Budget Hearing - U.S. Department of Energy

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                      ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT5                         APPROPRIATIONS FOR 202667_______________________________________________________________________89                                 HEARINGS1011                                 BEFORE A1213                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE1415                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS1617                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES1819                     ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2021                              FIRST SESSION22                               ___________2324            SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND25                             RELATED AGENCIES2627          CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee, Chairman2829  MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho           MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio,30  KEN CALVERT, California               Ranking Member31  DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington            JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina32  GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania     DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida33  MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi          MIKE LEVIN, California34  MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas,               FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana35    Vice Chair                        SUSIE LEE, Nevada36  SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida37  CELESTE MALOY, Utah3839  NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Cole, as chairman of the full40committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full41committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.4243               Laura Cylke, Perry Yates, Richie O'Connell,44                     Raynor Buckley and Sykes Connell45                            Subcommittee Staff46                              ___________4748                                 PART 34950                                                                   Page5152  U.S. Department of Energy.....................................      15354               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]5556                              ___________5758          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations5960                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE6162  61-988                    WASHINGTON : 20266364                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS6566                      TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman67  HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky,               ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut,68    Chairman Emeritus                      Ranking Member69  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama            STENY H. HOYER, Maryland70  MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho              MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio71  JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                  JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina72  KEN CALVERT, California                SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia73  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida             BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota74  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas                 DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida75  CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,      HENRY CUELLAR, Texas76    Tennessee                            CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine77  DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio                   MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois78  ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                  GRACE MENG, New York79  MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada                 MARK POCAN, Wisconsin80  DAVID G. VALADAO, California           PETE AGUILAR, California81  DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington               LOIS FRANKEL, Florida82  JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan            BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey83  JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida            NORMA J. TORRES, California84  BEN CLINE, Virginia                    ED CASE, Hawaii85  GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania        ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York86  ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa                    JOSH HARDER, California87  TONY GONZALES, Texas                   LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois88  JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana                SUSIE LEE, Nevada89  MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas                   JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York90  MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi             MIKE LEVIN, California91  RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana                 MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania92  ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia               VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas93  STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma            FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana94  SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida                MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ,95  JAKE ELLZEY, Texas                       Washington96  JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona                GLENN IVEY, Maryland97  CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina98  MARK ALFORD, Missouri99  NICK LaLOTA, New York100  DALE W. STRONG, Alabama101  CELESTE MALOY, Utah102  RILEY M. MOORE, West Virginia103                Susan Ross, Chief Clerk and Staff Director104105                                   (II)106107 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR108                                 2026109110                              ----------111112                                            Wednesday, May 7, 2025.113114                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY115116                                WITNESS117118THE HONORABLE CHRIS WRIGHT, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY119120    Mr. Fleischmann. The hearing will come to order. Good121morning, everyone. I am Congressman Chuck Fleischmann. I122represent the 3rd District of Tennessee, including the great123DOE reservation at Oak Ridge. I am privileged to be the124Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee of125Appropriations, and I would like to personally welcome the126Honorable Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy.127    Before I begin my formal remarks, Mr. Secretary, thank you128on several