMS/
BOEM had to submit three revised petitions in 2004, 2011, and 2016 to 
account for updated information and analyses that had accumulated while 
NMFS lacked the resources to take meaningful action on the petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See BOEM Request to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration for Incidental Take Regulations Governing Geophysical 
Surveys on the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico at 5 (Oct. 
14, 2016), available at https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/
boem_2016rule_app_opr1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NMFS eventually issued a final rule in 2021 in response to BOEM's 
2016 revised petition. But that final agency action was short-lived, as 
the 2021 final rule was reassessed to correct certain mathematical 
errors, as described above. Over the course of three years, NMFS 
considered and incorporated newly available information and issued the 
2024 final rule, affirming the same regulations, mitigation, 
monitoring, and reporting requirements promulgated pursuant to the 2021 
final rule. The timeline leading up to the current GOM ITR therefore 
provides little assurance that NMFS is capable of issuing ITRs every 
five years. A better approach would be to eliminate the arbitrary five-
year limit on ITRs and to instead allow for the targeted amendment of 
ITRs, as necessary, to update mitigation measures or other findings, 
based on the best available scientific information.
    Eliminating the arbitrary five-year limit will also help to 
decrease opportunities for advocacy groups to challenge ITRs in 
misguided attempts to prevent U.S. energy development. Indeed, numerous 
meritless lawsuits have been filed over two decades challenging ITRs 
applicable to Alaska North Slope oil and gas activities--wasting the 
resources of federal agencies and the courts. Again, new agency 
actions, which can be challenged in court, should only occur if there 
is a substantive need--not based on an arbitrary five-year termination 
period for what may be an otherwise valid ITR.
    For the same reasons stated above, EnerGeo similarly supports the 
language of subsection 4(b), which applies the logic described in 
Subsection 4(a) and prevents the existing GOM ITR from expiring on 
April 19, 2026. By prolonging the period of effectiveness, the 
geoscience and exploration industry can continue to make long-term 
plans for meaningful geoscience surveys that will inform forward-
looking policies and help diversify energy sources.
Subsection 4(c)

    Even after ITRs are issued, the current regulatory framework 
requires NMFS to jump through an additional procedural hoop and issue 
Letters of Authorizations (LOAs) to survey operators before they can 
move forward with the geoscience activities described and analyzed in 
their respective ITRs. Subsection 4(c) seeks to streamline this onerous 
procedural process and offers a more pragmatic and beneficial approach 
that both conserves agency resources and maintains the integrity of the 
substantive mitigation and monitoring requirements to remain in 
compliance with the MMPA and the Endangered Species Act.
    For example, after the 2021 ITR was issued for geoscience 
activities in GOM, NMFS incurred a significant backlog of applications 
for LOAs. The delays in permitting continued to snowball when the 2021 
ITR was revised and reissued in 2024 to fix agency mathematical errors. 
Although NMFS has recently been more expedient in approving LOA 
applications, history shows that the LOA approval process is unduly 
time consuming and detrimental to the timely conduct of otherwise-
lawful geoscience activities.
    Subsection 4(c) simply relieves an administrative burden and 
provides a clear and predictable timetable for surveys to proceed under 
BOEM permits without the delay caused by waiting for an untimely LOA. 
There would be no significant change in protection as a result of this 
modification because operators would still be required to comply with 
almost all of the existing mitigation and monitoring measures 
prescribed in the GOM ITR.
Conclusion

    The energy geoscience industry is in the business of minimizing the 
footprint of energy activity by pinpointing where the resource is and 
importantly where it is not. Armed with reliable data and analysis, 
companies and policymakers are able to identify and prioritize high-
density, low-carbon-intensive energy sources closer to existing 
infrastructure and the end user, locating where offshore wind 
facilities are best suited for harnessing the energy from wind, 
prolonging the life of existing natural gas and petroleum assets, and 
making it possible to store carbon beneath the surface. Geoscience 
surveys provide the information governments and policymakers need to 
make informed decisions in the best interest of their citizens 
regarding accessing mainstay energy and alternative sources, as well as 
developing low-carbon strategies. Currently, those data acquired by our 
members make it possible for BOEM to publish resource assessments. 
Nations cannot develop and provide opportunities for energizing their 
economies without the geoscience industry, let alone implement their 
energy evolution goals to make reliable, affordable energy available to 
their citizens and meet Net Zero Emissions (NZE) policy ambitions.
    We strongly support the proposed legislation, which will help to 
ensure more rigorous and comprehensive assessments of U.S. energy 
supplies and a more efficient and predictable process for permitting 
geoscience surveys. The energy geoscience and exploration industry 
stands ready to partner in the discovery and development of low carbon 
solutions and of energy dense, low emissions sources of energy to power 
the world. Streamlining the permitting process along with reducing the 
ability for outside special interest groups to obstruct energy 
geoscience exploration is a necessary step to ensure our continued 
development of energy resources and low-carbon solutions for future 
generations in the U.S.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Ms. 
Terra Rogers. She is the Director at Superhot Rock Energy 
Program, the Clean Air Task Force, and she is stationed in 
Boston, Massachusetts.
    Ms. Rogers, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF TERRA ROGERS, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, SUPERHOT ROCK 
      ENERGY, CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

    Ms. Rogers. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member, and 
distinguished members of this Committee. I appreciate the 
opportunity to be here. As the Chairman commented, I am Terra 
Rogers, and I do direct the Superhot Rock Program at Clean Air 
Task Force. We are a global non-profit organization. I joined 
CATF after 20 years in industry, just as the full potential of 
geothermal was coming into focus.
    Superhot rock is a visionary energy source, almost entirely 
unrecognized in both the decarbonization and the energy crisis 
debate. And to do my part, I aligned myself with a trusted 
voice, an organization that could not profit from the public 
support so desperately needed, which brings me back to CATF. 
Our mission is to push technology and policy changes needed to 
achieve a zero emission, high energy planet at an affordable 
cost.
    Today, I will share CATF's thoughts on H.R. 8665, the 
Supercritical Geothermal Research and Development Act, and H.R. 
7053, the Orphan Well Grant Flexibility Act, and how these 
bills further the shared goals of securing the United States' 
role as a clean energy leader in an abundant and affordable 
energy future.
    I will now refer to the handout on page 2. Traditional 
geothermal facilities, shown on the far left, have been safely 
and reliably operating for over 100 years by using naturally 
occurring hot water from the Earth to spin a turbine and 
produce electricity. These conventional systems are rare, as 
they depend on unique geologic conditions, but the technology 
landscape has changed. Advancements have made geothermal 
possible in dry rock conditions, thus expanding its potential 
to cover the globe.
    This new, next-generation technology involves pumping water 
into the Earth to flow through hot rocks like your car's 
radiator, and returning that water to the surface for power 
production, which is depicted in the middle graphic--
colloquially, Geothermal 2.0.
    The distinction between 2.0 and superhot 3.0 is the 
operating temperature. Now, we strongly support the measures in 
this bill that address the R&D and demonstrations needed at the 
temperatures accessible today, 2.0. But we must continuously 
drive down costs. And by targeting higher and often deeper 
temperature environments, we anticipate 5 to 10 times increase 
in energy production from each well, enabling up to a 70 
percent cost decrease.
    To help internalize the magnitude of this opportunity, 
CATF's modeling estimates that the United States could produce 
4.3 terawatts of superhot rock energy. This could theoretically 
satisfy the annual demands of 687 additional New York cities. 
This could also be a game-changer for some of the most 
promising and emerging technologies, such as AI, through data 
management and low carbon hydrogen, ones that demand firm 
energy.
    There are four key themes identified by CATF to jumpstart 
the commercialization process, and H.R. 8665 captures them all. 
I will lead with the measures that are under direct 
jurisdiction by this Committee.
    First, data is king, and this bill appropriately 
prioritizes the data resources through the MOU between DOE and 
DOI, as well as a full resource assessment by the USGS through 
techniques such as the deep data probes, and also including 
regions previously overlooked, such as Minnesota and some of 
the U.S. territories.
    Second, private-public collaborations. This is established 
through a center of excellence, including workforce training, 
best practice development, in tandem with agencies such as the 
BLM.
    Third, integrated and targeted R&D designed to span the 
nation's laboratories, engaging in complementary research at 
the bench and in the field.
    Fourth and final, in-field testing. This one is crucial. 
The bill calls for the creation of a FORGE-style test bed, at 
which next generation technologies and tools can be tested at 
higher and higher temperatures.
    We are thrilled with the substance of this legislation, but 
emphasize the need for proper funding. The current $5 million 
per year is insufficient and won't cover even one deep 
geothermal well. Adequate funds for this bill will ensure the 
resources match the bill's ambition and allow for meaningful 
advancements in geothermal energy.
    Other countries have already invested in supercritical 
geothermal. H.R. 8665 can make the United States a leader in 
this field. By advancing next-generation geothermal, we can 
leverage the existing U.S. subsurface expertise and maintain 
our global energy leadership.
    Finally, on H.R. 7053, the Orphan Well Grant Flexibility 
Act, CATF supports its intent to allow states to optimize 
funding use. Some states may wish to use funding to measure 
emissions from every emitting well before plugging, while 
others may prefer to approximate emissions by using qualitative 
comparisons, as this flexibility would free up more funds for 
mitigation activities. In this case, a state should have room 
to coordinate with the Federal agencies and other stakeholders. 
DOI's goals of targeting high emitters and understanding the 
climate impacts of orphaned well plugging are admirable, and 
through collaborative effort can be accomplished at lower costs 
than are currently realized.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Rogers follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Terra Rogers, Director, Superhot Rock Energy 
                     Program, Clean Air Task Force
                       on H.R. 7053 and H.R. 8665

    Subcommittee Chairman Pete Stauber, Ranking Member Alexandria 
Ocasio-Cortez, and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:
    Clean Air Task Force (CATF) is a nonprofit organization working 
globally to safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by 
catalyzing the rapid development and deployment of low-carbon energy 
and other climate-protecting technologies. With over 25 years of 
internationally recognized expertise on climate policy and a fierce 
commitment to exploring all potential solutions, CATF is a pragmatic, 
non-ideological advocacy group with the bold ideas needed to address 
climate change. CATF has offices in Boston, Washington D.C., and 
Brussels, with staff working virtually around the world. CATF's 
geothermal team works to push the technology and policy changes needed 
to achieve a zero-emissions, high-energy planet at an affordable cost. 
The main focus of our team is superhot rock energy, referred to in this 
bill as supercritical geothermal. We believe that superhot rock energy 
can become a key contributor to the energy mix, enabling clean, safe, 
zero-carbon energy anytime, anywhere. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify.
    The following testimony outlines CATF's thoughts on how H.R. 8665, 
the Supercritical Geothermal Research and Development Act, is an 
important step in positioning the U.S. as a leader in clean energy 
innovation by expanding the potential of clean energy and jobs in the 
coming decade. This testimony also outlines CATF's thoughts on H.R. 
7053, the Orphaned Well Grant Flexibility Act, and how coordination 
among Federal agencies, the states, and other stakeholders can optimize 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure law Sec. 40601 Orphaned Well Program 
within the scope of the clearly stated activities under that Program.
    We are living in a time when communities across the country are 
already facing the consequences of climate change paired with rapidly 
rising energy demand and costs. Investing in climate solutions now is 
not only important for protecting vulnerable communities, preserving 
natural ecosystems, and ensuring a livable planet for coming 
generations, it is also important for the health of local and national 
economies, the workforce, and the nation's ability to meet the 
residential and industrial energy demand of tomorrow. In response to 
the need for dependable energy solutions, policymakers should adopt a 
long-term climate and energy strategy that includes a diverse array of 
options. This is not only essential for ensuring grid stability, but 
also a key component to meeting current and future energy demands. The 
cleanup of legacy methane emissions and investment in supercritical 
geothermal innovation should both be a part of this strategy. Meeting 
the energy needs of the next decade and beyond will necessitate 
investment in and support for these climate solutions today.
[1] The case for geothermal innovation

    Today, we have an incredible opportunity to harness the power of 
innovative technologies to expand our energy resources, meet rising 
demand, create new jobs, and leverage the deep expertise already 
driving our energy system. To grow a stable, zero-carbon economy and 
address expanding energy needs at the scale required, it is imperative 
that we continue to take bold action to implement pragmatic energy 
solutions. This is undoubtedly a significant challenge, but the United 
States is uniquely suited to lead this effort. Just as we once rallied 
our efforts in technology development for the space race, the U.S. now 
has the opportunity to innovate and accelerate the development of 
resilient clean energy solutions we know are possible. At this time in 
history, where clean, baseload power is increasingly in demand, there 
is an enormous amount of opportunity for innovation, generation of 
intellectual property, and growth of durable energy options within our 
domestic energy landscape. This requires targeted investment in 
technology development, stakeholder collaboration, and committed 
investment in de-risking and scaling of innovative climate solutions. 
H.R. 8665 provides a pathway to the development of one global-scale 
climate solution we need: next-generation geothermal energy.
a. The solution at hand: Next-generation geothermal energy in 
        supercritical environments

    U.S. demand for clean, baseload power is expected to rise 
significantly in the next decade, and the country has an opportunity to 
advance its energy leadership by investing in geothermal innovation. 
Traditional geothermal systems in operation today only work in regions 
where hot water naturally exists near the surface. As a result, 
traditional geothermal potential represents less than 3% of utility-
scale electric generation capacity in the U.S.1,2 However, 
recent advancements in engineering have enabled a new form of 
geothermal energy which can harvest the Earth's heat without the need 
to locate rare and naturally-occurring underground sources of water. 
These advancements, including Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) and 
Closed Loop Geothermal Systems (CLGS), are rapidly enhancing the 
scalability of geothermal energy in the U.S.\3\ While early movers in 
this industry are targeting, and will continue to target, regions in 
which the heat is closer to the surface, innovations in deep drilling 
are expected to unlock this resource at a global scale.\4\ When 
deployed in belowground rock formations that exceed the supercritical 
temperature of water, these systems could significantly boost power 
potential and reduce costs, enabling geothermal energy to become cost-
competitive with the lowest-cost sources of energy today.\5\ Next-
generation geothermal (both EGS and CLGS), when operated in 
supercritical temperatures, are referred to as supercritical 
geothermal, or superhot rock energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Annual Technology 
Baseline: Geothermal https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2024/geothermal
    \2\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Electricity Explained. 
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-
generation-capacity-and-sales.php
    \3\ Clean Air Task Force (2023, Mar. 19). Focus on geothermal 
innovation heats up with DOE's new liftoff report. https://www.catf.us/
2024/03/focus-geothermal-innovation-heats-up-does-new-liftoff-report/.
    \4\ Clean Air Task Force, Superhot Rock Energy: A Vision for Firm, 
Global Zero-Carbon Energy, https://cdn.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/
10/21171446/superhot-rock-energy-report.pdf
    \5\ Clean Air Task Force (2023, Nov. 7). A Preliminary Techno-
Economic Model of Superhot Rock Energy. https://www.catf.us/resource/
preliminary-techno-economic-model-superhot-rock-energy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Superhot rock energy is an emerging energy source that will harness 
massive stores of zero-carbon energy by pumping water deep into hot 
underground rocks, where it naturally heats up and then returns to the 
surface as steam. That steam could be used to produce abundant and 
stable grid-scale carbon-free electricity. Its advanced heat streams 
could also be used for industrial and commercial applications. This 
inexhaustible source of both power and heat could enable industries 
such as hydrogen and carbon removal, and decarbonize industrial 
processes including pulp and paper manufacturing, oil and gas refining, 
textile production, and more. Furthermore, the inexhaustible nature of 
this renewable resource facilitates a steady cost profile and is not 
subject to the volatility of the commodity market, thereby offering 
price stability for electricity consumers and downstream products.
    To give you an idea of the scale of this solution, heat from the 
Earth's interior is continually replenished and will remain available 
for billions of years--longer than the lifetime of the sun. Estimates 
suggest that harnessing just 0.1% of this heat could meet the world's 
total energy needs for two million years.\6\ CATF's modeling suggests 
that superhot rock energy potential in the U.S. alone could produce 4.3 
terawatts of clean firm power--687 times New York City's 2021 energy 
consumption,\7\ and that energy source is constantly regenerating. With 
appropriate investment in research, development, and testing, next-
generation geothermal energy, particularly in supercritical conditions, 
could provide robust 24/7 power at a global scale without the 
environmental impact and land-use footprint of most other energy 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ ARPA-E, AltaRock Energy, Millimeter-Wave Technology 
Demonstration for Geothermal Direct Energy Drilling, https://www.arpa-
e.energy.gov/technologies/projects/millimeter-wave-technology-
demonstration-geothermal-direct-energy-drilling
    \7\ Clean Air Task Force. Mapping the Potential of Superhot Rock 
Energy. https://www.catf.us/superhot-rock/heat-mapping/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The energy profile of the United States is changing. Projections 
indicate a 5% increase in demand over the next 5 years.\8\ 
Specifically, we are also seeing a skyrocketing demand for baseload 
power,\9\ electricity that is available without seasonal or temporal 
interruptions. One driver of this potential demand increase is the data 
management and artificial intelligence (AI) industry, which consumed 
approximately 3% of U.S. power in 2022. It is estimated to consume 
twice that much in 2 years--accounting for nearly one-third of 
additional demand.\10\ Affordable and clean energy is paramount to the 
success of emerging industries and the U.S. economy at large. Next 
generation geothermal technologies are uniquely positioned to help 
satisfy this growing demand, due to their high reliability and 24/7 
profile, with an average power generation capacity of 98-99%.\11\ 
Resources with a firm production profile also reduce the transmission 
necessary by approximately threefold in relation to more conventional 
renewable sources.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Grid Strategies. The Era of Flat Power Demand is Over. https://
gridstrategiesllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/National-Load-Growth-
Report-2023.pdf.
    \9\ Grid Strategies. The Era of Flat Power Demand is Over. https://
gridstrategiesllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/National-Load-Growth-
Report-2023.pdf.
    \10\ International Energy Agency. Electricity 2024. https://
www.iea.org/reports/electricity-2024.
    \11\ Department of Energy. Chapter 2: Geothermal Takes the Stage. 
https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/chapter-2-geothermal-takes-stage.
    \12\ Environmental Defense Fund. Clean Firm Energy is the Key to 
California's Clean Energy Future. https://www.edf.org/sites/default/
files/documents/LongCA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2] How do we make this energy resource a reality?

    Much of CATF's support for next-generation geothermal energy is 
informed by a listening campaign that CATF led between 2022 and 2023. 
During this time, CATF conducted 24 conversations with representatives 
from 21 organizations actively engaged in geothermal innovation. These 
included public and private research groups, drilling service 
companies, and geothermal start-ups. The focus of this listening 
campaign was to identify gaps related to the research, development, and 
demonstration of next-generation geothermal energy. These learnings 
were then used to inform our understanding of how to make commercial-
scale supercritical geothermal energy a reality.
    Through its collaboration with stakeholders and technology leaders 
across the U.S., CATF identified four key themes that could enable 
supercritical geothermal energy to become an energy source capable of 
meeting a significant portion of the total global demand for 24/7 low-
carbon energy. These themes include field testing and demonstration, 
investment in targeted R&D, creating opportunities for collaboration, 
and de-risking exploration by increasing the availability of subsurface 
data. H.R. 8665 addresses all of these themes.
    First, and perhaps most critical: Creating opportunities for in-
field testing and demonstration. This past year, CATF commissioned 
research across the supercritical geothermal spectrum to identify the 
technology gaps that exist today. The research papers focused on five 
technology subsets of geothermal: site characterization, drilling, well 
design and construction, heat extraction, and power production. Authors 
of these reports found that across each technology area, the most 
critical action that can be taken to advance the technology to be 
closer to market-ready is to provide opportunity for testing in 
realistic environments, and demonstration of the technology areas end-
to-end in the field.
    Second: Supporting targeted research, development, and testing. 
Supporting research, development, and testing within a specified 
program that allows both publicly- and privately-driven technology 
advancement would not just help bridge the commercialization gap for 
superhot rock energy but would also enhance the durability of 
conventional geothermal technologies and their ability to function in 
increasingly hostile subsurface environments. Producing higher 
temperature steam increases energy density, which both reduces costs by 
decreasing the number of wells required, but increases electricity 
production efficiency, thereby enabling a more cost competitive 
product. Without a program tasked specifically with pursuing higher 
temperature (supercritical) technology development, federal-level 
research on supercritical geothermal is at risk of stagnation. 
Additionally, by defining specific research targets rather than 
providing unfocused funding, the government can minimize the risk of 
leaving persistent gaps in research, development, and testing. Finally, 
federal-level R&D creates an opportunity for groups working in siloes 
to collaborate and to be aware of ongoing work.
    Third: Providing opportunities for public-private collaboration. 
Research organizations, startups, service companies, and national labs 
across the U.S. have all made major strides in geothermal innovation. 
Achieving commercialization of supercritical geothermal will be the 
result of a series of technology innovations in numerous areas, 
including drilling, stimulation, well completion, power production, and 
more. Work in these spaces occurs across a diverse set of stakeholders 
who are at risk of working in siloes.
    Fourth: Data is a valuable resource for geothermal development, and 
access to subsurface data is critical for helping companies optimize 
development and reduce technological risk through well-informed 
drilling programs. Though there are existing data repositories at both 
the federal and state levels, they need to be better organized, 
centralized, and more widely accessible. Improvement of these existing 
resources could be particularly impactful. Geothermal is not the only 
technology that has access to, and benefits from, a shared 
understanding of challenges and resource opportunities below the 
subsurface of the U.S. Other industries, like mining, oil and gas, and 
carbon management, have their own data resources that exist separately 
from the Department of Energy's Geothermal Data Repository and could 
benefit from cooperation on subsurface data availability as well.
[3] H.R. 8665 provides the solutions we need.

    H.R. 8665, the Supercritical Geothermal Research and Development 
Act, promotes much-needed solutions to each of these challenges. First, 
the bill supports collaboration between the Department of Energy and 
the Department of the Interior in the expansion and improvement of data 
resources. This includes several measures within the jurisdiction of 
the House Committee on Natural Resources: Section 2(a)(3)(D) requires a 
memorandum of understanding among Department of Energy, Department of 
the Interior, and other relevant agencies for notifying, sharing, and 
providing opportunities for data collection. Section 2(a)(3)(E) 
requires the Department of Energy and Department of the Interior to 
collaborate on commissioning the drilling of exploration boreholes 
deeper than 8km in diverse geological provinces. Section 
2(a)(4)(C)(e)(3) requires a water use study be provided to the House 
Committee on Natural Resources and House Committee on Science, Space, 
and Technology within 5 years of enactment. Finally, Section 2(b) 
directs the U.S. Geological Survey to complete quadrennial reporting on 
evolving resource potential around States like Minnesota that have very 
little geothermal data. This measure would support comprehensive 
mapping in regions of the U.S. that historically have not had access to 
geothermal exploration. CATF believes that adequate resources should be 
provided for this work to include the mapping of geothermal potential 
in U.S. territories as well.
    While we recognize that content pertaining solely to the Department 
of Energy is not within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on 
Natural Resources, the remaining pieces of the legislation interact 
with natural resource use and the environment. For example, this 
legislation also establishes a next-generation geothermal center of 
excellence to support public-private collaboration on workforce 
training, the development of best practices, the technical support for 
agencies, and support testing for next-generation geothermal 
technologies. The purpose of a center of excellence would be to break 
down siloes and enhance communication among technology leaders at every 
level of the technology suite.
    This legislation also expands the remit of Frontier Observatory for 
Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) to test EGS and closed-loop heat 
extraction technologies in supercritical environments, which are not 
yet mature enough to stand alone without public support for R&D and 
testing. FORGE, since its establishment by the Department of Energy in 
2014, has had an enormous impact on next-generation geothermal 
technologies. Just next door to FORGE, Fervo Energy broke ground on its 
Cape Station project, a privately funded project that aims to deliver 
400 MW of 24/7 carbon-free electricity to the grid in 2026.\13\ That 
serves as an example of how public investment can work quickly to 
create momentum for private industry. Expanding the remit of FORGE to 
test in supercritical environments would equip these technologies to be 
more robust when encountering harsh belowground conditions and would 
also enable these technologies to substantially increase their power 
potential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Fervo Energy, Fervo Energy Breaks Ground on the World's 
Largest Next-gen Geothermal Project, https://fervoenergy.com/fervo-
energy-breaks-ground-on-the-worlds-largest-next-gen-geothermal-project/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This legislation also lays out a clear structure for the Department 
of Energy to establish a vertically integrated ecosystem of R&D, which 
would allow for the breakdown of research siloes and the ability to 
share learnings across stakeholders throughout the technology 
development process. The importance of R&D in this area is supported by 
learnings from the Department itself: although actions like 
demonstration are important for next-generation geothermal today, the 
Department of Energy's recent Pathways to Next-Generation Geothermal 
Commercial Liftoff report also tells us that continual research and 
development is important for geothermal to achieve cost reductions and 
scalability.\14\ Through our extensive research and five flagship 
reports, CATF has identified that high-impact R&D should include deep 
drilling, well construction and completion, reservoir engineering, and 
an understanding of rock properties in supercritical environments. This 
is all reflected in the structure of the R&D program defined in the 
legislation before us today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ U.S. Department of Energy, The Pathway to Next-Generation 
Geothermal Power Commercial Liftoff, https://liftoff.energy.gov/next-
generation-geothermal-power/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, as the work under this legislation develops, it is 
important that it matures with an updated understanding of the 
technology. This is reflected in this legislation's required 
quadrennial reports on water consumption, resource potential, and 
barriers to development as the technology and understanding of the 
resource evolves.
    R&D for next-generation geothermal energy, focused on advancing 
emerging technologies to higher temperatures, higher power potential, 
lower costs, and greater potential for global scalability, could be 
transformative in our fight for a future of 24/7 low-carbon energy. 
H.R. 8665 is an important step in doing just that. It addresses each of 
the challenges that CATF discovered in its comprehensive work with 
stakeholders across the U.S. Other countries, like China, New Zealand, 
Japan, and Iceland, have already made significant investments in 
supercritical geothermal, and this bill could position the U.S. as a 
leader in this space. The existing energy workforce, supply chain, and 
subsurface expertise in the U.S. is well-positioned to support a rapid 
scale-out of next-generation geothermal as soon as the technology is 
adequately mature. By promoting targeted public and private research, 
breaking down siloes, and leveraging the vast subsurface expertise that 
already exists in the U.S., this legislation does exactly what is 
needed to boost the momentum we see for next-generation geothermal 
energy and achieve temperature conditions that could be 
transformational in empowering a resilient, low-carbon economy.
[4] To make the impact intended, H.R. 8665 must be properly funded.

    In order to achieve the significant impact intended in H.R. 8665, 
it is crucial that the bill receives proper funding. Currently, the 
bill is allocated only $5 million per year, which is far from 
sufficient given its goals. To put this in perspective, $5 million 
would not cover the cost of a single deep geothermal well. H.R. 8665 
sets up research programs, a center of excellence, field testing 
opportunities, and more, but offers next-to-no funding to do this work. 
To truly make a difference, proper resourcing is necessary. This 
funding will ensure that the resources match the bill's ambitious 
intent and allow for meaningful advancements in geothermal technology.
    Investing in geothermal innovation, with a focus on supercritical 
geothermal, is not only feasible but also imperative, given its massive 
potential. Supercritical geothermal offers unique benefits, comparable 
in terms of reliability, emissions, and land use only to advanced 
nuclear technology, which CATF also supports. CATF is thrilled with the 
substance of this bill, including the structures and programs that it 
supports. However, proper resourcing is essential for H.R. 8665 to have 
the intended impact on geothermal innovation. With adequate funding, 
these structures, including targeted research, public-private 
collaborations, and more, will make a real impact on geothermal 
innovation and its role in expanding zero-carbon energy resources.
[5] A long-term vision

    CATF envisions next-generation geothermal energy maximizing its 
potential and progressing down a pathway that, ultimately, does not 
require federal investment or market incentives. However, to get to 
this point on the commercialization curve, momentum is needed in 
research, testing, and collaboration. CATF sees the federal government 
as playing a few key roles in technology development at this stage: 
taking on technology risk, catalyzing research and development, 
developing best practices, fostering collaboration, and removing 
barriers for geothermal to scale rapidly. H.R. 8665 is structured to do 
all of these things.
    Large private sector energy players are eagerly waiting on the 
sidelines for evidence that supercritical geothermal can work, and we 
are confident that significant private capital will flow into next 
generation geothermal if we can help address some of the remaining 
technological barriers. The public sector is in a unique position to 
take on technological risk and bridge the gap between research and 
deployment. Programmatic support for R&D and testing can work to 
advance and iterate on new technologies until private companies are 
able to significantly invest and enable the technology to be 
competitive in energy markets. Testbeds like FORGE and opportunities 
for public-private collaboration also provide an opportunity for 
private stakeholders to improve their technologies in a lower-risk 
environment.
    Achieving commercialization of supercritical geothermal will be the 
result of a series of technology innovations in numerous areas, 
including drilling, stimulation, well completion, power production. 
Work in these spaces today often occurs across a diverse set of 
stakeholders who are at risk of working in siloes. Federal programs can 
help next-generation geothermal develop by encouraging collaboration 
between stakeholders at every level, including international allies, 
government agencies, academic institutions, and private companies. This 
bill takes collaboration one step further by establishing a public-
private center of excellence. In addition to fostering collaboration in 
R&D and testing, the center of excellence in this bill is also well-
positioned to provide a common source for the development of best 
practices. These practices are necessary to ensure technology 
deployment, equity, safety, and efficacy of nascent energy types like 
next-generation geothermal.
    The United States trails other countries in its investment in 
geothermal energy innovation. However, energy companies based in the 
U.S. hold nearly all of the skilled workforce and supply chains 
required for producing next-generation geothermal energy. These energy 
companies maintain unrivaled expertise in the energy extraction 
techniques that are key to the success of next generation geothermal 
exploration, such as directional drilling, reservoir engineering, well 
completions, and more. Unlike many of the leading countries, the U.S. 
has a unique opportunity to rapidly scale up geothermal technologies by 
applying its subsurface expertise and harnessing existing supply chains 
to become a global leader in the development of clean, 24/7 
electricity. The explicit federal support for next-generation 
geothermal in this bill also would signal to investors that the 
industry is expected to play a significant role in the future, 
triggering a cycle of increased investment from the private sector. 
CATF believes that H.R. 8665 would help to be a kickoff point for 
meaningful private investment.
[6] The land footprint of energy resources: The impact of investment in 
        supercritical geothermal, in the context of increased siting on 
        federal lands.

    CATF applauds recent steps the Administration and Congress have 
made toward improved clean energy siting on federal public lands. 
Forward-looking management of public lands can ensure ecosystem 
resilience and facilitate the necessary development of renewable and 
zero-carbon energy infrastructure. In this context, accelerating the 
timeline to commercial scale for technologies that minimize land use 
and maximize energy density becomes particularly important. 
Supercritical geothermal is expected to be an extremely energy-dense 
resource, so its land requirements will be exceptionally low. Producing 
1 GW of superhot rock energy is estimated to require roughly 12 km2 (7 
sq mi) of land, compared to approximately 160 km2 (100 sq mi) of land 
for natural gas.\15\ Initiatives to support research and development of 
this clean, firm power source that has a lower calculated land use is 
critically important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Land use estimates for superhot rock energy from LucidCatalyst 
and Hotrock Research Organization. (2023). A Preliminary Techno-
Economic Model of Superhot Rock Energy. https://www.catf.us/resource/
preliminary-techno-economic-model-superhot-rock-energy/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When considering smart siting for federal public lands, it is 
important that any new policy solutions are constructive. CATF supports 
increasing the Department of the Interior's goal for renewable energy 
permitting. We also support more comprehensive planning for renewable 
energy siting on federal public lands, including through programmatic 
reviews for specific forms of clean energy development and other 
benefits for renewable energy permitting. In testimony before this 
committee two years ago, the Bureau of Land Management indicated its 
intent to review wind, solar, and geothermal programmatic environmental 
reviews.\16\ CATF has engaged with the BLM on its ongoing solar 
environmental review, and we support actions that would require the 
agency to initiate the other two planning processes. We see a 
significant contrast between these efforts to improve clean energy 
siting and the proposals in Project 2025 to eviscerate the Department 
of the Interior, which is critical to ensuring the health and 
preservation of our limited resources for future generations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Hearing on Expanding Clean Energy on Public Lands and H.R. 
3326, Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act, 117th Cong. (2021) 
(statement of Nada Wolff Culver, Deputy Director, Policy & Programs, 
Bureau of Land Management), https://www.doi.gov/ocl/pending-
legislation-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[7] H.R. 7053--Orphaned Well Grant Flexibility Act

    Reducing emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas with a 
warming potential over 80 times greater than that of carbon dioxide 
over a twenty-year period, must play a crucial role in any greenhouse 
gas mitigation. Because of its warming potency and atmospheric 
lifetime--which is much shorter than that of carbon dioxide--
establishing policies to quickly reduce methane emissions is the 
fastest way to slow the escalating rate of global warming and bend the 
climate curve. In the U.S., the oil and gas sector is one of the most 
important sectors to address, along with landfills and agriculture.
    Within the oil and gas sector, orphaned wells present a unique 
challenge to mitigate. This is because orphaned wells have no 
financially responsible owner or operators. This lack of responsibility 
has resulted in over a hundred thousand documented orphaned wells that 
have been left to pollute air and water resources until third parties, 
either on their own or with state or federal funding, step in to plug 
them, and the scope of the challenge is likely even higher since there 
are many times more orphaned wells that have yet to be documented. 
While we grapple with the immense challenge of existing orphaned wells, 
we are mindful that in the absence of policy change, well orphaning 
continues to occur because of insufficient bonding requirements, 
permissive well transfer rules and lax oversight of idled wells. If 
these policies are not modernized, the challenge of mitigating methane 
and other pollution from end-of-life wells will continue to grow.
    This is the challenge Congress recognized in passing the REGROW Act 
as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), providing 
an important tool to meet the orphaned well challenge by establishing a 
framework for states to address this source of emissions through 
funding for any of the articulated purposes in the bill. See 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 15907(c). As the Department of the Interior (DOI) moves forward 
with administering this program it should do so in a way that maximizes 
the opportunities provided in the IIJA.
    The policy objectives that DOI currently seeks to advance in its 
guidance by requiring all wells leaking methane to be measured pre-and 
post-closure may not optimize this opportunity. Measuring methane 
emissions from orphaned wells can provide more certainty about the 
reductions that can be achieved by permanently plugging a well and help 
identify the largest emitters for prioritized plugging. Alternatively, 
outside of IIJA funding, the reductions can be monetized through 
voluntary carbon markets, and thus third-party implementers should be 
strongly encouraged to measure both before and after remediation once 
those technologies are proven to accurately show the emissions 
reductions over appropriate time horizons. However, requiring such 
measurements as part of IIJA funding could limit what can be achieved 
due to the cost of measurement: upwards of $5,000 per well.\17\ Because 
the amount of funding under the IIJA is finite, spending more on 
measuring means spending less on well plugging, and thus fewer 
communities are afforded the benefits that result from reduced air and 
water contamination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Indeed there are other Federal efforts led by the U.S. 
Department of Energy that will, over time, drive the costs of such 
measurements down and develop workable methodologies to assess such 
emissions, making measurement a more efficient use of taxpayer money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Instead of requiring all emitting wells to be measured before and 
after plugging, CATF supports a more flexible approach. Some states may 
wish to use some of the funding they receive from a formula grant to 
measure every well. If that's the case, they should be allowed to make 
that choice as doing so is permitted under the statute's original 
language. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 15907(c)(2)(A)(v)(I). But if a state instead 
prefers, it should have room to coordinate with DOI, DOE, and other 
stakeholders to approximate emissions by sampling and using qualitative 
comparisons of wells, rather than always quantitatively assessing 
emissions from each emitting well. In addition, or alternatively, it 
could also implement alternative approaches for bucketing wells into 
non-emitting, low-emitting, and high-emitting categories. Additionally, 
states need to have flexibility to use funding to perform the 
activities originally articulated in the REGROW Act without requiring 
pre-plugging measurement. The policy goals of targeting high emitters 
and understanding the climate impacts of orphan well plugging are 
admirable, and through collaborative effort can be accomplished at 
lower costs than are currently realized through existing guidance. But 
all states should be encouraged to monitor pre-and post-remediation and 
to explore other ways to offset those increased costs rather than IIJA 
funds.
    This program is an opportunity for genuine collaboration between 
state and federal agencies to solve a long-standing and vast problem. 
The DOI should consider meeting with DOE, the states, other 
stakeholders, and partners in the Administration and Congress to 
discuss and implement alternative approaches to universal methane 
quantification while retaining policy objectives.
[8] Conclusion: The Supercritical Research and Development Act is a 
        step in the right direction.

    CATF believes that a diverse array of energy solutions will be 
required to empower a low-carbon economy. Growing our clean energy 
sources, improving systems to support the abatement of fossil fuel 
emissions, and working to reduce legacy emissions, including methane, 
are all important for addressing climate change. Proactively investing 
in emerging solutions for growing our clean energy resources is 
important for addressing the climate crisis while meeting the full 
scale of our country's energy needs.
    Next-generation geothermal offers unique advantages as a clean and 
reliable energy source. It features a minimal environmental footprint, 
a large source of 24/7 energy, and, with additional research and 
development, could become widely available across diverse geographies. 
The Department of Energy's recent Next-Generation Geothermal Liftoff 
report provides evidence for our need for this resource, indicating 
that the U.S. grid will require 700-900 GW of additional clean firm 
capacity by 2050.\18\ This is something we need to take seriously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Department of Energy. Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Next-
Generation Geothermal Power https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2024/03/LIFTOFF_DOE_NextGen_Geothermal_v14. pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The passage of H.R. 8665 with appropriate funding is an important 
step in advancing next-generation geothermal technologies, particularly 
in energy-dense, supercritical environments. These technologies hold 
immense potential to secure the United States' leadership in meeting 
the increasing demand for baseload clean power in the coming decade. By 
harnessing the Earth's virtually unlimited heat energy, we can 
accelerate the decarbonization of our energy sources, ensuring energy 
security and a resilient low-carbon economy. While various stakeholders 
are eager to engage in the advancement of geothermal innovation, public 
sector support is crucial to creating meaningful momentum and a pathway 
to commercial-scale adoption. H.R. 8665 takes a much-needed step toward 
this future.

                                 *****

The following document was submitted as a supplement to Mr. 
Rogers' testimony.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


The full document is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20240723/117484/HHRG-
118-II06-20240723-SD006.pdf

                                ------                                


    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mr. 
J.C. Sandberg. He is the Chief Advocacy Officer for the 
American Clean Power Association, and he is stationed in 
Washington, DC.
    Mr. Sandberg, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF J.C. SANDBERG, CHIEF ADVOCACY OFFICER, THE 
        AMERICAN CLEAN POWER ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Sandberg. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Madam Ranking Member, 
and members of the Subcommittee. It is a privilege to be here, 
and we appreciate the invitation to testify on H.R. 8954, The 
Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act--say that five 
times fast--of 2024, PLREDA.
    Renewable energy has become a significant part of our 
nation's energy mix, providing 16 percent of U.S. electricity 
in 2023, with nearly 270 gigawatts online, enough to power more 
than 68 million homes. The industry provides 460,000 jobs, 
supporting jobs in every state in our country, and delivers $3 
billion each year in state and local taxes and landowner lease 
payments. In the past 2 years alone, the nation has seen 
massive deployment of a wide range of renewable energy, largely 
on private lands, resulting in more than $468 billion in 
private-sector investments and more than 44,000 manufacturing 
jobs.
    It is critical that Congress continue to build on this 
momentum by using public lands to further unlock the industry's 
economy stimulating and community revitalizing potential. 
Building more renewable energy on public lands will allow our 
nation to address the rapidly growing demand for electricity 
and ensure reliability. That is why I offer ACP's support for 
PLREDA 2024. This bill will ensure a fair return to states and 
counties for renewable energy development, promote related 
conservation efforts, and expedite the processing timelines for 
renewable energy projects on public lands.
    Federal law requires that oil and gas revenues must be 
shared with states, and that geothermal revenues must be shared 
with states and counties. By allocating 25 percent of the 
Federal revenue to the county where the wind or solar facility 
is located, and another 25 percent to the state, this bill 
would help boost local economies and guarantee that states and 
residents rightly benefit financially from the renewable energy 
projects they host in their communities, thus providing them 
with additional funds to invest in schools, libraries, roads, 
and other public services.
    Additionally, the Renewable Energy Resource Conservation 
Fund set up by the bill will help Federal, state, local, and 
tribal agencies support their conservation efforts in areas 
hosting renewables, including efforts to restore and protect 
fish and wildlife habitats, corridors, and wetlands.
    It is also important to recognize that improvements to 
deploying renewables on public lands can only go so far if BLM 
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service offices don't have the 
resources necessary to process permits. As proposed in PLREDA 
2024, allocating revenue to these land agencies to add capacity 
and skills to effectively manage and process renewable energy 
permits will help maximize the potential for renewable energy 
development on public lands.
    Ultimately, revenue sharing is a win-win. It supports 
renewable energy development on public lands, while at the same 
time ensuring that benefits of this development further support 
the people and areas where the projects are located. To that 
end, ACP would encourage the Committee to include energy 
storage in the definition of energy project as you work to 
finalize the bill. Including energy storage in the definition 
of renewable energy project is a common-sense measure that will 
make sure states and communities benefit from all aspects of 
renewable energy development on public land and the revenue 
sharing program created by this bill.
    I would also like to encourage the Committee to continue 
its work to improve the permitting process for energy 
infrastructure. I provided some specific ideas in my written 
testimony. While PLREDA 2024 represents a significant step 
toward facilitating the development of renewable energy 
projects on public lands, our nation's cumbersome and uncertain 
permitting process impedes critical energy infrastructure 
development, effectively preventing counties and states from 
receiving the revenue this legislation would authorize.
    In conclusion, ACP strongly supports H.R. 8954, which is 
vital to unleashing our nation's clean energy potential across 
the country.
    I look forward to your questions, and thank you again for 
the opportunity to testify.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sandberg follows:]
  Prepared Statement of JC Sandberg, Chief Advocacy Officer, American 
                        Clean Power Association
                              on H.R. 8954

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the 
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, 
thank you for the invitation to offer testimony on H.R. 8954, the 
Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act of 2024 (PLREDA 2024). My 
name is JC Sandberg, and I am the Chief Advocacy Officer for the 
American Clean Power Association (ACP). ACP represents over 800 
companies focused on deploying utility-scale clean energy. ACP unites 
the power of solar, onshore and offshore wind, storage, green hydrogen, 
and transmission developers, along with manufacturers and construction 
companies, owners and operators, utilities, and corporate purchasers of 
clean energy.
    Today, I offer ACP's support for PLREDA 2024. There has been 
longstanding bipartisan interest in a revenue sharing program that 
ensures investment in domestic renewable energy on public lands will be 
reinvested in the states and local communities that host these 
projects, as well as in conservation efforts in these areas and to 
improve the processing of permits on these lands. ACP appreciates this 
Committee's interest in advancing legislation that will help make these 
goals a reality.
    Our nation is experiencing a breakthrough in domestic energy 
production and rapid growth in demand for electricity. Seizing and 
meeting this opportunity is dependent on the continued strength in 
traditional energy production while unleashing a massive deployment of 
a wide range of renewable energy technologies, including on public 
lands. Renewable power has already become a significant part of our 
nation's energy mix. Wind and solar produce 16% of U.S. electricity 
with nearly 270 GW online--enough electricity to power more than 68 
million homes.
    The industry provides 460,000 American jobs, supporting jobs in 
every state in our country, and delivers $3 billion each year in state 
and local taxes and landowner lease payments. In the past two years 
alone, the nation has seen massive deployment of a wide range of 
renewable energy, largely on private lands, though--resulting in more 
than $488 billion in private-sector investments and more than 44,000 
manufacturing jobs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ American Clean Power Association, Clean Energy Investing in 
America, https://cleanpower.org/investing-in-america/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is critical that Congress continue to build on this momentum by 
using public lands to further unlock the industry's economy-stimulating 
and community-revitalizing potential. By ensuring that renewable energy 
projects provide steady revenue to speed up the permitting process on 
public lands and provide additional economic and environmental benefits 
to the communities that host these projects, this bill will do just 
that.
    The good news is that Federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) have a 
vast potential for renewable energy development. BLM and USFS manage 
245 million and 193 million acres of public land, respectively,\2\ with 
the potential to produce thousands of gigawatts (GW) of renewable 
energy.\3\ In fact, researchers estimate that there are 2,100 GW of 
potential energy generation from renewables on BLM lands alone.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Bureau of Land Management, What We Manage Nationally, https://
www.blm.gov/about/what-we-manage/national (explaining that BLM 
administers one-tenth of America's land base); U.S. Forest Service, 
Meet the Forest Service, https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/meet-
forest-service.
    \3\ Clean Air Task Force, The technical potential for clean energy 
deployment on BLM and other federal lands in the lower forty-eight 
United States (Jan. 2024), https://www.catf.us/2024/01/clean-energy-
deployment-potential-blm-federal-lands/.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bad news is that despite some recent efforts to encourage 
renewable energy development on public lands,\5\ these resources 
continue to be vastly untapped relative to their potential. As of 2023, 
a little over 60 solar and wind projects have been approved on BLM 
lands, and BLM currently only has an equivalent number of renewable 
energy projects, representing a mere 29 GW of energy generation, under 
review.\6\ This problem is made even clearer when comparing renewable 
energy development on public lands with that on private land. 
Currently, around 95% and 99% of operating capacity for solar and wind, 
respectively, is on private lands. As of the end of 2023, 3,728 
megawatts of solar energy (with an additional 1,556 MW approved but not 
yet constructed) and 1,438 MW of wind energy was operating on BLM lands 
(with an additional 3,038 MWs approved but not yet constructed \7\ 
compared to 94,425 MW of operating utility-scale solar capacity 
nationwide and 150,455 MW of operating wind capacity.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Bureau of Land Management, Biden-Harris Administration delivers 
historic milestones, new actions for clean energy on public lands 
(April 11, 2024), https://www.blm.gov/press-release/biden-harris-
administration-delivers-historic-milestones-new-actions-clean-energy 
(explaining that the Department has recently permitted more than 25 
gigawatts of clean energy projects on public lands, which is enough 
clean energy to power more than 12 million homes across the country, 
surpassing the Energy Policy Act of 2020's public land utilization 
targets ahead of the 2025 deadline).
    \6\ Bureau of Land Management, Active Renewable Projects, https://
www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/renewable-energy/active-
renewable-projects.
    \7\ See https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/renewable-
energy/active-renewable-projects, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/
files/docs/2023-03/PROJECT_LIST_SOLAR_FY2022. pdf, and https://
www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2021-11/PROJECT%20LIST%20WIND_ 
October%202021.pdf.
    \8\ American Clean Power Association, Clean Power Annual Market 
Report 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This disparity can largely be explained by the fact that it is less 
attractive to develop projects on public lands due to the long, 
uncertain, and costly permitting delays on them, which have ripple 
effects throughout the economy--throwing off project timelines, 
domestic supply chains, and the indirect jobs and economic activity 
that would have otherwise occurred.
    PLREDA 2024's revenue recycling sharing program will help change 
this dynamic by providing more resources to expedite permitting and 
financial benefits for host states and counties, and allow the nation 
to realize the potential for renewable energy on public lands, creating 
more good-paying American jobs, strengthening the reliability and 
resiliency of the grid, promoting energy independence, and reducing 
electricity costs for consumers, all the while providing key revenue 
and environmental benefits to the areas in which they reside.
HR 8954 Will Ensure a Fair Return for States and Counties, Conservation 
        Efforts, and Expedite the Processing of Permits

    ACP strongly supports the revenue sharing proposal in PLREDA 2024 
as it will ensure a fair return for states and counties from renewable 
energy development, promote related conservation efforts, and expedite 
the processing timelines for renewable energy projects on public lands.
    Currently, 100% of rents, fees, and other revenues generated from 
wind and solar energy projects on public lands are directed to the 
Federal treasury. In contrast, Federal law requires that oil and gas 
revenues must be shared with states, and that geothermal revenues must 
be shared with states and counties. PLREDA 2024 would create parity in 
the treatment of revenues of energy resources on public lands by 
reinvesting revenues from renewable energy projects back into 
surrounding states and counties, conservation efforts, and the 
processing of permits.
    Specifically, by allocating 25% of the federal revenue to the 
county where the project is located and another 25% to the state, this 
bill will help boost local economies and guarantee that state and local 
residents rightly benefit financially from the renewable energy 
projects they host in their communities. As with the sharing of 
revenues from other energy sources, such as oil and gas, communities 
can invest revenue from these projects in schools, libraries, roads, 
and other public services.
    Equally, the Renewable Energy Resource Conservation Fund set up by 
the bill will help Federal, state, local and Tribal agencies support 
their conservation efforts, including efforts to restore and protect 
fish and wildlife habitats, corridors, and wetlands. As such, the bill 
strikes an important balance between supporting renewable energy on 
public lands while helping preserve these lands and their surrounding 
areas for other uses, such as hunting, fishing, hiking, and biking.
    It is also important to recognize that improvements to deploying 
renewables on public lands can only go so far if BLM and USFS offices 
don't have the resources to process their permits. By allocating 
revenue that could be used to add to the capacity and skills to 
effectively manage and process renewable energy permits on public 
lands, the gap between the potential for renewable development on 
public lands and the actual number of projects developed thereon can be 
narrowed.
    Ultimately, revenue sharing is a win-win. It supports renewable 
energy development on public lands, while at the same time ensuring 
that the benefits of this development further support the areas in 
which they are located.
Include Energy Storage

    We encourage members to consider including energy storage in the 
definition of energy project as they work to finalize the bill. 
Including energy storage in the definition of renewable energy project 
is a commonsense measure that will make sure states and communities and 
their environments benefit from all aspects of renewable energy 
development on public lands and the revenue sharing program created by 
this bill. Many developers build hybrid projects that include both 
renewable energy generation, such as wind and solar, and energy 
storage, as well as standalone storage projects. Permitting fees from 
all these resources should be included in any revenue sharing 
provision.
Further Permitting Reforms

    While this bill represents a significant step toward facilitating 
the development of renewable energy projects on public lands through 
revenue sharing, more reforms are needed to support the responsible, 
effective, and efficient siting of critical energy infrastructure on 
these lands and across the nation. To that end, ACP encourages this 
Committee and Congress consider other reforms, consistent with the 
broader bipartisan NEPA reforms enacted by Congress in 2023, that would 
improve the permitting process for energy infrastructure, including the 
following:

     Application Processing Timeline: Establish a default 
            timeline of 30 days from the date of receipt of an 
            application for a Cost Recovery Agreement and not more than 
            180 days for the issuance of the Notice of Intent (NOI) for 
            an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and less for an 
            Environmental Impact Statement; these milestones start the 
            clock for preparing a NEPA document and agencies can avoid 
            triggering it by slow-walking the issuance of them.

     Subsequent Authorizations: Require authorizations after a 
            NEPA document is finished to be issued no later than 180 
            days after the issuance of a record of decision or finding 
            of no significant impact; once NEPA review is done, 
            agencies can delay the issuance of a permit by foot-
            dragging these authorizations.

     Expand Utilization of Programmatic Review: Require 
            agencies to use programmatic environmental documents and 
            tiering from those documents to expedite the issuance of 
            project-specific permits and eliminate repetitive 
            considerations of the same issues.

     Categorical Exclusion Process Improvements: Establish 
            improvements to improve the use of categorical exclusions 
            and require agencies to issue requests for information to 
            solicit ideas for new categorical exclusions.

Conclusion

    ACP strongly supports PLREDA 2024 which is vital to unleashing our 
nation's clean energy potential across the United States. Revenue 
sharing will encourage development of renewable energy projects on 
federal public lands--commensurate with their potential to host them--
while ensuring a fair return for states, counties, and conservation.

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Dr. 
Steve Feldgus. He is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for the Land and Minerals Management at the Department of the 
Interior, and he is based right here in Washington, DC.
    Dr. Feldgus, welcome. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF STEVE FELDGUS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT 
 SECRETARY FOR LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
                    INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Dr. Feldgus. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member 
Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the Subcommittee, for the 
opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Department of 
the Interior. My name is Steve Feldgus, and I am the 
Department's Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and 
Minerals Management. I am pleased to be able to provide 
testimony today on three pieces of legislation: H.R. 7053, the 
Orphan Well Grant Flexibility Act; H.R. 8954, the Public Land 
Renewable Energy Development Act; and the discussion draft of 
the Comprehensive Offshore Resource Evaluation, or CORE Act.
    These bills address critical issues related to programs 
managed by various parts of the Department, including the 
Orphan Well Grant program, renewable energy development on 
public lands, and oil and gas development on the Outer 
Continental Shelf.
    H.R. 7053, the Orphan Well Grant Flexibility Act, relates 
to the Department's orphaned well grant programs established by 
Section 40601 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. H.R. 7053 
would prohibit requiring states to collect methane emissions 
data as a condition of eligibility for orphaned well grants. 
Additionally, the bill requires the National Academies of 
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study on the 
community impact of the Orphan Well Grant program.
    The Department supports the proposed study, as we strongly 
believe in the value of comprehensive and accurate data to 
assess the effectiveness of taxpayer-funded initiatives. For 
the same reason, the Department believes that methane 
measurement is essential for understanding the effectiveness of 
the Orphan Well Grant program. Accurate methane data is crucial 
for evaluating the success of our well-plugging activities, and 
for making informed decisions that protect our communities and 
the environment.
    Methane emissions from orphaned wells contribute 
significantly to environmental, safety, and economic 
challenges. Without accurate data, effective mitigation becomes 
extremely difficult. The elimination of methane monitoring 
requirements for grant recipients would severely hamper the 
effectiveness of the orphaned well program and, as a result, 
the Department cannot support H.R. 7053.
    Turning to H.R. 8954, the Public Land Renewable Energy 
Development Act, this bill would establish a new distribution 
structure for revenue from solar and wind development on public 
lands. Currently, all revenues from such development goes to 
the U.S. Treasury. Under the bill, half of all revenues would 
be allocated to the states and counties in which the 
development was located; one quarter would go to the Department 
of the Interior for administration of the BLM's renewable 
energy program, including actions to facilitate processing of 
renewable energy permits on Federal lands; and the remaining 
quarter would be deposited in a new Renewable Energy Resource 
Conservation Fund. This fund would be used to support 
protection and restoration of important fish and wildlife 
habitat and water resources, as well as to secure recreational 
access to Federal lands.
    The Department is committed to responsibly mobilizing the 
tremendous renewable energy resources of our nation's public 
lands, and we look forward to working further with the sponsor 
and the Subcommittee on this shared goal. We recognize the 
interests of states and counties in receiving benefits from 
development on public lands in their jurisdiction, and this 
revenue allocation would be extremely helpful for supporting 
the additional responsibilities that states and counties take 
on to accommodate and manage renewable energy projects that are 
located in their jurisdictions.
    The Department also recognizes the potential benefits that 
could come from the fund established by the bill, which would 
enhance outdoor recreation opportunities and support state and 
tribal wildlife conservation efforts to mitigate potential 
impacts from renewable energy development.
    Finally, the Department appreciates that the bill exempts 
cost recovery revenue from the new revenue distribution 
structure, as those funds are essential for BLM to cover 
application processing costs.
    Regarding the discussion draft of the CORE Act, our 
preliminary review indicates that the bill amends Section 357 
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expand the Department's 
comprehensive inventory and analysis of undiscovered oil and 
natural gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. The 
Department notes that these changes will require additional 
research, funding, and time to conduct. In addition, some of 
the provisions within the discussion draft regarding analysis 
and forecasting may duplicate existing provisions.
    The discussion draft also contains a number of provisions 
regarding incidental take authorizations under the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act, and geological and geophysical surveys 
related to oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico. While 
the Department strongly supports permitting and authorization 
efficiency, we also emphasize the need to thoroughly evaluate 
the impacts associated with oil and gas activities, including 
geological and geophysical surveys on marine resources. The 
Department would like to work with the sponsor and the 
Subcommittee on how the bill's requirements could be aligned 
with the Department's existing processes, while ensuring 
continued protection of important marine resources.
    Finally, I would like to note that the U.S. Geological 
Survey has provided a statement for the record on H.R. 8665, 
the Supercritical Geothermal Research and Development Act.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on these 
bills, and I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Feldgus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Feldgus, Ph.D., Principal Deputy Assistant 
    Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the 
                                Interior
                       on H.R. 7053 and H.R. 8954

        H.R. 7053, the Orphan Well Grant Flexibility Act of 2024

Introduction

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 7053, the Orphan 
Well Grant Flexibility Act of 2024. The bill relates to the Department 
of the Interior's (Department) orphaned well grant programs established 
under Section 349 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended by 
Section 40601 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and 
would, among other impacts, change methane emission measurement 
requirements for state grant recipients. Because understanding the 
reduction in methane emissions is critical to measuring the success of 
the orphaned well program and in line with clear Congressional intent 
in the IIJA, the Department opposes the bill. We appreciate the efforts 
of the Sponsors and the Subcommittee on the bill, and we look forward 
to continuing to work with Congress through the legislative process.
Background

    Methane is a flammable greenhouse gas that is a significant driver 
of climate change. It is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide at 
warming the atmosphere. Orphaned wells in the United States often emit 
methane continuously, exacerbating climate problems, and volatile 
organic compounds that can impact the health of nearby communities. 
Section 40601 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) 
established the Department's orphaned well grant program, and the IIJA 
appropriated approximately $4.7 billion for Tribal and State financial 
assistance programs as well as a federal program, which are managed by 
the Department's Orphaned Wells Program Office.
    Since the enactment of the IIJA on November 15, 2021, the 
Department has awarded $565 million in initial grants to 25 states, 
which has been used to plug more than 7,700 wells as of March 31, 2024. 
In November 2023, the Department reported to Congress that based on 
information provided in the State Initial Grant Quarterly Performance 
reports, as of June 2023, combined annual pre-plugging methane 
emissions from a total of 497 wells measured in four states were equal 
to approximately 11,530 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 
emissions per year. The Department has also awarded $394 million in 
formula grant awards to 16 states, and recently opened the application 
window for matching grants, the first of two categories of state 
performance grants, making up to $30 million available per state. In 
September 2023, $40 million was made available to Tribes in an initial 
round of funding, and a second round of Tribal grant applications are 
currently under review. Five federal land management agencies have also 
received nearly $150 million in funds to plug orphaned wells on federal 
lands.
    Nationwide, investments through the Department's new program are 
estimated to have supported over 7,200 jobs and contributed more than 
$900 million to the economy over the last two fiscal years.
    Due to the limited timeframe for States to use initial grant 
funding, for work funded by those grants States were encouraged but not 
required to detect and measure methane emissions at orphaned wells 
before and after plugging operations. For formula and performance 
grants, because methane emission reduction is one of the clear 
priorities of IIJA Section 40601--it is the only section under Division 
D, Title VI, which is titled ``Methane Reduction Infrastructure'', and 
the amount of methane emissions reduced is a requirement of the report 
to Congress in that section--methane measurement is a requirement when 
plugging wells using those funds.
H.R. 7053, the Orphan Well Grant Flexibility Act of 2024

    Section 2 of the bill would make the collection of methane 
emissions monitoring data optional for the State financial assistance 
program and preclude methane measurement from being a condition of 
eligibility for orphaned well grants. These changes would severely 
hamper the effectiveness of the orphaned well program, and the 
Department does not support this change. The Department is also 
concerned that, as written, Section 2 of the bill creates ambiguity and 
could lead to a number of unintended consequences.
    The Department supports Section 3 of the bill, requiring the 
National Academies Study on Community Impact of Orphaned Well Grant 
Program.
Methane Measurement Impacts

    It is critical to continue measuring methane emissions at each 
orphaned well that is plugged. Methane measurement is necessary to 
verify the success of a plugging operation. Since background levels of 
natural methane exist, there is no way to certify the effectiveness of 
the plugging operation other than comparing direct methane measurement 
before and after plugging. Methane measurement also furthers grant 
program requirements under 2 C.F.R. 200 to measure the recipient's 
performance to show achievement of program goals and objectives, share 
lessons learned, improve program outcomes, and foster adoption of 
promising practices.
    Detecting and measuring methane from wells helps mitigate serious 
human safety concerns. Instruments that detect methane can also detect 
toxic gases like hydrogen sulfide, ensuring that mitigation steps can 
be taken to keep the public and workers safe before well plugging 
begins. In addition, economically disadvantaged communities often bear 
a disproportionate burden of environmental hazards, including methane 
and toxic gas emissions from orphaned wells. Ensuring robust before and 
after measurements of well plugging helps identify and prioritize 
potential high-polluting wells that could be located near vulnerable 
populations that experience negative health impacts associated with 
poor air quality.
    Not all orphaned wells emit methane at the same rate. Some are high 
emitters that release significant amounts of methane, posing increased 
safety and environmental risks. Methane emissions measurement allows 
for the detection and prioritization of these urgent cases for plugging 
and remediation. Finally, methane measurement helps detect potential 
water contamination, enhances our understanding of geologic factors 
leading to emissions from unplugged wells and the predictability of 
future emissions through the increased collection of data, improves the 
accuracy of reporting, and helps create jobs for American workers, 
particularly those trained using methane measurement equipment and 
conducting field assessments.
    Elimination of the methane measurement requirement could also 
severely undermine the Department's ability to better understand the 
magnitude and characteristics of methane emissions from orphaned wells 
across all jurisdictions, creating inconsistencies in data collected 
from state, private, Tribal and Federal lands. It would also weaken the 
Department's ability to make data-driven policy and program 
implementation decisions as required by the Foundations for Evidence-
Based Policymaking Act of 2018.
    The Department is also concerned about the ambiguity created by 
Section 2 as to the purposes for which States may use awarded funds. 
Such ambiguity could potentially lead to the use of substantial 
portions of grants for activities unrelated to plugging, remediating, 
and restoring orphaned wells.
Proposed National Academies Study

    The Department supports Section 3, the National Academies Study on 
Community Impact of Orphaned Well Grant Program. On July 18-19, the 
Department engaged the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and 
Medicine (NASEM) to convene a workshop to discuss existing practices 
and standards for plugging orphaned and/or abandoned hydrocarbon wells. 
The Department has also engaged NASEM to convene an ad hoc committee of 
experts to provide advice to the Department on regulatory, technical, 
scientific, and economic considerations for plugging and remediating 
orphaned wells, and supports entering into an agreement with NASEM to 
study the effect of the plugging and remediation activity on economic 
development, housing trends, and other potential benefits.
Conclusion

    The Department of the Interior emphasizes the critical need for 
continued methane measurements at orphaned wells before and after 
plugging. Methane emissions from these wells contribute significantly 
to environmental, health, and safety challenges, necessitating accurate 
data for effective mitigation. Because H.R. 7053 would eliminate 
methane monitoring requirements for grant recipients, the Department 
opposes the bill.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill.

        H.R. 8954, Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act

Introduction

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 8954, the Public 
Land Renewable Energy Development Act (PLREDA). H.R. 8954 seeks to 
promote and expedite the development of renewable energy projects on 
Federal lands through the distribution of revenues collected from wind 
and solar projects in the regions in which projects are located. The 
bill also establishes a special account in the U.S. Treasury as a 
vehicle to deliver additional conservation and recreational access 
funding to Federal agencies, Tribes, states, and counties.
    H.R. 8954 aligns with the Biden-Harris Administration's goal to 
promote and expedite the responsible development of renewable energy 
projects, and we appreciate the work of the Sponsor and the 
Subcommittee in advancing legislation that supports this goal.
Background

    The BLM manages approximately 245 million surface acres, located 
primarily in 12 western states, and approximately 700 million acres of 
subsurface mineral estate. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA) sets forth the BLM's multiple-use mission, directing that 
public lands generally be managed for a broad range of uses, such as 
renewable and conventional energy development, livestock grazing, 
timber production, hunting and fishing, recreation, wilderness, and 
conservation--including protecting cultural and historic resources. 
FLPMA also requires the BLM to manage public land resources on a 
sustained-yield basis for the benefit of current and future 
generations.
    BLM-managed public lands provide excellent solar, wind, and 
geothermal energy potential and are an important component of the 
Administration's broader strategy to rapidly reduce U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions by at least 50 percent by 2030 and achieve a carbon 
pollution-free electricity sector by 2035. Consistent with the Energy 
Act of 2020, the BLM continues to accelerate responsible permitting of 
renewable energy projects on public lands. Since January 21, 2021, the 
BLM has permitted projects that are expected to provide over 7.3 
gigawatts of clean energy--enough to power nearly 2.4 million homes. 
These efforts contributed to the Administration recently surpassing the 
goal of permitting 25 gigawatts of clean energy projects on BLM-
administered public lands by 2025. In addition to specific project 
approvals, the BLM has also leased eight new areas in Solar Energy 
Zones with the capacity to generate nearly 2.5 gigawatts of additional 
clean energy. Moreover, on May 1, 2024, the BLM finalized its Rights-
of-Way, Leasing, and Operations for Renewable Energy Rule, which will 
lower the cost of developing solar and wind projects, improve renewable 
energy project application processes, and incentivize developers to 
continue to responsibly develop solar and wind projects on public 
lands. These changes are expected to translate, over time, to a 
reduction in the average cost of wind and solar energy, which will 
stabilize or even reduce the cost of energy to consumers, even as the 
cost of other energy sources may experience increased volatility.
H.R. 8954, Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act

    H.R. 8954 would establish a new revenue distribution structure for 
receipts from solar and wind development on public lands. Under the 
bill, beginning January 1, 2025, 25 percent of receipts would be 
allocated to the state within the boundary of which the revenue is 
derived; 25 percent to the counties within the boundaries of which the 
revenue is derived, split based on the percentage of land used in each 
county; 25 percent to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 
administer BLM's renewable energy program, including actions to 
facilitate the processing of renewable energy permits on Federal land; 
and 25 percent would be deposited in a new Renewable Energy Resource 
Conservation Fund (Fund).
    The Secretary would be permitted to make amounts in the Fund 
available to Federal and state agencies and Tribes to protect and 
restore important fish and wildlife habitat and water resources, as 
well as to secure recreational access to Federal lands. The bill also 
provides an exception for revenue received from section 504(g) of FLPMA 
used for processing right-of-way (ROW) applications, which gives the 
Department of the Interior (Department) the authority to collect cost 
recovery revenue for the processing and monitoring of ROW applications.
Analysis

    The BLM recognizes the interests of states and counties in 
receiving additional revenue from local wind and solar projects. 
Currently, states and local governments receive revenue generated by a 
variety of other activities on public lands--such as states receiving 
roughly half of the revenues generated by oil, gas, and coal 
development within their borders--and this revenue sharing can help pay 
for public services associated with projects on public lands. However, 
all revenues from renewable energy development currently go to the U.S. 
Treasury. The BLM appreciates the Subcommittee's interest in providing 
local communities with benefits from development on public lands in 
their jurisdictions. The BLM also appreciates the potential benefits 
that could come from the Fund established by the bill, which would 
enhance outdoor recreation opportunities and support state and Tribal 
wildlife conservation efforts to mitigate potential impacts from 
renewable energy development.
    Similarly, the BLM appreciates that H.R. 8954 provides an exception 
to its revenue allocation for revenue received from section 504(g) of 
FLPMA. If enacted, this exception would help ensure continued support 
for prioritization of renewable energy and energy transmission permit 
processing by retaining revenues received from local ROW grants. 
Currently, these funds are placed into a special account in the U.S. 
Treasury that the BLM uses to process thousands of ROW applications.
Conclusion
    The Department and the BLM are committed to responsibly mobilizing 
the tremendous renewable energy resources of our nation's public lands. 
We share the Sponsor's and the Subcommittee's interest in supporting 
the development of those resources, consistent with environmental 
protections and public involvement in agency decision-making. The 
Department and the BLM look forward to continuing to work with the 
Subcommittee and Congress on these important issues.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Steve Feldgus, Principal 
      Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management,
                       Department of the Interior

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

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

H.R. 7053

    Question 1. For the federal and state orphaned wells programs under 
the IIJA, is the Department tracking how much of each respective pot of 
money is being used on plugging efforts versus the other activities 
listed in Section 40601(c)(2)(A) and Section 40601(b)(2)?

    1a) If so, please send that breakdown?

    Question 2. Why didn't the Department notify states in the 
Department's Formula Grant Guidance that the funding would be subject 
to Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act 
requirements?

    Question 3. How many wells do you anticipate being plugged by 
states using Formula Grant money in FY 1924?

H.R. 8954

    Question 4. How much yearly revenue is generated by energy storage 
facilities located on federal lands? If energy storage projects 
currently under review are approved, how much additional revenue will 
be generated?

    Question 5. What percentage of wind and solar projects currently 
under review at BLM are co located with an energy storage facility? How 
does this number compare with standalone energy storage facilities 
under review on federal lands?

    Question 6. What is the average timeline between the date of 
receipt of an application for a Cost Recovery Agreement and approval 
for energy projects on federal land since 2021?

    Question 7. What is the average timeline between the submission of 
a project proposal and a Notice of Intent (NOI) for an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) being issued for energy projects on federal land 
since 2021?

    Question 8. What is the average timeline for completion of an EIS 
once an NOI has been issued for energy projects on federal lands since 
2021?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Dr. Feldgus. Our last 
witness is Mr. Jim Wright. He is the Commissioner of the 
Railroad Commission of Texas, and he is based in Austin, Texas.
    Mr. Wright, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF JIM WRIGHT, COMMISSIONER, RAILROAD COMMISSION OF 
                      TEXAS, AUSTIN, TEXAS

    Mr. Wright. Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, 
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation 
to testify before you today about the need for greater state 
flexibility within the Department of the Interior's Orphaned 
Well Plugging Grant program, and how the legislation introduced 
by Representative Thompson, H.R. 7053, the Orphan Well Grant 
Flexibility Act, provides that flexibility and would help 
achieve our common goal of plugging as many orphan wells as 
possible with these taxpayer dollars.
    As I discussed in my written testimony, the state of Texas 
has a long and successful track record of plugging orphan wells 
through our state-managed plugging program. While I am proud of 
the work the Commission has been able to accomplish over the 
past 40 years, we have more work to do, which is why I am 
pleased to see the inclusion of Federal funding for orphan well 
plugging included in the IIJA. This funding provides 
opportunity to significantly reduce the U.S. orphan well 
population, in addition to our existing state funds.
    I am proud to report that the state of Texas was able to 
successfully deploy the $25 million in funding we received 
through the initial grant to plug 730 wells, in addition to the 
1,000-plus wells we plugged with state resources. While 
deployment of the initial grant funds was effective, the 
subsequent formula grant has not achieved a similar level of 
success due to additional terms, conditions, and requirements 
which increase costs and add significant delays to complete 
each plugging.
    Put simply, while the initial grant was successful when it 
comes to the formula grant, taxpayers are getting less, paying 
more, and waiting longer.
    One issue is the cost of methane detection and monitoring. 
The inclusion by DOI of methane monitoring as a requirement for 
receiving formula grant funds can add anywhere from $2,000 to 
$5,000 to the average cost. I recognize that, as Members of 
Congress, you are likely used to hearing numbers with a few 
more zeros behind them, but these are real costs that have a 
real impact on the state's ability to plug as many orphan wells 
as possible.
    For many states with significant orphan well populations, 
raising plugging costs by 10 percent means that ultimately 
there will be 10 percent fewer wells plugged in our state. 
Texas is not alone in this concern. The Interstate Oil and Gas 
Compact Commission, as well as the Environmental Defense Fund 
both provided feedback to the Department of the Interior as it 
was seeking comment on its draft formula grant guidance last 
year. Unfortunately, these suggested changes were not included 
in the DOI's final guidance.
    One thing which I did not include in my written testimony, 
but would like to note, is with respect to the ``J'', or 
``jobs,'' in IIJA. Following the initial passage of the IIJA, 
and as the initial grant funds were being utilized, we saw 
significant interest in new entrants into the well-plugging 
space. That is no longer the case. Delays in project approvals 
due to these new, stringent requirements have led to at least 
one company who went out and hired and bought equipment to let 
me know they were getting out of the plugging business, selling 
the equipment, and letting those new hires go.
    If there is one thing you take away from my testimony 
today, I hope it is this: When it comes to our nation's orphan 
well population, it is important to remember that each orphan 
well is different. They are all unique. Age, geological 
formation, depth, proximity to groundwater, onshore or 
offshore, these wells are as unique as the individual districts 
you represent. That is why it is so important states have the 
necessary flexibility to determine how best to utilize these 
funds. While it may be prudent for some states to perform 
methane monitoring, for others the additional cost might be 
better served plugging more wells. That is why I am here today, 
and I support this bill.
    As the deployment of the initial grant made clear, when 
given the opportunity states can move quickly to utilize and 
deploy these Federal funds in a manner best suited to address 
their specific orphan well population.
    With that, thank you, and I will be happy to answer any 
questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
   Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jim Wright, Commissioner, Railroad 
                          Commission of Texas
                              on H.R. 7053

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, Members of this 
Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify before you today 
about our experience with the Department of Interior's Orphan Well 
Plugging Grant program and how it might be improved.
    The Railroad Commission of Texas was established in 1891, making it 
the oldest regulatory agency in Texas, and one of the oldest of its 
kind in the nation. The Commission is the state agency with primary 
regulatory jurisdiction over the oil and natural gas industry, pipeline 
transporters, natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline industry, 
natural gas utilities, the LP-gas industry, critical natural gas 
infrastructure, and coal and uranium surface mining operations. The 
Commission exists under provisions of the Texas Constitution and 
exercises its statutory responsibilities under state and federal laws 
for regulation and enforcement of the state's energy industries. The 
Commission also has regulatory and enforcement responsibilities under 
federal law including the Surface Coal Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Pipeline Safety Acts, Resource 
Conservation Recovery Act, and Clean Water Act.
    As the members of this panel are no doubt aware, the State of Texas 
is the largest energy producer in the nation. We are responsible for 
over 42% of all U.S. oil production, and 28% of U.S. Natural Gas 
production. Texas contains almost half a million miles of pipeline, 
through which energy products travel to reach refineries of which the 
state of Texas is responsible for a full third of all U.S. capacity.
Texas State Managed Well Plugging

    Like all oil and gas producing states, Texas must contend with a 
subset of wells for which there is no viable operator and is thus 
considered orphaned.
    The Commission maintains oversight over Texas's orphan well 
plugging program, which is funded through regulatory fees, permit fees 
and bonds paid by the Oil and Gas industry. Since its inception 40 
years ago, the Commission's State Managed Plugging Program has plugged 
over 45,000 wells, constituting approximately half of all wells plugged 
by state programs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Idle and Orphaned Oil & Gas Wells: State and Provincial 
Regulatory Strategies, IOGCC 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Orphan Well Grant Funding

    Following the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
(IIJA), the Commission applied for the first of the three available 
funding mechanisms available under the IIJA for orphaned well plugging 
and was awarded $25 million through the Initial Grant. I am proud to 
report that a few short weeks later, the State of Texas was among the 
first in the nation to begin plugging orphan oil and gas wells using 
federal grants from the IIJA. Through the first tranche of $25 million 
dollars received under the Initial Grant phase, Texas ultimately 
plugged 730 wells.
    The successful deployment of these Initial Grant funds by Texas and 
other states was due in large part to the fact these funds had very 
little in the way of new requirements or conditions for recipient 
states. That stands in stark contrast to the subsequent Formula Grant 
requirements, such as required methane detection and monitoring, and 
other prerequisites which I highlight later in this testimony. These 
additional requirements have resulted in a substantial increase in the 
average cost to plug a well, while simultaneously adding significant 
time to complete each plugging job.
    Put simply, while the Initial Grant was successful, when it comes 
to the Formula Grant, taxpayers are getting less, paying more, and 
waiting longer.
Methane Detection & Monitoring Requirements: Additional Cost = 
        Opportunity Cost

    The Commission has repeatedly expressed concerns to The Department 
of the Interior (DOI), the federal agency responsible for establishing 
rules for the disbursement of funds from the IIJA for plugging of 
orphan wells, that requiring methane monitoring as a condition of 
receiving federal formula grant funds would result in additional 
contracting costs and ultimately result in fewer orphan wells being 
plugged.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Railroad Commission of Texas: Response to Department of 
Interior Draft Formula Grant Guidance, February 24, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Texas is not alone in raising this concern. The DOI received 
comments from a diverse group of stakeholders in response to the Draft 
Formula Grant Guidance published in January of 2023. The Interstate Oil 
and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), which is composed of 29 oil and gas 
producing states, including California, New York, Arizona, Louisiana, 
Texas and others which are represented by the members of this 
committee, unanimously passed a resolution which called for the DOI to 
provide states with flexibility with respect to the formula grants.\3\ 
The IOGCC resolution states that additional requirements not expressly 
required by the IIJA statute will serve to increase the cost to plug an 
orphan well, resulting in fewer wells being plugged. Section 40601 of 
the IIJA contains no requirement with respect to methane detection or 
methane monitoring as a condition of receiving formula grant funds. 
This requirement was added as a condition to receive funds in express 
contravention of the statutory language which was passed into law. The 
statutory language in IIJA affirmatively requires the DOI to consult 
with the IOGCC and its member states regarding the implementation and 
distribution of Federal Orphan well plugging funds. As a member of that 
body, I have found that consultation to be sorely lacking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ IOGCC Resolution 23.053: Urging Congress to Direct the 
Department of Interior to Follow Statutory Language in Implementation 
of Section 40601 of the IIJA, Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 
Commission, May 24, 2023. There were no votes against the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indeed, other stakeholders shared similar concerns to those held by 
the Commission and the IOGCC. The Environmental Defense Fund, for 
example, noted in their comments to DOI on March 24, 2023 that ``There 
are some requirements in the current draft that would likely 
significantly drive up the costs and time needed to plug wells and 
could materially reduce the number of wells states will be able to plug 
. . . Of particular concern is the requirement to measure and quantify 
methane emissions before and after plugging.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Environmental Defense Fund: Response to Department of Interior 
Draft Formula Grant Guidance, March 24, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Estimates vary, but the specific costs of monitoring can result in 
anywhere from $2,000 to $5,500 dollars in additional expenses. For 
context, plugging an onshore well varies due to several factors, 
including geographic location, but has averaged anywhere between 
$30,000 to $35,000 over the last several years. Simply put, spending 
10% or more for methane detection and monitoring means 10% fewer wells 
that could ultimately be plugged in Texas. That does not account for 
the additional time needed to conduct the pre- and post-testing 
requirements, which can also add significant costs.
    While this extra expenditure may provide some data, it does nothing 
to change the necessary solution, which is to plug the well.
    Importantly, several states chose to use the Initial Grant funding 
to measure methane emissions, as was within their right in the Initial 
Grant. H.R. 7053, the Orphan Well Flexibility Act, simply extends that 
optionality for remaining grant funds, consistent with the intent and 
text of the IIJA. It bears repeating that H.R. 7053 does nothing to 
prohibit states from utilizing federal funds for the purposes of 
methane detection and monitoring. However, for states with significant 
orphan well populations, the current requirement under the formula 
grant to spend additional resources to detect and monitor for methane 
at the expense of plugging fewer wells makes little sense. It should 
also be noted that these testing requirements mandated by the DOI 
requires detection equipment 100 times more sensitive than those 
required under the Inflation Reduction Act's Methane Emissions 
Reduction Plan (MERP) run by the EPA and the Department of 
Energy.5,6 Such a requirement makes little sense and, again, 
represents additional and unnecessary costs due to their rigor. This 
inflexibility is self-defeating to the underlying goals of the IIJA and 
ultimately limits a state's ability to innovate and stretch these 
taxpayer dollars further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Orphan Well Methane Measurement Guidelines (Page 24), U.S. 
Department of Interior
    \6\ Methane Measurement Guidelines for Marginal Conventional Wells 
(Page 9), U.S. Department of Energy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Several states have had conversations with plugging contractors and 
others about the potential to utilize the voluntary carbon credit 
market to offset plugging costs. This could represent a way to lower 
the average cost to plug a well, enabling states to stretch these 
taxpayer dollars further and ultimately plug more wells. Importantly, 
the voluntary carbon credit markets such as the American Carbon 
Registry have standards which the DOI itself references in their 
methane monitoring guidance materials. Yet, DOI has denied states the 
opportunity to further explore this as a novel way to potentially lower 
plugging costs and obtain data related to methane emissions.
    While this may not be a practical use of funds for some states, for 
others it may prove beneficial. Providing flexibility in these Formula 
Grants so that states may choose whether, and to what degree, they 
conduct methane testing will result in innovative solutions which 
directly achieve the goal and intent of Congress through the IIJA.
    I support H.R. 7053, the Orphan Well Flexibility Act because I 
believe the ultimate success or failure of the program hangs in the 
balance. Texas and many other states have proven with the Initial Grant 
funding that they are more than capable of being good stewards of 
taxpayer dollars and making rational decisions which best serve the 
specific needs of their citizenry as well as the orphan well population 
in their respective states.
Approval Delays Within the Orphan Well Program Office

    While this hearing is focused on providing state flexibility, I 
would like to take this opportunity to highlight several other issues 
the Railroad Commission has experienced recently as it relates to 
burdensome requirements and monitoring efforts which hinders the 
Commission's ability to utilize the Formula Grant funds effectively.
    The Commission submitted its Phase I Formula Grant on September 21, 
2023. Over three months later, on January 11, 2024, the Orphaned Well 
Program Office informed those states that submitted a formula grant 
application that new terms and conditions would be included in their 
Formula Grant awards. One day later, on January 12, 2024, the 
Commission received its Phase I Formula Grant award including new Award 
Term 25: Endangered Species Act (ESA) Compliance Reviews and new Award 
Term 26: Historic Preservation.
    The Railroad Commission project period began on February 1, 2024, 
with the agency positioned to begin plugging orphaned wells across 
Texas immediately, just as it had done with the Initial Grant funding. 
Compliance with the new award terms, and the absence of processes 
within the Orphaned Well Program Office (OPWO) to implement those terms 
delayed well-plugging work until April 8, 2024, when six wells were 
finally able to be plugged in Bexar County using Phase I Formula Grant 
funds. The addition of ESA Section 7 and National Historic Preservation 
Act (NHPA) Section 106 compliance to the award terms and conditions 
adds significantly to the oversight activities of the OPWO.
    Absent changes to the requirements of ESA Section 7 and NHPA 
Section 106, well plugging may be slowed to such a pace that funds may 
not be expended before their expiration on September 30, 2030. During 
the first five months of the Formula Grant, the Commission plugged 
approximately 60 percent fewer wells than were plugged during the first 
five months of the Initial Grant (9/22-2/23, 273 wells vs 2/24-6/24, 
112 wells).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Of the $79.6 million awarded to Texas under phase I of the 
Formula Grant, the Commission has drawn on approximately $3 million to 
date. This is not due to a lack of trying, nor is it for a lack of 
wells to be plugged. It is due to significant delays and reviews by the 
OPWO with respect to ESA reviews, and compliance with the NHPA.
Endangered Species Act

    Compliance with ESA Section 7 delays the implementation of well 
plugging activities as the Commission must assess each project area for 
applicable species. OWPO has 10 business days to concur with a ``no 
effect'' determination made by the Commission, the best-case outcome. 
However, the OWPO has, in several instances, rejected the Commission's 
``no effect'' determination, and instead directed the Commission to 
perform site surveys for specific species or implement other mitigation 
measures, extending the timeline indefinitely before a project may 
proceed. Should a review result in a ``may affect'' or ``not likely to 
adversely'' affect determination, the timeline is significantly longer 
as the Commission is required to seek concurrence with the 
determination from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Should formal consultation be 
required, the OWPO must submit the initiation package. Award Term 25 
indicates that the Railroad Commission may seek technical assistance 
from the USFWS or the NMFS. While that assistance was sought from USFWS 
in the development of internal processes, assistance has not been 
forthcoming in a timely manner.
National Historic Preservation Act

    Compliance with NHPA Section 106 adds a minimum of 30 days to each 
well plugging project. Award Term 26 describes plugging as 
``undertakings'' with the potential to affect historic properties.
    Among the requirements for NHPA is the need for a ``Cultural 
Monitor'' to oversee well plugging for several wells in plugging 
packages submitted to DOI. These are individuals, such as 
archeologists, hired to conduct site surveys and monitor the plugging 
operations for the unlikely discovery of cultural artifacts during 
ground disturbance. These are unplugged orphan wells, which by their 
very nature have been disturbed at some point in the recent past by 
modern human activity.
Real World Implications

    The delays experienced by our staff with respect to these 
provisions have had an impact on our ability to plug orphan wells in a 
timely fashion. This is especially concerning in emergency situations 
and when it is evident that a leak is occurring.
    In June of this year, a little over one month ago, the Railroad 
Commission was notified about an orphan oil well which was leaking 
produced water. The Commission submitted the project to the Texas 
Historical Commission for NHPA Section 106 Review, as well as to the 
DOI requesting an expedited review of their ESA Analysis. The 
Commission received a completed review from the Texas Historical 
Commission within 24 hours. The USFWS Official Species List identified 
five species as potentially present in the project area. Three species 
(Tricolored Bat, Piping Plover, and Rufa Red Knot) only need to be 
considered for wind energy projects. The two fish species (Sharpnose 
Shiner and Smalleye Shiner) only need to be considered for reservoir 
projects or projects that alter the flow of water in rivers and 
streams. While RRC staff determined the project would have no effect on 
these species, since the plugging job in question did not involve wind 
turbines or reservoirs, it took the DOI five days to reach a similar 
conclusion before granting the RRC approval to proceed and indicating 
standard approval would be forthcoming. Standard approval from the DOI 
was received 18 days later.
    Earlier this year, the Railroad Commission submitted for approval 
an expedited review for a leaking well in Matagorda Bay. On the very 
same platform as the well in question were seven additional orphan 
wells and one well on an adjacent platform which the Commission wanted 
to address simultaneously. Because the leaking well was submitted via 
emergency procedures with respect to ESA and NHPA requirements, the 
OPWO only initially approved plugging for the one leaking well. The 
cost savings of addressing all the wells at once are significant, as 
the rig mobilization costs constitute a significant portion of a bay or 
offshore well's total plugging cost, which in Texas averages 
approximately $500,000 for a bay well and $1,000,000 those further 
offshore.
Closing

    Again, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify on the 
Orphan Well Grant Flexibility Act and update the committee you some of 
the other issues faced by the Railroad Commission with respect to the 
Formula Grant funding and coordination with the OWPO.
    As I hope my testimony has shown, providing states with flexibility 
will be key to reducing our nation's orphan well plugging population. 
It is in America's best interest to use this funding to plug as many 
orphan wells as possible, and the best way to achieve that is through 
state flexibility.
    As the deployment of the Initial Grant made clear, when given the 
opportunity, states can move quickly to utilize and deploy these 
federal funds in a manner best suited to address their specific orphan 
well population.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright. I am now 
going to recognize Mr. Wesley Hunt from Texas' 38th 
Congressional District for testimony on his bill.
    Mr. Hunt.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. WESLEY P. HUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the 
witnesses for testifying today. Thank you all so much for being 
here.
    In 2011, during the Obama administration, BOEM reported 90 
billion barrels of oil, and 405 trillion cubic feet of gas, and 
162 billion barrels of oil equivalent in the Outer Continental 
Shelf. In 2016, also during the Obama administration, BOEM 
reported 91 billion barrels of oil, and 328 trillion cubic feet 
of gas, and 149 billion barrels of oil equivalent. During the 
Obama administration, the numbers did not fluctuate in any 
unusual manner.
    Let's fast forward to 2021, under the Biden administration. 
BOEM reported 68--68--billion barrels of oil and 229 trillion 
cubic feet of gas, and 109 billion barrels of oil equivalent.
    Now, we can agree that President Trump unleashed American 
oil and gas production to levels that no one has ever seen in 
this country. It is also true that all of the production that 
President Biden touts came off the back of the Trump 
administration. But these reported numbers are suspiciously 
low, potentially even maliciously low.
    From these BOEM-reported numbers came the worst 5-year 
leasing plan in our nation's history, offering the lowest 
number of offshore oil and gas leases ever. The current 5-year 
plan from BOEM offers only three offshore oil and gas lease 
sales, despite numerous reports of an increase in U.S. and 
global demand for oil and gas. This is why my legislation, the 
Comprehensive Offshore Resource Evaluation Act, or the CORE 
Act, is so important.
    Oil and gas will continue to be an important share of our 
energy mix in the future. And if you think otherwise, quite 
frankly, you are fooling yourself. Taking politics out of the 
assessment process, giving BOEM guardrails and direction is 
imperative for the future of our nation and energy production.
    And lastly, Section 4 of the CORE Act relates to the 
geological and geophysical permitting and surveys, which are 
crucial to the exploration and development of offshore oil and 
gas resources. Accurate G&G data is essential for identifying 
potential deposits, estimating their size, and understanding 
their characteristics. Modern seismic imaging reduces the risk 
for exploration and production companies by increasing their 
likelihood that exploratory wells will successfully tap 
hydrocarbon deposits, and decreasing the number of wells 
required in a given area.
    Undiscovered oil and gas reserves in the Outer Continental 
Shelf will significantly boost the U.S. economy. Improving 
BOEM's data acquisition methods will prompt an increase in 
domestic oil production, which will bring greater energy 
security, more affordable energy prices, lower national trade 
deficits, and increased revenue passed to the states for vital 
coastal restoration and infrastructure projects for the future, 
all while producing energy cleaner and in a more responsible 
manner from this country. And we do it better than anywhere 
else in the world: the Gulf of Mexico production is 46 percent 
less carbon intensive than any other country such as Russia, 
China, and Iran.
    The American people deserve an honest oil and gas 
assessment process. With this bill, we can deliver for American 
families and for the American public.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the rest of my time.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair will now 
recognize Members for 5 minutes of questioning. I want to first 
recognize the Full Committee Chair, Chairman Westerman, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Chair, you are up.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, and thank you 
to the witnesses for being here.
    Dr. Feldgus, recently the Supreme Court had the 
overturning, essentially, overturning of the Chevron decision 
which said that Congress is responsible for making laws, not 
agencies in the Administration. So, in requiring states to 
conduct monitoring for each orphaned well pre- and post-
plugging, do you believe you are meeting the intent of the law?
    Dr. Feldgus. We do absolutely believe we are meeting the 
intent of the law, yes.
    Mr. Westerman. I would like to cite a statement for the 
record provided by one of the bill's sponsors, Senator Cramer. 
He says, ``When the bill was introduced, it was clear the goal 
was to boost the work of state programs.'' He goes on to quote, 
``We intentionally gave more flexibility to state programs with 
the word `may' in the list of activities they could carry out. 
We knew states already had programs in place to do this work, 
and our goal was to inject dollars into their coffers as 
quickly as possible to keep these skilled workers employed and 
fix the environmental problem at hand.'' And I would like to 
submit that quote to the record, Chairman Stauber.
    Mr. Stauber. So ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                        Statement for the Record
                              Kevin Cramer
                              U.S. Senator

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the 
committee, thank you for holding today's hearing. I write in support of 
H.R. 7053, the ``Orphan Well Grant Flexibility Act of 2024,'' 
bipartisan legislation authored by Representatives Thompson (R-PA-15) 
and Deluzio (D-PA-17). According to the sponsor, ``This legislation 
removes unnecessary burdens on state agencies regarding certain testing 
procedures, which will maximize federal dollars and lead to more wells 
being plugged.'' \1\ Put simply, the bill reflects how the underlying 
legislation was supposed to be implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://thompson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/
thompson-deluzio-introduce-orphan-well-grant-flexibility-act
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Senator Lujan and I wrote the Revive Economic Growth and 
Reclaim Orphaned Wells Act (REGROW), I was inspired by North Dakota's 
decision to utilize CARES Act funding for orphaned well reclamation.\2\ 
Our state program kept oil and gas workers on the job as they plugged 
wells. Senator Lujan and I both saw the potential to replicate this on 
a national scale by supplementing state reclamation funding to get more 
work done. As our joint summary noted, state and federal agencies had 
been plugging and reclaiming these wells with limited funds so our goal 
was ``to get funds to states quickly to help unemployed oil and gas 
workers'' and address the hazards associated with orphan wells.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/pressreleases/
Oil_and_Gas_Division_Three-Part_Education_ 
Series_on_Well_Plugging_and_Reclamation.pdf
    \3\ https://www.lujan.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/REGROW-
Act.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When the bill was introduced, it was clear the goal was to boost 
the work of state programs. ``New Mexico is leading the nation on 
climate action, and I'm proud to introduce bipartisan legislation to 
build on our state's momentum, help slash methane emissions, and create 
new opportunities,'' [emphasis added] stated Sen. Lujan. My comments 
reflected the same sentiment, ``The REGROW Act would follow our state's 
lead by providing states, tribes, and federal agencies the resources 
they need to properly plug orphaned wells.'' \4\ [emphasis added] 
REGROW allocated the bulk of the money to state programs so they could 
get more work done. The bill went to great lengths to provide states 
with the flexibility needed to continue their reclamation programs 
without federal interference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.lujan.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/lujan-
cramer-introduce-bipartisan-regrow-act-to-clean-up-orphaned-wells-
create-new-jobs-and-opportunities/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I frequently remind federal agencies to not impose their mediocrity 
on states' excellence. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the 
Department of the Interior (DOI or Department) has done with its 
implementation of the program.
    As a critic of lazy legislating, I make a point of being as 
specific as possible in authoring bills. In a July 2022 essay in the 
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy regarding the REGROW Act, I 
stated, ``Throughout the bill writing process, one of my main 
priorities was to confine the administration and bureaucracy by clearly 
stating our intent in the definition section so we did not defer to 
bureaucrats charged with implementation. . . . By using direct language 
spelling out deference to existing state policy, future administrations 
and unelected career bureaucrats, regardless of the political party, do 
not have the authority to set parameters on what constitutes an 
orphaned well. This clarity was also necessary to expedite 
implementation of the program by circumventing the administrative 
rulemaking processes to put unemployed oilfield workers back to work 
and remediate the land faster.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://senatorkevincramer.app.box.com/s/
zps5x48c0o3bqrdrjygeker55x5es5eb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the statute's unambiguity, the administration cannot tell 
the difference between ``may'' and ``shall.'' We intentionally gave 
more flexibility to state programs with the word ``may'' in the list of 
activities they could carry out. We knew states already had programs in 
place to do this work and our goal was to inject dollars into their 
coffers as quickly as possible to keep these skilled workers employed 
and fix the environmental problem at hand. When I testified before the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on this bill, I said, 
``We have kept the main thing, the main thing. Rather than inserting 
things into the measure that would divide us we're focused to getting 
people back to work and cleaning up the mess.'' \6\ This approach 
earned the support from a broad coalition ranging from the 
Environmental Defense Fund to the Independent Petroleum Association of 
America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.cramer.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-cramer-
testifies-on-his-bipartisan-orphaned-wells-bill-at-senate-energy-
subcommittee-hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Separately, we had a specific section in the bill dedicated to 
Performance Grants designed to incentivize states to take added fiscal 
and environmental actions with their programs. These are optional 
grants a state could pursue to refine or improve their operations, not 
additional mandates.
    Somehow, despite the clarity, DOI is layering its cumbersome 
mediocrity onto state programs. When states apply for a Formula Grant, 
DOI's guidance requires a plan to measure and track methane emissions. 
Even though the law clearly says ``may:'' ``IN GENERAL.--A State may 
use funding provided under this subsection for any of the following 
purposes: . . . (I) emissions of methane and other gases associated 
with orphaned wells.'' \7\ [emphasis added] Some states who have done 
methane tracking with their initial grants had to spend thousands of 
extra dollars per well, adding to the cost of an already expensive 
process. Now, each state is forced to debate whether to invest the 
additional time and resources into complying with this mandate for 
their formula grants even though the law does not require it. Those 
that refuse have had their application rejected. DOI is also requiring 
states to perform National Historic Preservation Act and Endangered 
Species Act consultations.\8\ The REGROW Act makes no mention of either 
of these statutes, yet the Department has rendered these complex 
consultations mandatory despite the fact the land in question is 
already disturbed. Some states are now backing away from taking the 
funds, because the requirements outweigh the benefit. The juice is not 
worth the squeeze. DOI has also taken the liberty of turning the 
Formula Grant into a series of awards. Despite DOI already announcing 
how much each state is eligible to receive and saying the formula will 
not change, it is requiring them to apply and reapply for each 
tranche.\9\ Yet again, this requirement is not written anywhere in what 
Congress passed. In fact, when describing the application process for a 
formula grant, the bill specifically uses singular terms, ``To be 
eligible to receive a formula grant under this paragraph, a State shall 
submit to the Secretary an application that includes . . .'' \10\ 
[emphasis added] This phased approach harms state's planning and 
contracting ability and requires extra resources and time for each 
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf
    \8\ https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-05/owpo-
may-2024-formula-and-matching-grant-faqs.pdf
    \9\ https://www.doi.gov/media/document/faqs-formula-grants-07-07-
2023-pdf
    \10\ https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Each of these hurdles is an impediment, not a solution. And each 
denial or delay means an environmental hazard continues marring land 
that could be productive or preserved.
    The intent of REGROW was to move funds as quickly as possible to 
resolve hazards on the ground. Lest we forget, when the bill was 
passed, there were more than 56,000 orphaned wells across the country. 
When states are reluctant to participate or DOI is slow to release 
funds, these hazards are perpetuated. For example, Texas, one of the 
most active and engaged states, has plugged 60 percent fewer wells in 
the first five months of the Formula Grant than the Initial Grant. 
Similarly, as of early July, some states with the largest backlogs, 
including Pennsylvania and New Mexico, have not even been awarded a 
first phase of formula grants yet. For context, just those two states 
are eligible for nearly $400 million.\11\ That is $400 million sitting 
in the bureaucracy rather than states getting people to work to clean 
up the mess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-
invests-660-million-states-plug-orphaned-oil-and-gas-wells
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I support Representative Thompson and Deluzio's bipartisan Orphan 
Well Grant Flexibility Act, but if DOI followed the law, it would not 
be necessary. A basic reading of REGROW shows the Department is taking 
liberties Congress never authorized. As the U.S. Supreme Court has 
pointed out in both West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright Enterprises 
v. Raimondo, federal bureaucrats are confined by the law. They cannot 
wish their preferences into statute. Furthermore, the Court has made 
clear: the absence of a prohibition is not a license. If authority was 
not given, the bureaucracy cannot take it. I support Congressman 
Thompson's bill to once again tell DOI these activities are not 
required for the states as they manage their programs.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Westerman. So, Dr. Feldgus, will you commit to fixing 
the formula grant guidance to meet the intent of the law?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, I do think we are meeting the intent of 
the law with the current guidance.
    Mr. Westerman. Can you elaborate on that?
    Dr. Feldgus. Sure. We think that methane reduction is one 
of the key goals of that section. It is in the title. It is the 
only section in the title that is called methane reduction 
infrastructure. And also, our report to Congress that will be 
due requires us----
    Mr. Westerman. Wouldn't plugging more wells prevent more 
methane emissions?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, if we measure the methane that we are 
plugging, then we would know that, yes.
    Mr. Westerman. But if the well is plugged, you are not 
emitting methane, are you?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, ideally----
    Mr. Westerman. Does it matter if you measure pre-plugging? 
I could see measuring post-plugging, but why do you need to 
measure pre-plugging?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, we need to measure it in order to be 
able to, first of all, know how successful the program is; 
also, to know what the risks are of particular wells, knowing 
which might be emitting more methane versus less methane. There 
are multiple reasons why it is very useful to have that data.
    Mr. Westerman. But would you save money by maybe not 
plugging if it is not emitting much methane?
    Dr. Feldgus. I mean, it would always save money if you did 
not plug the well, certainly.
    Mr. Westerman. What is the purpose? Isn't the intent of the 
law to plug wells? I don't see in the law where it says to go 
measure the methane before you plug the wells, and we have 
heard testimony that it is costing more money. So, the program 
is not going to be as effective because you have added on to 
the intent of the law.
    Mr. Van Liew, we know that clean-burning U.S. natural gas 
has done more to offset global carbon emissions than any other 
program that is out there. And we also know it is orders of 
magnitude that has more potential to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions than things like electric vehicles that the Biden-
Harris administration have pushed so hard. Yet, there seems to 
be an attack on producing clean, U.S. natural gas, and even a 
bigger attack on exporting that gas to our allies around the 
world. And Vladimir Putin seems to be filling that void with 
his production.
    So, how would Representative Hunt's CORE Act ensure that 
future 5-year plans include more lease sales?
    And what mechanisms are included in the bill to prevent 
future administrations from reducing these opportunities, 
considering the vast untapped potential of our offshore 
resources?
    Mr. Van Liew. Thank you for the question. I am not sure 
that the bill directly requires an increase in the 5-year plan 
for leasing areas, but it better informs the government and the 
citizens of the United States when 5-year plans are being 
developed as to where resources may exist through geoscience 
surveying, and also where those resources may not exist. So, 
not only does it focus on areas where we can lease and add 
leased areas, but it also looks at areas that may not be useful 
for leasing.
    And to your point on the lowest carbon intensity barrels, 
among the lowest in the world, we should be expanding on the 
use of our own resources to reduce carbon intensity globally.
    Mr. Westerman. And that leads into my next question. I 
talked about the cleanliness of U.S. gas, but the CORE Act 
mandates the determination of net greenhouse gas emission 
reductions if domestic oil and gas replace imports.
    Again, given that the U.S. oil and gas production is 
already 46 percent lower in greenhouse gas emissions compared 
to global averages, how will producing our offshore resources 
domestically lead to significant environmental benefits?
    Mr. Van Liew. I appreciate the question, and that is why we 
are supportive of Mr. Hunt's bill in requiring the government 
to do that analysis so we can make informed decisions in the 
United States about what impacts we will have compared to the 
world based on our barrels compared to importing foreign gas 
and oil to the United States.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Chair Westerman. I will 
now yield 5 minutes to the Ranking Member, Representative 
Ocasio-Cortez.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Chairman, and I would 
like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us here today 
and offering their expert testimony.
    During this transition from fossil fuels and a 
predominantly fossil fuel-reliant economy to the transition to 
renewable and clean energy sources, one of our essential 
focuses is making sure that oil and gas workers are not left 
behind. And it is particularly important in areas where the 
industry provides an enormous amount of jobs for the local 
communities. Geothermal energy has its own unique potential to 
support workers in the transition to clean energy.
    Ms. Rogers, can you tell us more about how geothermal 
energy creates opportunities for those who have worked in the 
fossil fuel industry?
    Ms. Rogers. Thank you for the question. You are absolutely 
right. The overlap between the oil and gas and power industry, 
and the talent set needed in geothermal is a nearly complete 
match. It is uncanny, but not coincidental. In the subsurface, 
we use the same reservoir engineers, geoscientists, and rig 
operators. In the surface, the plant looks like any other power 
plant, moving steam through turbines. So, we are using the same 
talent sets that you would see, control room operators or 
electricians. And that is not even including the downstream 
applications of contractors needed to keep these facilities 
operating 24/7.
    The liftoff report of 2023 indicated that there are more 
than 300,000 of these workers ready to take these positions 
today. You won't be surprised, then, when I also tell you that 
some of the start-ups that are actively pursuing next-
generation geothermal techniques are coming from people that 
used to work in the oil and gas industry.
    If I may, though, one final point is it is not just the 
talent set that these organizations, the existing energy 
industry, can offer. They are uniquely positioned in the world 
with their rig deployment, with their subsurface data, with 
their access to a complex network of service providers to 
actually move and commercialize at a pace that matters for 
climate. And that is exactly what this bill does.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. And I understand that 
supercritical or superhot rock geothermal also has unique 
potential to provide significant, firm, baseload power with 
minimal emissions and a relatively small footprint. Can you 
talk a little bit about what supercritical geothermal is and 
how this kind of energy can complement and fit in the mix of 
other sources of renewable energy?
    Ms. Rogers. Absolutely. As you pointed out, I believe that 
many of the climate benefits here are natural byproducts of 
what we are actually producing: 24/7 reliable energy that is 
inexhaustible.
    Now, the value of pivoting into often deeper, but most 
importantly, higher temperature, is that you increase the 
energy density. This has always been the goal since the 
beginning of time, and energy density drives lower costs. We 
believe, according to our models, that with the proper 
investment in R&D like new metals and casings, that we should 
see a price that is competitive in unsubsidized markets with 
fossil fuels today.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. And lastly, one of the things 
I have been very encouraged about, even in this term, is how 
geothermal is emerging as a bipartisan priority, and how we are 
seeing a lot of common cause across the aisle in trying to 
encourage the development of geothermal. So, to that end, and 
in that spirit, in looking at the landscape of legislation 
today, what we are considering today, and also more broadly, if 
there were areas that you would improve upon this legislation, 
or additional areas that you would encourage us to take a 
deeper look at, what would those points be?
    And from your vantage point as an expert, what are some 
different things that we should make sure that we have an eye 
out for?
    Ms. Rogers. Thank you for the question.
    I want to emphasize the word R&D, the research and 
development necessary here. The work that is being suggested is 
the work that is necessary to fill some of the gaps that 
naturally occur due to the expertise here. These are not 
breakthroughs. These are engineering iterations. So, for modest 
investment we can unlock significant, to put it into context, 
pizza ovens operate at higher temperatures than what we are 
suggesting. But this bill signals the value of the market, and 
we are confident. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now recognize 
myself for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Feldgus, doesn't every additional requirement for this 
funding in the Department Orphan Well Grant program mean higher 
costs and longer timelines, thus less wells plugged?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, I will say that we operate under a 
number of requirements. There are other Federal laws that need 
to be adhered to when wells are being plugged. There are also 
general grant requirements for any recipient of a Federal 
grant. So, there are a whole web of requirements for grant 
recipients.
    Mr. Stauber. I would like to cite the Environmental Defense 
Fund's comments on the formula grant guidance, where they 
flagged this as an issue. They said, ``There are some 
requirements in the current draft that would likely 
significantly drive up the cost and time needed to plug wells 
and could materially reduce the number of wells states will be 
able to plug within the budget and time frame of the formula 
grants. Of particular concern is the requirement to measure and 
quantify methane emissions before and after plugging. It is 
premature, given the state of the science and of the methane 
measurement industry to require states to quantify methane 
emissions from every orphan well with a methane show.''
    They end by recommending that the Department work with the 
IOGCC to find a cost-effective solution. Did the Department do 
so?
    Dr. Feldgus. We are currently working with the IOGCC on a 
number of aspects of the orphan well program. We just conducted 
a webinar last week for guidance on methane measurement, and we 
also have the Department of Energy researching new methods, new 
cheaper ways to detect methane from orphan wells.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Wright, do you believe the Department 
listened to IOGCC and the states to find cost-effective 
solutions?
    Mr. Wright. No, I wouldn't be sitting here today if I 
believed that.
    Mr. Stauber. Elaborate.
    Mr. Wright. We have held several meetings with the 
Department of the Interior at the Interstate Oil and Gas 
Compact Commission, expressing some of the concerns that we saw 
and in what was being talked about, especially in methane 
measurements. Some of these provisions that we have seen coming 
out of DOI really didn't become aware to us until the day we 
actually received the formula grant funding.
    So, what I am talking about in my testimony today are some 
of the hindrances that we are having of actually using and 
being responsible with taxpayer dollars. And the only 
technology that I am aware of that would take care of those 
concerns and issues is plugging the well.
    Mr. Stauber. How many additional wells do you think you 
could plug if these monitoring requirements were optional, as 
the law intended?
    Mr. Wright. Our estimate with the grant funding that we 
were allotted, our original intent was to plug 1,000 wells in 
our fiscal year, but it was not until half of the year had gone 
by before we received any funding. So, half a year would equate 
to 500 wells. And now that the ESA and the NEPA is part of the 
requirement, we are hoping that we can get 200 wells plugged by 
the end of our fiscal year.
    Mr. Stauber. So, the bureaucratic red tape has caused the 
reduction in orphan wells being plugged. Would that be correct?
    Mr. Wright. Certainly.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
    Mr. Van Liew, the CORE Act emphasizes the use of advanced 
geophysical and geotechnical data. How will these technologies 
enhance our ability to identify and quantify undiscovered 
resources, and what impact will this have on our future energy 
security and our economic growth?
    Mr. Van Liew. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
    Our members really are technology companies, advanced 
technology companies, using some of the biggest computing 
systems in the world, second only to the U.S. Government as 
they analyze what the data shows from acquiring geoscience 
survey data offshore to better image the resource. And many of 
the areas of our OCS are outdated in what that data is and what 
those images are.
    So, Mr. Hunt's bill would actually incentivize compiling 
new and acquiring new geoscience data to create new, advanced 
images, including the use of machine learning and AI, and 
otherwise to better inform where those resources may exist.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Sandberg, how will the revenue sharing program 
established under PLREDA help address challenges faced by state 
and local governments that have significant amounts of Federal 
lands in their borders?
    Mr. Sandberg. I think the revenue sharing pieces are 
critically important, as we have said in our written testimony 
and one of the principal parts of this bill. And it actually 
does provide for the economic development resources to both 
state and local communities to benefit from these projects. And 
I think that is probably the principal benefit of the PLREDA 
and the revenue allocations.
    Mr. Stauber. It is kind of like the Good Neighbor Authority 
in timber harvesting, a very beneficial program.
    My time is up, and I am yielding. I will now recognize 
Representative Kamlager-Dove for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to go 
back to the topic of the orphaned wells, and I have some 
questions for Dr. Feldgus.
    Orphaned wells are incredibly important to me. As everyone 
on this Committee has heard, I represent Los Angeles, which 
also includes the Inglewood oil fields, and we have orphaned 
wells and active wells all throughout Los Angeles that really 
are wreaking havoc on the health of so many Angelenos.
    The methane emissions reduction provision of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act actually provides $4.275 
billion to states to clean up orphaned oil and gas wells. And 
the law requires states to test for methane emissions from 
these orphaned oil and gas wells as a condition of grant 
eligibility.
    Under the same authority, the Department of the Interior is 
requiring states to prioritize cleaning up orphan wells within 
half a mile of communities of color, low-income, and Indigenous 
communities. H.R. 7053 would make this emissions testing and 
prioritization of environmental justice communities optional 
for states receiving Federal grant dollars. So, while it is 
important to get the money out of the door and put it to good 
use plugging orphaned wells quickly, these studies and 
prioritizations are critical.
    Dr. Feldgus, why did the DOI decide to require these 
methane emissions studies?
    And why is this data valuable enough to spend time and 
money collecting it?
    Dr. Feldgus. Thank you for the question.
    Part of it was understanding the purpose of that section of 
the law. It was the only section in a title called Methane 
Reduction Infrastructure. And we are required to report to 
Congress the amount of methane that was eliminated by the 
program. So, very important in order to meet our 
responsibilities under the Act to have states measure methane 
both before and after.
    Also, methane measurement afterwards is critically 
important to understand that the plugging job has been done 
correctly, that the well has been sealed, and that there is 
nothing leaking. If the well wasn't leaking beforehand, the 
state does not need to measure the methane, they just can go 
ahead and plug it. But it is very important to measure the 
effectiveness of the program and the impact that we are having 
on local communities by reducing that methane into the 
atmosphere.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. So, I would say that the short answer is 
holding everyone accountable, and we certainly want that. That 
is something we hear about often, even from the other side of 
the aisle. I don't know why they don't want it in this case.
    H.R. 7053 specifies that states may use methane emissions 
estimates instead of actual measurements at individual orphaned 
wells if the state chooses to track methane emissions at all. 
So, why do DOI guidelines require methane emissions 
measurements and not estimates?
    Dr. Feldgus. Because right now there is no good methodology 
for estimating methane emissions from orphan wells. We are 
working on that. The U.S. Geological Survey has done quite a 
bit of research on that.
    But in order to develop a good methodology, they need more 
data, and that is one of the things that we will be getting 
from the methane measurements before and after the wells are 
plugged is that data that will help feed into a model that then 
states could use for estimation.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. So, tell me, Dr. Feldgus, 
what do we know about the other kinds of pollution associated 
with orphaned wells that are leaking methane?
    And tell us, what does this pollution do to the health of 
people living near these wells, people like my constituents?
    Dr. Feldgus. Sure thing. With methane, you also have other 
volatile organic chemicals, other organic compounds that can go 
into the atmosphere, sometimes benzene, toluene. Some of these 
molecules are carcinogens. Other times you end up with 
molecules that can lead to ground level ozone, which then 
exacerbates or causes asthma in local communities.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that.
    I know my colleagues across the aisle claim that going to 
offshore oil and gas, that these resource assessments informed 
an ``abhorrent 5-year plan.'' So, Dr. Feldgus, in addition, in 
the time you have remaining left, which I guess is my time, in 
addition to resource assessments what other calculations and 
assessments went into the 5-year plan?
    Dr. Feldgus. Thank you for the question.
    There are a lot of different parameters that go into 
developing the 5-year plan. The resource assessments are one of 
them, but there is a whole set of issues lined out in Section 
18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. And in developing 
a 5-year plan, the Secretary balances those, and then BOEM 
tries to present to the Secretary the combination of sales that 
will have the greatest net benefits to society. So, there are a 
lot of factors, more than just the inventory of resources.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I now recognize 
Representative Gosar from the great state of Arizona for 5 
minutes.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sandberg, this revenue sharing process, can you give me 
a little about how you feel about that? Do you feel it is the 
right way, the right levels across the board?
    Mr. Sandberg. It does. I think it is an important step, and 
I think that it feels as it is bringing in, I think especially 
impactful in two ways.
    One is the sharing with local communities. I think it 
creates a supportive ecosystem for these projects. As the Chair 
said, kind of the good neighbor. It allows them to benefit in 
material ways and in ways that other energy resources being 
developed on Federal lands, or providing those same benefits. 
So now, from that perspective, I think it is good.
    I think it also helps in a material way in that one of the 
reasons I think that developers sometimes shy away from Federal 
land development is because of how long it takes when compared 
to what they do on private land. So, I think providing 
additional resources to the agencies processing these permits, 
it creates a direct line of benefit to the projects, and pushes 
them along.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, we had this idea that you would actually 
go out as an agency to look at the environments that you are 
looking at, and identify areas that would be for wind, and 
solar, all sorts of different things, so help to streamline it 
that way.
    Dr. Feldgus, do you feel that the revenue sharing is 
adequate across the board?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, certainly, it is up to Congress to 
determine what feels adequate in terms of sharing for states 
and----
    Dr. Gosar. No, but your feeling. What is your feeling?
    Dr. Feldgus. I think it would be very helpful for states 
and counties. Certainly, when renewable energy projects are 
proposed, there are certain burdens on states and counties 
planning for the new infrastructure, perhaps accommodating a 
new workforce, new residents. So, certainly, I think that 
funding would be very helpful for them.
    Dr. Gosar. Do you know where this came from? SNPLMA. Good 
old Harry Reid had a sharing process because Las Vegas was 
landlocked. He figured out a way to get the generation of those 
fees to split with the land. And it was very, very successful. 
So, just FYI.
    I am very interested in your paper here, because for a long 
time I talked about geothermal. I am from western Wyoming, and 
we had that big caldera called the Yellowstone Caldera. So, 
this is very interesting to me. How long do you think it would 
take to get something that would be like nuts and bolts, like 
you go to a hardware store, you could put something together. 
How long would it take? And do you see it ever going that way?
    Ms. Rogers. May I ask one clarifying question? Are you 
asking about the project timeline from tip to tail on a given 
kind plant?
    Dr. Gosar. Yes.
    Ms. Rogers. OK, got it. We anticipate that you should be 
able to construct a plant within 12 to 18 months. I think that 
it very much depends on the availability of rigs, how many rigs 
you can deploy at the same time, and adequate planning in 
advance. I think an expedited schedule could be something as 
short as 9 months.
    Dr. Gosar. Let me ask you another question. Because we have 
a lot of geothermal on the eastern side of Arizona, could you 
see this being like mini power plants for, like, a group of 
houses out in the middle of the boondocks?
    Ms. Rogers. It is a fascinating concept. While I see no 
reason not to, one of the major benefits of what supercritical 
can unlock is a cost point that is competitive due to the scale 
of the plant. So, this is not to say that you couldn't, but 
that much of the balance of plant costs will be covered in 
larger facilities. So, things like the cooling tower and the 
turbine would then be made smaller, and therefore you may not 
get the same price point you would otherwise.
    Dr. Gosar. Do you see any downturn or downfall of this new 
technology?
    Ms. Rogers. At this point I see a huge gap between demand 
and our ability to fill it, and this is a really important 
arrow in our quiver to be able to add more energy to the grid 
when we need it.
    Dr. Gosar. With my last few seconds, Dr. Feldgus, I am a 
mining guy. I want to see us clean up those abandoned mines. We 
have always come back to the Good Samaritan law, and it is not 
good enough. Is there a way that you can kind of from your 
perspective look at this so that we can get the biggest bang 
out of the buck?
    I mean, I live in Arizona, so we have tons of this. I agree 
with the gentlelady from Los Angeles. There has to be 
repercussions. A lot of this stuff we can't catch up on, but 
there is so much that can be done. If you look at Resolution 
Copper, they have cleaned up. They spent over $2 billion 
cleaning up that site that was mined for over 100 years. Can 
you give me some ideas on that?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, certainly the Administration supports 
Good Samaritan legislation. We have put that out in the mining 
report that we released last year.
    We are also very interested in finding sources of funding 
for hardrock abandoned mine cleanup. One potential source would 
be excess claim maintenance fees. Currently that money is used 
to fund the BLM hardrock mining program, but the rest goes back 
to the Treasury. There is a potential to use some of that for 
hardrock cleanup and for other purposes. And those are just two 
examples.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
    My time is up, sorry. I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Levin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
including such an important piece of legislation, the Public 
Land Renewable Energy Development Act, or PLREDA, in today's 
hearing. This bill would help to bring renewable energy 
development up to par with other energy development on our 
public lands by creating a revenue sharing structure similar to 
the one that already exists for oil and gas development.
    Since no revenue sharing system exists for renewable 
energy, all the funds for renewable energy development on our 
public lands just go straight to the Treasury. But this bill 
recognizes and tries to correct for the immense missed 
opportunity to support local and state economies through 
renewable energy revenue. This bill would ensure that states 
and counties get a fair share of revenues from energy projects 
developed in their communities, while providing the Bureau of 
Land Management with a stable source of funding to support the 
timely processing of permits and directing some funds toward 
the conservation of our great natural and cultural resources.
    I am glad there is bipartisan support for a policy to 
establish revenue sharing for renewables, ensuring parity with 
fossil energy. While this is certainly a step in the right 
direction, there is still significant work to be done to 
support the responsible siting and permitting of renewables on 
our public lands. I have introduced my own version of PLREDA, 
H.R. 9012, which not only includes revenue sharing, but also 
supports a smart-from-the-start approach to development, which 
directs projects towards non-sensitive areas and supports 
faster permit approvals in those priority areas.
    Given that BLM has recently surpassed its goal to permit 25 
gigawatts of renewable energy by 2025, which I am pleased to 
hear about, I think it is time we set a new goal of permitting 
60 gigawatts by 2030. My bill would do just that.
    Additionally, my bill supports the timely and efficient 
processing of permits for wind and solar energy development 
while maintaining key environmental protections by clarifying 
agency roles, responsibilities, timelines, and processes, and 
providing for increased economic certainty for developers.
    I am pleased that conservation groups and clean energy 
companies and associations have come together to support this 
comprehensive version of PLREDA that ensures we are not just 
building out our energy future, but also doing so in a way that 
protects our nation's most treasured resources.
    And I would like to submit for the record these letters of 
support for PLREDA.
    Mr. Stauber. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

                             EDF RENEWABLES

                                                  July 23, 2024    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chair
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Hon. Pete Stauber, Chair
Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
Energy and Minerals Subcommittee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairs and Ranking Members:

    On behalf of EDF Renewables, I write in support of H.R. 8954. We 
appreciate the committee's consideration of this legislation.

    H.R. 8954 addresses the problem that rent and fee payments from 
wind and solar projects on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands go 
entirely to Washington, D.C., and none of those payments go to the 
local community. That is in stark contrast not just to geothermal, oil 
and gas operations on BLM lands, but also to the typical revenue 
streams to local governments from wind and solar projects on private 
lands.

    We note that the American Southwest, including Arizona, Nevada and 
California, is the home of the best solar insolation in the nation, 
ranking fourth, fifth and first respectively in the nation in solar 
generation capacity as of Q1 2024 according to the Solar Energy 
Industries Association. The desert Southwest will continue to attract 
interest for new solar as electric utilities seek low-cost power for 
its customers amid rising demand for electricity nationwide. That 
demand makes H.R. 8954 particularly important to ensure that those 
communities in the Southwest and other renewables-rich parts of the 
West receive robust, project-based revenues just as they would if the 
project was on local private land.

    In addition to revenue sharing policy as proposed in H.R. 8954, we 
also recommend the committee to consider reforming wind and solar 
permitting policies on federal lands as proposed in H.R. 9012. The bill 
applies practical approaches to the permitting of renewable energy on 
federal lands so that projects can move forward in a timely and cost-
effective manner. For example, it applies timelines for the first two 
key milestones for project permitting, while still maintaining 
reasonable and meaningful agency review. It also clarifies the role of 
Renewable Energy Coordination Office staff, consistent with many 
expectations upon the creation of that role within BLM. These 
provisions among others maintain the important controls on project 
permitting that heed biological, geological, community, cultural and 
multi-use imperatives.

    EDF Renewables has extensive experience building and operating 
renewable energy projects on federal lands, including the 234-MW Switch 
solar project in operation in Clark County, Nevada, and the 214-MW 
Desert Harvest project in operation in Riverside County, California. If 
the revenue-sharing provisions in H.R. 8954 were in effect when those 
projects became operational, then the projects would have provided 
$13.2 million in funds to county and state governments over their 
contracted lives. Instead, those funds and more go entirely to federal 
coffers.
    We thank you for your ongoing work on delivering energy benefits to 
all American communities. As a company that has operated and built 
renewable energy projects in the U.S. for almost 40 years, we at EDF 
Renewables commit ourselves every day to work safely and in balance 
with natural, cultural, and community imperatives. Please see us as an 
ongoing partner to support responsible energy policy.

            Sincerely,

                                            Virinder Singh,
                   Vice President, Regulatory & Legislative Affairs

                                 ______
                                 

                                                  July 22, 2024    

Hon. Pete Stauber, Chair
Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Energy and Minerals Subcommittee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of 
the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources:

    On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write today in 
support of two bills, both entitled the Public Land Renewable Energy 
Development Act (PLREDA) of 2024--H.R. 8954, which is slated to be 
heard by the subcommittee on July 23, 2024, and H.R. 9012, which was 
introduced on July 11, 2024. While both bills facilitate the 
responsible buildout of renewable energy on public lands, we urge the 
subcommittee to consider amending H.R. 8954 to include essential 
provisions from H.R. 9012 before moving it forward.
    Our federal public lands boast some of the nation's greatest solar, 
wind and geothermal potential--and investments in harnessing this 
potential continue to grow: in April, the Department of the Interior 
surpassed the congressionally-enacted goal of permitting 25 gigawatts 
of renewable energy onshore by 2025. Solar, wind, and geothermal 
development on public lands powers millions of homes across the West, 
sustains thousands of jobs, and returns tens of millions of dollars to 
the federal treasury each year. Together, H.R. 8954 and H.R. 9012 can 
sustain this growth, create jobs across the West, and bring new revenue 
streams to states where these wind, solar, and geothermal projects are 
built while ensuring responsible siting for these projects.
    This growth has been made possible thanks, in part, to the tireless 
efforts of Republicans and Democrats in both chambers: provisions of a 
prior iteration of PLREDA became law in the year-end omnibus in FY 2021 
(Energy Act of 2020, Title III, Subtitle B), which set the onshore 
permitting goal, established Renewable Energy Coordination Offices to 
help make the permitting process more efficient, and empowered the 
Department to further lower costs.
    But this rapid solar, wind, and geothermal growth must be 
accompanied by additional policy changes to ensure communities stand to 
benefit and to address any impacts development will have on our public 
lands and the wildlife, habitats, ecosystems, and cultural resources 
they hold.
    First, we support sharing wind and solar revenues, as stipulated by 
H.R. 8954 and H.R. 9012. Under current law, 100% of rents, fees, and 
other revenues generated from wind and solar energy projects are 
invested in the federal treasury. By comparison, federal statutes 
dictate that oil and gas revenues must be shared with states, and that 
geothermal revenues must be shared with states and counties. 
Critically, both bills would address this inequity by reinvesting 
revenues from renewable energy projects back into states, counties, 
into permit processing at the Bureau of Land Management, and into 
conservation. Both bills establish a conservation fund to help restore 
and protect fish and wildlife habitat, help connect Americans to the 
outdoors, and support local stewardship projects oil our public lands.
    Second, we support increasing the statutory renewable energy 
onshore permitting goal for public land, considering the 25 gigawatt by 
2025 goal has been reached. H.R. 9012 proposes a goal of permitting 60 
gigawatts by 2030. We support this goal because it will enable further 
administrative action, if needed, to ensure responsible utility-scale 
deployment of renewable energy continues apace.
    Third, we support elements in H.R. 9012 that guide renewable energy 
development toward low-conflict areas. Specifically, the bill will 
provide for efficient permitting for projects sited in places that have 
high-energy potential that may also be proximate to transmission or 
that have been previously disturbed or degraded--and where wildlife, 
habitat, and cultural resource impacts are minimal. The upfront 
planning and careful siting of renewable energy projects that H.R. 9012 
envisions will improve projects' permitting timelines, limit adverse 
impacts, ensure their durability and longevity going forward, and help 
increase revenues to states envisioned by H.R. 8954.
    Finally, we would be remiss not to mention the longstanding 
bipartisan work over many years to advance provisions addressing 
programmatic planning, permitting efficiency, statutory permitting 
goals, and industry incentives--including H.R. 3794 from the 116th 
Congress, which was unanimously approved by the House Natural Resources 
Committee. H.R. 9012 carries these important concepts forward in 
language endorsed by organizations representing conservationists, 
sportsmen, outdoor recreation. enthusiasts, and renewable energy 
industry actors alike, with key updates to meet the challenges and 
opportunities of today. We strongly urge you to include these 
provisions in H.R. 8954.
    In sum, we urge you to support both versions of PLREDA--H.R. 8954 
and H.R. 9012 alike--and encourage the subcommittee to include elements 
of H.R. 9012 within H.R. 8954 as the latter bill navigates the 
legislative process. We look forward to working with you on this 
legislation and appreciate your continued support.

            Sincerely,

        Backcountry Hunters & 
        Anglers                       Nevada Wildlife Federation

        Friends of Basin and Range    The Wilderness Society

        National Audubon Society      Trout Unlimited

        Natural Resources Defense 
        Council

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Levin. Thank you.
    Mr. Sandberg, as I am sure you are aware, we talk a lot 
about permitting reform in Congress these days, and I know that 
the American Clean Power Association has recommended that 
Congress expedite the permitting process for clean energy 
development on public lands, and that we direct agencies to 
make use of programmatic approaches to permitting and 
environmental reviews to incentivize projects in areas with 
minimal conflicts.
    Today, as we are considering ways to support energy 
development on public lands, how would pairing revenue sharing 
with programmatic NEPA reviews on public lands for renewable 
energy help to unlock American energy independence?
    Mr. Sandberg. Thank you for the question. I think it 
creates a powerful combination, the revenue sharing and the 
programmatic NEPA reviews. And I think doing those programmatic 
reviews across development areas allows the resource agencies 
to really narrow the scope as they kind of look at projects, 
and really look for those unique areas that need attention and 
mitigation and addressing.
    And I think doing that eliminates repetitive reviews. 
Eliminating those repetitive reviews, again, allows the 
resource agencies to focus on doing more projects and, in doing 
so, I think increases the certainty for which developers have 
to develop on Federal land.
    And I think that, when it is paired with the revenue 
sharing, with that programmatic process we are confident that 
that would lead to developers looking more favorably at 
developing on Federal lands, which is an important piece of the 
clean energy story as we move forward.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you for that.
    Dr. Feldgus, I will turn to you. I understand that BLM is 
currently in the process of updating its solar PEIS to support 
appropriate project siting and avoid land use conflicts. I 
appreciate the Department taking an important step to update 
and build upon the 2012 Western Solar Plan. Can you walk me 
through how this sort of large-scale planning supports the 
BLM's multiple use mission while expediting project reviews?
    Dr. Feldgus. Certainly, and thank you for the question.
    The update to the Western Solar Plan, which is adding 
additional states out West, and accommodating new technology in 
the solar industry over the last decade, is designed to 
identify those areas that are most appropriate for solar energy 
while taking off the table those areas that are less 
appropriate. And what that does is, first of all, it helps the 
agency focus its resources. It gets the first studies completed 
so we have a landscape-level study that we can build off of in 
permitting individual projects, but it also tells developers 
where is better to go, and where they will have a harder time.
    So, we focus that development on those areas that are more 
likely to be permitted, and that helps the overall permitting 
process move more smoothly.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you for that. We have a number of built-in 
systemic advantages for fossil fuels, including revenue 
sharing. So, I am glad we are considering a bill today to get 
us closer to parity between oil and gas and renewable energy.
    And I thank you, Chairman Stauber, and I hope we can work 
together in a bipartisan fashion to advance policies that 
ensure that projects on our public lands can be built in an 
efficient manner. With that, I will yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Levin. I will now recognize 
Representative Fulcher for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 
panel for being here and for your testimony today.
    I am going to have a question for Mr. Van Liew, but just to 
set that up, I am from the state of Idaho, and Idaho is a 
significant producer of minerals like silver, lead, and 
phosphate. And those are essential raw materials in the energy 
sector. And, of course, silver is used in critical electrical 
systems, used for batteries, phosphates, and is vital for 
drilling materials and protective coatings.
    And given that the CORE Act modernizes data modeling 
assessments for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, can you 
just elaborate a little bit on how the increased offshore oil 
and gas development under CORE could drive demand for these 
materials, and subsequently boost our mining industry and our 
economy? Could you talk about that a little bit more?
    Mr. Van Liew. I appreciate the question, and I enjoy every 
opportunity I get to go to Idaho.
    The increased demand for the rare earth materials and 
minerals that would come from increasing exploration and 
production activities would, in fact, drive the economy and 
jobs for your constituents in Idaho. But what the CORE Act is 
attempting to do is better inform the decision-making so that 
our 5-year plans can include additional areas in the offshore.
    One thing to note I didn't note in a previous answer is 
that offshore Atlantic and Pacific have gone decades without a 
resource assessment, and are just, by and large, generally 
excluded from 5-year plans. So, there are vast areas offshore 
where resources may exist. Not only hydrocarbons, but 
implementing surveys and adding to BOEM's resource knowledge 
for alternative energies offshore in those areas. All would 
contribute to the economy in Idaho through increased use of 
rare materials.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that. I am going to a follow-up 
question. The CORE Act also addresses what it refers to as 
transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs and their potential 
impacts.
    So, first of all, I would like you to explain what that is, 
a transboundary hydrocarbon reservoir.
    And also, why should the United States have cooperating 
agreements with neighboring countries in this regard? Could you 
explain and address that, please?
    Mr. Van Liew. The way I understand it is those boundaries 
offshore are really where the Exclusive Economic Zones meet for 
the various countries, like in the Arctic or in the Gulf of 
Mexico with our neighbors to the south, and analyzing the 
hydrocarbon resources that may exist along those boundaries to 
better inform decisions by the agencies and by the industry on 
developing those resources.
    But also, it is important to have agreements with those 
neighboring countries to ensure there is an agreement, from 
what I understand, about sharing a resource that may straddle 
that boundary----
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that, and along that line, of 
course, Idaho is not a coastal state, but we still rely heavily 
on transportation and agricultural industries, both of which 
are heavily dependent on stable and affordable energy supply. 
So, with that, could you explain a little further on how a 
comprehensive inventory and potential development of the Outer 
Continental Shelf oil and gas resources, as mandated in the 
CORE Act, might influence fuel prices and security, even for 
states like Idaho?
    Mr. Van Liew. I appreciate that question as well. In my 
non-day job I have a Club Lamb operation, so I am involved in 
agriculture directly. And I know that the ranchers in Idaho, 
who are very close to me as well, rely upon diesel and gas to 
run their operations, and one of the highest input costs can be 
the energy costs.
    So, where the CORE Act can assist with that is expanding 
and enhancing geoscience exploration to better inform, again, 
decisions about where hydrocarbons may exist offshore so that 
they can be developed and contribute to the supply. As demand 
globally will continue to increase, we have to increase supply 
to meet that demand to keep energy prices stable and lower for 
the agriculture operators and your constituents in Idaho.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that. I appreciate the insight.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now recognize 
Representative Tiffany from Wisconsin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Van Liew, the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Westerman, 
brought up the issue of Chevron and the decision that just came 
down at the end of June. Do you have any comments in regards to 
that as far as how that may benefit us in the United States of 
America here, as we go forward, especially with the permitting 
timelines that have been out there?
    We see interminable timelines of 10, 15, 20 years. How do 
you view that decision and how it could possibly help shorten 
these permitting times?
    Mr. Van Liew. I appreciate the question. I will start by 
saying that I am not an attorney, but in general we do view the 
Chevron deference decision from the Supreme Court as positive, 
in that we believe Congress and through the CORE Act with 
defining timelines for G&G permits offshore is taking that 
direction from the court to add specific timelines for when the 
agencies should issue those G&G permits.
    So, I think, by and large, it is good. Obviously, there can 
be some downside, as well.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you see any reason, while having these 
permitting processes be done in a more, call it expedited 
fashion, it does not mean that we have to compromise 
environmental standards?
    Mr. Van Liew. That is correct. So, setting the timeline 
here, in addition there are provisions in the CORE Act that 
maintain the mitigation monitoring requirements that NMFS 
itself has developed for existing geoscience activities, and 
just carries those forward through the permits so we are not 
going through additional analysis with the agency and 
subjecting it to potential lawsuits from outside special 
interests who are just aiming to shut down geoscience to stop 
energy development.
    Mr. Tiffany. Dr. Feldgus, we see in the last week that a 
wind turbine off Nantucket blew up, and the debris is on the 
shores of Nantucket. Will you folks be doing a thorough review 
of what happened there?
    Dr. Feldgus. Yes, we will. The Bureau of Safety and 
Environmental Enforcement will be conducting an investigation 
of the incident.
    Mr. Tiffany. How long will it take to do that 
investigation?
    Dr. Feldgus. It is too early to say.
    Mr. Tiffany. Does this give you a little bit of pause? I 
mean, this is something that we have seen happen a few times 
now, where wind turbines have blown up, and that there has been 
a real problem. One article I read said this is not an unusual 
circumstance, does that give you folks some pause?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, we are certainly concerned any time 
there is an incident in the Outer Continental Shelf. So, we 
intend to investigate this. And if there is anything that needs 
to be done to make sure that it doesn't happen again, we will 
certainly explore that.
    Mr. Tiffany. When do you expect to have that review 
completed?
    Dr. Feldgus. That is hard for me to say.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, a year, 2 years?
    Dr. Feldgus. I mean, it is going to be as quickly as it 
takes to conduct an investigation to figure out the root cause. 
I know that GE is also doing their own investigation, but we 
will be doing ours, as well. And it is just too early to say 
how long that will take.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. We see whales washing ashore, Mr. 
Chairman, over on the East Coast. We see wind turbines washing 
ashore over on the East Coast. It really causes, I think, many 
of us to say, are we headed in the right direction when we are 
seeing things like that happen?
    I would go back, Mr. Van Liew, how efficient is wind and 
solar? What is the maximum efficiency you find from a wind or 
solar facility here in the United States of America?
    Up where I live in Wisconsin, the maximum efficiency we 
find is 25 percent. Do you find it is higher anywhere else in 
the country?
    Mr. Van Liew. I think that is probably a good estimate with 
an intermittent energy source.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, just about anywhere in the United States?
    Mr. Van Liew. It probably varies to some extent, depending 
on where you are at in the United States, but I don't have 
those figures directly in front of me. I would be happy to 
follow up with you.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, I mean, this should really give us pause 
that we are going to these intermittent sources of power.
    I mean, I believe in an all-of-the-above approach, but we 
are giving up baseload power here in America, and it is only a 
matter of time we go the route of Western Europe and 
California, where we are going to see power outages and things 
like that going to these intermittent sources of power.
    It is very clear that wind and solar are not ready to serve 
the needs of the American people at this point, and we had 
better make sure, if we are going to do this so-called energy 
transition, that we keep these baseload sources of power to be 
able to keep the lights on.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Graves from Louisiana for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
    Dr. Feldgus, good to see you again, glad you decided to 
come back. Do unplugged orphan wells pose an environmental 
risk?
    Dr. Feldgus. Thank you for the question and, yes, they do.
    Mr. Graves. They pose an environmental risk. So, taking 
that the next step, plugging them helps to minimize or mitigate 
that risk.
    Dr. Feldgus. That is correct.
    Mr. Graves. So, whenever the Department comes in and they 
put additional steps that are hurdles in the process, you are 
potentially lengthening, dragging out the amount of time it 
takes to actually achieve that environmental objective in some 
cases, wouldn't you?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, the goal is to make sure that we are 
doing a good job, and to make sure that these plugging jobs are 
working, that they maintain their seal, and no methane is 
leaking afterwards.
    And also, as someone mentioned earlier, to hold the program 
accountable and make sure that we are reducing methane like the 
intent of the section.
    Mr. Graves. Well, I guess if the objective of the orphan 
well program is to plug wells and prevent methane leak, then 
got it. But Interior continues to put additional hurdles in the 
process. And in fact, there was an assessment that was done by 
Politico maybe a month or two ago, where they looked at the 
American Rescue Plan, they looked at the Inflation Reduction 
Act, they looked at the IIJA, and they determined that 
somewhere around 70 percent of the funds from those bills, and 
as you know, in some cases these bills go back 3 years, were 
still in the bank.
    And I remember when Mitch Landrieu, the former 
infrastructure czar for the White House, called me and we 
talked about the White House offering him this job. And I said, 
``Mitch, your problem is that this Administration's regulatory 
agenda is incompatible with their infrastructure agenda.'' And 
I think we are seeing that. If 70 percent of the money is still 
in the bank from 3 years ago, in some cases, 80 percent of the 
life of these bills has passed, and they have only spent 30 
percent of the money, and it seems that Interior is doing the 
same thing.
    Mr. Wright, I am curious. In Texas, do you do orphan well 
programs outside of the funding from the Department of the 
Interior? Meaning do you fund your own programs in some cases?
    Mr. Wright. Yes, we do. The state of Texas has had a well-
plugging program using state funds for over 40 years.
    Mr. Graves. Can you do a quick comparison and contrast 
between how your state-led program works, timelines, cost, 
compared to ones done with the Federal funds?
    Mr. Wright. Certainly. Our onshore wells average cost of 
$30,000 to $35,000 today. That has gone up due to inflation. 
And we tend to plug about 1,000 wells, on the average, for 
every year that we do it with state resources.
    Mr. Graves. What about with Federal funds under the Federal 
program?
    Mr. Wright. In the initial grant funding, where we didn't 
have any of the hurdles that we are seeing today in what the 
formula grants are, we were able to plug, with that initial $25 
million, 730 wells in one fiscal year. Today, we are on track 
to hopefully plug 200 wells with the formula grant money.
    Mr. Graves. And cost per copy of using the Federal funds 
compared to the state, is there a significant difference? I 
know you said that the most recent hurdles or obstacles weren't 
factored in to the work that you have done, but the cost per 
copy, is it comparable? Is it more expensive?
    Mr. Wright. It is more expensive whenever you look at 
having to measure, measure, not detect, methane. As I said in 
my written testimony, we were seeing an increase in cost on the 
average of $2,000 to $5,000 per well.
    Mr. Graves. OK. So, of course, these additional hurdles 
will cause additional time delays and additional cost, as well.
    Mr. Wright. Time is always money.
    Mr. Graves. Dr. Feldgus, I can't help but, seeing you in 
here a few visits back when you came, you were talking to us 
about this Administration's energy policy, specifically energy 
production policy, and you were complaining about the energy 
sectors sitting on permits, and you talked about how there were 
9,000 to 10,000 permits that the companies were sitting on.
    Later on, the Department of the Interior revised that 
number down by about a third. Can you speak to that, and just 
help us understand? It just seems like that maybe there was 
some misleading testimony in the Committee leading us to 
believe that there were more permits than were actually issued.
    Dr. Feldgus. Right now, it is about 7,000 permits that have 
been approved.
    Mr. Graves. So, you revised your number from over 9,000 
down to about 6,000 a year or so ago.
    Dr. Feldgus. I would have to double check the numbers. I 
will say sometimes that data is constantly changing as 
companies are getting new permits or using those permits.
    Mr. Graves. But, off by a third is pretty, pretty 
substantial.
    Dr. Feldgus. I would like to go back and double check those 
numbers.
    Mr. Graves. That would be great. I would love to hear that.
    Last question, Dr. Feldgus. The fact that Interior is 
refusing to do a 5-year plan, based on how long it takes to go 
to production, what advice would you give these future 
administrations that you are just completely going to send them 
off a cliff in regard to energy production?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, we have approved a 5-year plan.
    Mr. Graves. And the leases are when?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, we have a lease sale scheduled for, I 
believe, 2025.
    Mr. Graves. Fewer leases. In fact, 1/100 of the acres 
leased under the Carter administration, 1/100.
    So, again, the advice you would give to future 
administrations based on the raw deal you are handing them?
    Dr. Feldgus. We have lease sales scheduled offshore. We are 
doing quarterly lease sales onshore.
    Mr. Graves. It is 1/100 of Jimmy Carter, 1/357 of Ronald 
Reagan.
    Thank you. I yield back.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.

    And before we close, I do want to enter into the record 
from the Environmental Defense Fund dated March 24, 2023, sent 
to Interior, it is the comments that I read, where they 
disapprove of some parts of the methane emission testing.

    [The information follows:]

                       ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND

                                                 March 24, 2023    

Kimbra Davis, Director
U.S. Department of the Interior
Orphan Well Program Office
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

    Dear Ms. Davis, and interested parties:

    EDF appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Department of 
Interior's Phase 1 (Fiscal Year 2023) State Formula Grant Guidance of 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure law Sec. 40601 Orphaned Well Program. We 
are grateful for DOI's leadership and for taking on the responsibility 
of formulating and administering this ambitious program. We commend DOI 
on a comprehensive first draft. Given the scale and cost of the orphan 
well plugging challenge, we suggest some revisions to the draft and 
approach, which we believe will strengthen the Federal-State 
partnership and will ultimately maximize the number of wells plugged 
nation- wide. There is a tremendous opportunity here to leverage both 
the DOI's and the state regulatory agencies' strengths in oil and gas 
well management to get the most value out of taxpayer's dollars in 
plugging the most and worst orphan wells and significantly reducing the 
risks to the environment, public health, safety and the climate posed 
by these wells.
    While the $4.7 Billion REGROW funding as part of the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act provides a tremendous opportunity to 
dramatically accelerate our collective efforts to tackle the orphan 
well problem, the scale of the problem is vast. As a result, it is 
likely this funding at best will accomplish plugging less than half of 
the estimated 125 thousand documented orphan wells which have a total 
estimated actual closure cost of $8.5 Billion. And this is only a start 
to solving the larger undocumented orphan well issue with estimates 
that range from 300 to 800 thousand of these wells, or more. To that 
end, it is critical that DOI work closely with the state agencies to 
maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the State Formula Grants 
and focus this spending on the well closure work while keeping costs 
contained as much as possible.

We recommend DOI work closely with State Agency representatives and the 
IOGCC to revise the current draft with particular attention paid to the 
following areas:

1. Provide predictability for entire State Formula Grants

    To ensure success for this program, it is critical that state 
agencies and industry stakeholders understand the approximate size and 
timing of the funding so they can plan their budgets with as much lead-
time as possible. It is not clear in the current draft how DOI is going 
to inform the state agencies of the amount of funding they can expect 
and when so that they can effectively plan, and in turn how the states 
can signal to industry what to anticipate so that the market can 
respond accordingly. A phased approach where the recipients do not have 
insight into when or how much they will receive in later phases will 
hamper their ability to staff up and plan strategically. Expanded state 
plugging programs will require additional personnel (inspectors, data 
analysts, etc.), monitoring equipment, and data management and 
infrastructure, and analysis tools. Service providers will also need to 
anticipate operating and capital costs in order to provide the trained 
crews (project engineers, drillers, rig hands, etc.), rigs and 
materials (cement, piping etc.) in a timely fashion. Recent history has 
demonstrated the challenges of volatile markets and supply side shocks 
to the service industry, such as competition and access to drilling 
rigs and shortages of materials such as cement and iron. The success of 
the program in large part hinges on the agencies' ability to most 
efficiently manage resources to maximize the effectiveness of their 
plugging programs. A lack of certainty and commitment to funding will 
not provide clear signals to the evolving well plugging market and will 
potentially drive costs up and increase chances of supply-chain 
bottlenecks. We urge DOI to work with the states and the IOGCC on the 
ideal timeline for committing funds to maximize efficiencies and 
economies of scale.
2. Manage program costs and reduce additional costs wherever possible 
        in order to maximize plugging of prioritized wells

    There are some requirements in the current draft that would likely 
significantly drive up the costs and time needed to plug wells and 
could materially reduce the number of wells states will be able to plug 
within the budget and timeframe of the formula grants. Of particular 
concern is the requirement to measure and quantify methane emissions 
before and after plugging. While we applaud every opportunity to 
measure progress on methane emissions reduction, in order to maximize 
the number of methane-emitting orphaned wells closed through this 
program, we suggest shifting the approach to get the same benefit but 
at a much lower cost. Methane emissions are one of a host of 
environmental risks posed by orphan wells, which can include 
groundwater and surface water contamination in addition to public 
health risks posed by a variety of polluting-gases depending on the 
geology. Collaborating with state agencies and the IOGCC on the most 
efficient and cost-effective methods for inspecting wells before and 
after plugging for all environmental, public health and safety risks is 
strongly advised.

     Recommendations for methane emissions quantification

    Methane emissions quantification for orphan wells is more in the 
science phase than the commercial phase, and for that reason, many 
states are having trouble finding contractors able to do this work, and 
when they can, they are often quoted sufficiently high rates as to 
materially cut into the budget for the actual plugging work. There is 
also a logistical challenge of combining methane measurement 
quantification with plugging activities given the current nascent state 
of the methane measurement industry. When states send crews out to plug 
the wells, while it will make sense and be cost-effective to have those 
crews conduct a show/no show test for methane emission with a FLIR 
camera or equivalent, their immediate next priority will be to plug the 
well. The well-plugging crews are not likely to have the expertise or 
equipment to conduct methane measurement experiments in addition to 
plugging activities in a cost effective or timely way.
    It is premature given the state of the science and of the methane 
measurement industry to require states to quantify methane emissions 
from every orphan well with a methane show. DOI should instead work 
with DOE, the IOGCC, state agencies and other relevant stakeholders to 
develop workable methodologies and protocols for assessing methane 
emissions and identifying the biggest emitters. We also recommend DOI 
work with the nascent methane measurement industry to determine and 
optimize methodologies, costs and services. DOI can work with its 
partner agencies and stakeholders to develop pilot projects along these 
lines in advance of a more comprehensive solution. This recommendation 
does not preclude DOI and state agencies from requiring their plugging 
contractors to do a show/no show analysis on the orphan wells to at 
least identify methane emitters for future analysis and monitoring.

     Recommendations for surface and groundwater monitoring

    An additional concern for managing costs and timelines for 
maximizing plugging is the requirement for before and after surface and 
groundwater monitoring. While we agree this is of upmost importance as 
protecting and restoring drinking water supplies and ecosystems is at 
the heart of the mission, we suggest a phased and measured approach to 
both accomplish monitoring while also maximizing the number of 
contaminating and potentially future contaminating wells plugged. We 
encourage DOI to work with state agencies to identify the most cost-
effective methods for assessing surface water impacts, such as before 
and after site photographs or affordable remote sensing/imaging. 
Groundwater monitoring presents a number of challenges and ideally 
requires access to functioning on-site or nearby monitoring wells which 
may or may not exist. In addition, dedicated specialized field and lab 
personnel, such as hydrogeologists and geochemists are required to 
evaluate groundwater conditions and perform pump tests, geochemical 
analyses, groundwater modeling, etc. We suggest that DOI form a 
separate working group with agencies with groundwater expertise such as 
the USGS, GWPC and state agencies, to identify and evaluate the best 
and most cost-effective methods for monitoring groundwater in the 
vicinity of orphaned wells.

     Skilled labor costs and job-training

    Access to skilled plugging crews at affordable prices is already a 
challenge for state agencies and will be increasingly difficult as 
competition for plugging crews ramps up. Costs are rising rapidly due 
to labor shortages, supply chain shortages (e.g., cement) and 
competition for skilled labor in a market that is currently saturated. 
We encourage DOI to think creatively in its approach to minimize these 
challenges and consider working collaboratively with states and other 
parts of the administration such as the Department of Labor as well as 
with industry associations to think through how to best train people to 
participate in what is clearly a growing industry. DOI might consider 
forming working groups with a variety of stakeholders to both 
understand and figure out how best to grow the pipeline for skilled 
well-plugging labor, particularly in communities within oil and gas 
producing regions. This issue undoubtedly overlaps with labor needs in 
other subsurface areas of the energy transition such as enhanced 
geothermal, CCS and hydrogen storage, and it would be strategic to 
explore the synergies of building a multi-purpose workforce from the 
recently laid-off oil and gas workers, before they move on to other 
trades, and for the younger generation entering the work force. In 
addition to the shared goal of meaningful job creation in oil and gas 
producing regions, a larger labor pool will also lower overall costs of 
well-plugging and maximize this opportunity.

     Cost Recovery

    Documented orphan wells are by definition no longer associated with 
a solvent owner. If, however in the process of evaluating orphan wells, 
a solvent owner was identified, the assumption is the state agency 
would pursue recovering plugging and other closure costs. While we 
agree that agencies should pursue cost recovery from solvent parties 
whenever plausible, we also hope the priority will stay focused on 
plugging the at-risk wells. Cost recovery can always come later. We 
encourage DOI to keep the program structured such that the plugging of 
prioritized wells is not delayed while recovering costs at this phase 
of the program. We commend DOI on its requirements for data collection 
and reporting which will both add transparency and facilitate tracking 
and analysis of well plugging activities for government agencies and 
for civil society.
Some final thoughts

    We commend DOI on forming the Orphan Well Program Office and 
positioning itself to strategically to lead the Orphan Well Program. We 
encourage DOI to consider structuring the State Formula Grants 
similarly to cooperative agreements, where the states are given a 
certain amount of leeway to design how they spend the grants, and the 
agreements can be implemented through collaborative oversight between 
DOI and the state agencies. We think the ingredients for success of 
this program will require a true partnership with the federal 
implementing agency and the states. Substantive provisions should be 
worked out collaboratively whenever possible, so no one is taken by 
surprise. For example, we encourage DOI to work with state agencies and 
the IOGCC on reviewing and potentially strengthening the Data 
Collection and Reporting section to further leverage and expand on the 
use of existing data reporting and management tools such as the GWPC 
RBDMS system. Encouraging and supporting digital transformation of 
these systems will both increase the transparency of the reporting and 
facilitate analysis and communication of the results.
    Thank you again for leading this effort. We look forward to 
constructive engagement with DOI as it works to ensure that state oil 
and gas regulatory agencies have the funds needed for plugging 
prioritized orphan wells across the nation, creating jobs and reducing 
climate impacts and environmental, safety and health risks.

            Sincerely,

        Adam Peltz                    Meg Coleman
        Director and Senior 
        Attorney                      Policy Manager

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Again, Mr. Graves, I will say that in the 5-
year plan, this Administration has three that are scheduled, 
and probably only one, maybe one in 5 years. Yes.
    I want to thank the witnesses for the valuable testimony 
and the Members for their questions.
    The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on Friday, July 26. The hearing record will be held open 
for 10 business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Prepared Statement of the Hon. Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, a Representative 
               in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania

    Subcommittee Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and 
Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources:

    Good morning and thank you for providing the opportunity to share 
my support for H.R. 7053, which is being considered at today's hearing. 
Representing the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a state with a 
long and proud history of oil and gas production, I am keenly aware of 
the environmental and economic challenges posed by abandoned and orphan 
wells. These wells, either unplugged or improperly plugged, can pose 
serious environmental threats to surrounding communities.

    A study conducted this year by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 
Commission (IOGCC) reported a total of 141,959 documented orphan wells 
in the 29 states participating in the report, with potentially 
thousands more left undocumented.\1\ Many known orphan wells have no 
verifiable ownership or operator, which makes it more difficult for 
state agencies to prioritize which wells to plug. In Pennsylvania 
alone, there are approximately 27,230 documented abandoned and orphan 
oil and gas wells according to the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Idle and Orphan Oil and Gas Wells: State and Provincial 
Regulatory Strategies 2024, Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission

    The federal government currently allocates significant resources 
across a number of agencies to address these wells, such as the Orphan 
Wells Program Office within the Department of the Interior; however, 
the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-58) 
provided $4.7 billion in grants to qualifying state agencies for 
plugging operations. Since the IIJA was signed into law, $701 million 
has been distributed to twenty-four states for well plugging projects, 
according to the Department of the Interior.\2\ Unfortunately, in many 
cases, funding to states came with unexpected and costly strings 
attached that are hindering efficient and effective plugging efforts on 
the ground. The initial grant guidance issued to state agencies by the 
Department of the Interior mandates an inspection of each potential 
orphan well site to test for leaks of methane and other gases, and, if 
identified, to measure the rates of such leaks. This additional testing 
requirement, which was not included in the IIJA, can significantly 
impact states by requiring more staff, costing thousands of dollars per 
well and significantly delaying plugging operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ FY 2023 Orphan Wells Congressional Report, U.S. Department of 
the Interior

    To maximize the effect of federal dollars, methane air and 
groundwater testing requirements must be optional, not required, for 
states to access federal funding. That is why I was proud to introduce 
H.R. 7053, the Orphan Well Grant Flexibility Act, to empower states 
like Pennsylvania to maximize their operational flexibility in 
addressing this critical issue. This bipartisan legislation would grant 
states greater discretion and flexibility when utilizing federal orphan 
well grant funds allocated through the IIJA. Specifically, H.R. 7053 
will ensure that pre- and post-plugging methane testing is permitted, 
but not required, for states that utilize federal funding for well 
plugging operations. This would allow states to tailor their plugging 
programs to the specific needs and challenges they face. For instance, 
Pennsylvania has a large number of shallow wells, requiring different 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
plugging techniques compared to deeper wells in other states.

    Additionally, H.R. 7053 emphasizes the economic benefits that 
plugging abandoned and orphan wells provide to local communities. 
Studies, such as the aforementioned 2024 IOGCC Orphan Well Study, 
demonstrate that plugging orphan and abandoned wells creates jobs and 
revitalizes local economies. The bill directs the National Academy of 
Sciences, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, to evaluate the economic development, housing 
trends, and environmental benefits in areas where federal funds have 
been used successful to plug and remediate abandoned and orphan wells. 
This will provide a clear picture of the returns on these federal 
investments, as well as potential areas for improvement.
    The benefits of the Orphan Well Grant Flexibility Act are clear. 
This bill offers a commonsense, bipartisan solution to addressing 
abandoned and orphan wells across the country, which is why it has 
received support from a range of industry, environmental, and 
conservation stakeholders across the ideological spectrum. By 
empowering states and communities, H.R. 7053 will expedite well 
plugging, save taxpayers, protect ecosystems, and revitalize local 
economies.

    Once again, I thank the Members of this Subcommittee for 
considering the significant environmental and economic benefits of H.R. 
7053 and advancing this critical legislation. I am looking forward to 
working with you all to revitalize our communities, protect our 
environment, and create high-quality, family-sustaining jobs.

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                   Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
                    U.S. Department of the Interior
   on Discussion Draft of H.R. ____, Comprehensive Offshore Resource 
                       Evaluation Act (CORE Act)

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement 
for the Record on the discussion draft, Comprehensive Offshore Resource 
Evaluation Act (CORE Act). The Department of the Interior (Department, 
DOI) notes its strong preference to testify on bills after they have 
been introduced. Given the breadth of subject matter contained in the 
text of the bill, the Department did not have adequate time to conduct 
an in-depth analysis of its provisions. We are providing the following 
preliminary comments on the draft bill but would like to preserve the 
opportunity to submit additional input on the bill after it is 
introduced, if necessary. The Department defers to the U.S. Department 
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on 
incidental take authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(MMPA).

    The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is taking a leading 
role in transitioning the U.S. to a clean energy future--one that will 
advance renewable energy, create good-paying jobs, and ensure economic 
opportunities are accessible to all communities, including underserved 
communities--while managing the development of oil and gas resources on 
the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in an environmentally and 
economically responsible manner.

    For decades, resource evaluations have been carried out by 
geologists, statisticians, and economists, providing critical input to 
decision-makers and inform various policy alternatives. Increasingly 
complex quantitative techniques and procedures have been developed in 
response to the needs and uses for these assessments.

Section 2: Comprehensive Inventory of OCS Oil and Gas Resources

    Section 2 of the CORE Act amends Section 357 of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 (EPACT) to expand the Department's comprehensive inventory 
and analysis of undiscovered oil and natural gas resources on the OCS. 
The new Section 357 would, in part, require the following analyses:

     An assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources in 
            each planning area on the OCS;

     An assessment of the effects that production of 
            undiscovered resources would have on the economy of the 
            United States and the economic and environmental impacts 
            that laws limiting lands available for leasing (i.e., 
            section 12 of the OCS Lands Act) have on the exploration, 
            development, and production of oil and gas;

     A determination of the approximate net greenhouse gas 
            emission reductions that would occur if the total quantity 
            of oil and gas resources imported from foreign countries 
            were replaced with newly produced undiscovered resources;

     An identification of alternative sources of energy that 
            communities could rely on if the oil and gas resources 
            assessed are not discovered and developed;

     A comparison of the amount of onshore or offshore acreage 
            and infrastructure required to produce an equivalent amount 
            of energy from renewable sources (such as solar and wind) 
            compared to oil and gas;

     An examination of the feasibility of conducting and 
            acquiring new geophysical seismic surveys on the OCS; and

     Once every 10 years, an assessment of the costs, benefits, 
            and accuracy of the models utilized to conduct resource 
            assessments, including consultation with various oil and 
            gas industry associations.

    Furthermore, the CORE Act would require the Secretary of the 
Interior to submit the newly updated inventory to Congress no later 
than 180 days after the date of enactment.
    Currently, section 357 of EPACT directs the Secretary of the 
Interior to conduct an inventory and analysis of oil and natural gas 
resources contained within the submerged lands of the U.S. OCS, and to 
submit this analysis to Congress every 5 years. At present, these 
required analyses are required to:

     Incorporate available data on oil and natural gas 
            resources in areas offshore of Mexico and Canada that are 
            relevant to estimate the resource potential of the OCS;

     Use any available technology except drilling to obtain 
            accurate resource estimates;

     Analyze how OCS resource estimates have changed over time 
            in relation to available data and exploration and 
            development activities;

     Estimate the effect of understated oil and natural gas 
            resource estimates on domestic energy investments; and

     Identify and explain how legislative, regulatory, and 
            administrative programs or processes restrict or impede 
            resource development and affect domestic supply.

    The CORE Act would greatly expand the analysis/forecasting 
conducted under section 357 and would require additional research, 
funding, and time to conduct. In addition, some of the provisions 
within the discussion draft are potentially duplicative of existing 
processes. Similar analyses are conducted as part of the National OCS 
Oil and Gas Leasing Program development process (e.g., analysis of 
national energy needs and contributions of oil and natural gas to the 
U.S. economy), and as part of BOEM's National Environmental Policy Act 
processes.

    The Department would like to work with the Sponsor and the 
Subcommittee on aligning any new requirements with current processes 
and ensuring that Congress receives the necessary OCS conventional 
energy resource information in an effective and efficient manner.

Section 3: Transboundary Hydrocarbons Report

    Section 3 requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with the 
Secretary of the Interior, to submit a report to Congress on existing 
and potential transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs on the OCS.

    Currently, the United States is party to a transboundary agreement 
(TBA) with Mexico that establishes a legal framework for the 
exploitation of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs that may exist 
along the maritime boundary between the United States and Mexico in the 
Gulf of Mexico. The Secretary of the Interior is tasked with 
implementation, which in turn has been delegated to BOEM and the Bureau 
of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. The TBA provides a process for 
orderly assessment and development of any hydrocarbon resources 
determined to be transboundary, including the allocation of resources 
to each party, safety and environmental protection responsibilities, 
and efficient production of the resources. The TBA would be used as a 
reference for negotiations related to the development of similar 
agreements with other neighboring countries where the potential for 
transboundary hydrocarbon resources could exist.

    Additionally, while the Department has existing assessments of 
gross resource potential across the OCS, BOEM does not currently have 
access to seismic and well data in Mexican and Russian waters to 
delineate the extent of potential hydrocarbon reservoirs that may cross 
international borders. Access to foreign data, if available, would 
require negotiated data sharing agreements or the addition of funding 
to purchase this data from commercial sources.

Section 4: Offshore Geological and Geophysical Survey Licensing

    Under Section 4, the CORE Act requires NOAA to maintain incidental 
take regulations under the MMPA governing the issuance of Letters of 
Authorizations for OCS geophysical and geological surveys that shall 
not expire, requires the current NOAA incidental take regulations for 
geological and geophysical (G&G) surveys to be in place for perpetuity, 
and requires the Secretary of the Interior to permit G&G surveys 
related to oil and gas activities on the Gulf of Mexico OCS within 30 
days of receiving a completed application.

    The Department of Interior strongly supports permitting and 
authorization efficiency, but also supports the need to thoroughly 
evaluate the impacts associated with oil and gas activities, including 
G&G surveys, on marine resources. The issuance of oil and gas G&G 
permits in the Gulf of Mexico OCS currently takes 60-90 days to ensure 
sufficient reviews and activity-specific consultation with NOAA under 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and MMPA. The purpose of those 
environmental reviews and consultations is to manage the potential 
impacts of G&G activities on protected species and identify appropriate 
measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts. BOEM's ability to 
adapt to new information and changing operations allows for 
improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental 
review outcomes, which may not be possible if all current requirements 
are frozen in time and review periods are arbitrarily curtailed. The 
Department would like to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee on 
how the bill's potential requirements could be aligned with the 
Department's existing G&G permitting process while ensuring continued 
protection of important marine resources.

Conclusion

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the 
Record and discuss the Department's efforts to responsibly manage our 
nation's energy resources on the OCS to meet the Nation's energy needs 
while minimizing impacts to the ocean, ocean users, and marine life. 
These programs are essential for the administration's continued 
commitment to ensuring a clean and secure energy future--one that is 
sustainable and benefits all Americans.

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                     U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
                       Department of the Interior
on H.R. 8665, the Supercritical Geothermal Research and Development Act

    Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, thank you for 
the opportunity to provide this statement on H.R. 8665 the 
Supercritical Geothermal Research and Development Act, a bill to amend 
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to direct research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application activities in 
support of supercritical geothermal and closed-loop geothermal systems 
in supercritical various conditions, and for other purposes.
Background

    Geothermal energy is a significant source of renewable electric 
power in the western United States and, with advances in exploration 
and development technologies, a potential source of a large fraction of 
baseload electric power, heating, and cooling, for the entire country. 
A critical question for future energy planning is the extent to which 
geothermal resources can contribute to the increasing demand for low-
carbon electricity.
    The USGS has a long history of research and assessment of 
geothermal resources in the United States. Several laws have authorized 
the USGS to conduct regional and national appraisals of all types of 
viable geothermal resources. USGS national-scale assessments and 
supporting research studies provide State and Federal government 
policymakers with the information they need to evaluate the potential 
contribution of geothermal energy to the nation's energy portfolio. In 
response to the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, the USGS identified known 
geothermal resource areas in 1971 and completed the first national-
scale assessment of geothermal resources of the United States in 1975, 
followed by a second assessment in 1979. In response to the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007, the USGS produced an updated national geothermal energy 
assessment in 2008. The Energy Act of 2020 authorized new assessments 
to incorporate additional geothermal resource types across the entire 
United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.
    Supercritical resources are an emerging geothermal resource that 
involves drilling into super-hot (typically >370+C or 700+F) rock near 
active volcanic centers. While it is well known that the 
crystallization of magma chambers releases large amounts of energy at 
very high temperatures, a systematic method of harvesting this heat has 
not been developed. The most significant problems relate to effective 
targeting of supercritical temperatures in the subsurface to 
efficiently access the heat and developing tools and equipment that can 
work reliably at these high temperatures.
H.R. 8665

    H.R. 8665 amends the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
to direct research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
application activities in support of supercritical geothermal and 
closed loop geothermal systems in supercritical various conditions, and 
for other purposes. We have several comments for your consideration.
    At Section 2, paragraph (a)(3)(D), we note that the USGS Energy 
Resources Program has a long- standing partnership with the Department 
of Energy's Geothermal Technologies Office. The partnership involves 
data collection and data interpretation including USGS Earth Mapping 
Resources Initiative (Earth MRI) collection of subsurface data 
essential to characterizing both geothermal resources and critical 
mineral resources. At present, the partnership leverages each agency's 
complementary skills, with the USGS providing geoscience data 
interpretation, research, and resource assessments, and DOE leading on 
the geothermal technology-related data. There would be additional costs 
and potential inefficiencies associated with moving toward a fully 
shared data model, including identification of key datasets, data 
formatting, and population of the drilling data repository with data 
from ongoing and completed mining, critical minerals, and energy 
projects. The USGS would not be able to complete this work with its 
current level of resources.
    At paragraph (a)(3)(e), we note that the deepest geothermal 
exploratory wells have only recently (2023) reached depths of 5 
kilometers, with 7 kilometers as a proposed current technological limit 
for conventional geothermal resource development. Geothermal resource 
development below this depth requires emerging technologies that have 
not at present achieved economic viability. Increasing drilling depth 
beyond 8 kilometers will be considerably more costly and will, for some 
geologic provinces, require continued advancements in drilling 
technologies (an ongoing research program by the DOE). The USGS would 
not be able to commission drilling of exploration boreholes to depths 
greater than 8 kilometers with its current level of resources.
    At paragraph (b)(1)(A)(iv), we note that adding an additional 
assessment of supercritical geothermal resources is a significant 
expansion of scope of USGS's responsibilities and would require 
development of new assessment techniques. The USGS would not be able to 
complete this work in a timely fashion with its current level of 
resources.
    At paragraph (b)(2), we note that it is not possible to complete an 
update to the National Geothermal Resource Assessment within 180 days 
after enactment of the bill into law. Since the enactment of the Energy 
Act of 2020, the USGS has been able to develop and apply assessment 
methods for two of the four geothermal assessment types envisioned 
under that law. A modest increase in funding, as requested in the 
FY2025 Budget, supports essential planning efforts and will allow the 
USGS to accelerate progress toward completing geothermal resource 
assessments for conventional hydrothermal, enhanced geothermal systems, 
low-temperature and underground thermal energy storage. Assessing 
potential for co-production of minerals and geothermal energy (per the 
Energy Act of 2020) will also occur. Quadrennial updates would be 
possible following completion of the first updated assessment.
    The USGS appreciates Congressional interest in the expansion of 
geothermal assessments and the opportunity to provide these comments. 
We support the underlying goal of this legislation to promote research 
on supercritical geothermal systems. We would be happy, at your 
request, to provide briefings on current geothermal research and 
assessment activities conducted under our existing authorities and 
additional technical assistance in developing this bill.

                                 ______
                                 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               [all]