levels. First of all, thank you for stepping up. A129great American entrepreneur. You have left the private sector130to take on this arduous task, this important task at this time131in our Nation as Secretary of Energy. I would like my132colleagues and friends on both sides of the dais to know that133the Secretary not only has been extremely communicative and134cooperative with us, he has actually visited several of the135reservations, including the great reservation at Oak Ridge,136been to our great national lab, seen our NNSA facility, and our137great legacy cleanup work that is being done. He has visited138other labs, and he has met with all of our national lab139directors. As most of you know, the Office of Science is near140and dear to my heart. And so, Mr. Secretary, thank you for a141great 100 days. Thank you for your first hearing before us, and142it is just an honor and privilege to have you here today.143    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Chairman. It is an honor for144me to be here.145    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Mr. Secretary, you have146had a busy 100 days. From ending the reckless pause on LNG147exports on day one to reversing extreme energy efficiency148standards that would significantly increase prices for American149consumers to restarting decommissioned nuclear power plants. We150have already seen the Trump administration's firm commitment,151which I support wholly, to reverse the harmful policies and152regulatory outreach of the previous administration in order to153unleash American energy dominance. The Department of Energy154plays a critical role in ensuring America's security and155prosperity, and I strongly support many of the Department's156programs and activities. However, I applaud Secretary Wright157and his entire team, and they have been great to work with, Mr.158Secretary, for Working to find efficiencies and streamline159operations.160    While we still are awaiting the full details of the161President's fiscal 2026 budget request, candidly, I am162concerned to see such a significant reduction for the Office of163Science. However, I am pleased to see the department plans to164prioritize research in high-performance computing, AI, quantum,165fusion, and critical minerals, as well as reprocessing. The166national labs will continue to drive American scientific and167technological leadership and ensure our Nation remains at the168forefront of scientific discovery and innovation. The research169done at our national labs is essential to rebuilding our170domestic critical minerals production capacity, expanding171American energy production, enhancing our national security,172and competing with our adversaries like Russia and China.173    In addition, my support for the important work done by our174national labs, most people recognize me as a strong advocate175for nuclear energy. Make no mistake, I am an advocate for all176the above energy strategies, to include natural gas and coal.177Because of the facets of modern society, we benefit when there178is abundant, affordable energy, but nuclear, in my view, Mr.179Secretary, must be a foundational part of our energy strategy.180So while I am glad to see the department plans to focus on181developing innovative concepts for nuclear reactors and182researching advanced nuclear fuels, I do have some concerns,183candidly, with the proposed reduction to the nuclear energy184budget.185    We are at a pivotal moment in the development of our186nuclear energy technologies in the United States, the success187of which are critical to regaining international dominance in188the nuclear market for our own domestic energy security. The189previous administration respectfully gave lip service to civil190nuclear but ultimately failed to request the funding and191resources required for its success. I expect to see a192resurgence in civil nuclear power under the Trump193administration, and Federal investment, in my view, is194essential to ensure the successful demonstration of these195first-of-a-kind advanced nuclear technologies for commercial196deployment in the United States. I am pleased to see the budget197request include strong support for the National Nuclear198Security Administration, as we know it, the NNSA, but I would199like to see more resources requested in NNSA's base200discretionary budget request rather than assumed via201reconciliation.202    The global strategic environment is rapidly changing. Our203Nation's nuclear deterrent is vital to our national security,204and NNSA is responsible for ensuring the United States205maintains a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear stockpile. We206spent two decades after the Cold War deferring any decisions207about the future of our nuclear deterrent. And after decades of208significant underinvestment, we were left with a nuclear209security enterprise primarily working in facilities dating back210to Cold War and, in some cases, the Manhattan Project. Today,211we are nearly 15 years into the modernization and212recapitalization of our Nation's nuclear triad and entire213nuclear security enterprise. It is imperative that we fully214commit to the continued modernization of our nuclear weapons215complex in order to rebuild our capacity, increase our216capability, and respond more quickly to today's global security217landscape. We cannot take this incredible enterprise that has218maintained peace and stability for 80 years for granted.219    Secretary Wright, once again, I appreciate you being here220today, and I look forward to working together with you and my221colleagues to develop a fiscally responsible bill that will222strengthen our national security and advance our energy223independence.224    I will now turn to my friend and the distinguished Ranking225Member, Ms. Kaptur, for her opening statement.226    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, welcome,227Secretary Wright and your team. Thank you all for joining us.228This is a committee that actually can work on a bipartisan229basis when we try hard. As the ranking member of this230subcommittee and a lifelong advocate for America's energy231independence in perpetuity, I welcome this opportunity to232examine the Department of Energy's recent actions and to233discuss your proposed budget.234    Let me begin with a plain truth: the essentials of life are235fresh water, food, and energy. The United States cannot afford236to shortchange our energy future. U.S. energy independence is237essential for our liberty. I served President Jimmy Carter238during the turbulent era not so long ago when the United States239slid into unconscious dependence on global energy supplies. My240motto from then until now: never again.241    The Department of Energy is the engine room of our Nation's242energy security. It drives innovation. It serves as a critical243steward of our nuclear security enterprise and our244environmental obligations. We haven't always done well there.245It powers our economy. It protects our grid. It supports246cutting-edge research to ensure that our people, our working247families, our industrious small and large businesses, our248farmers, our retirees, all have access to affordable, reliable249energy and continuing energy innovation. And yet, it appears250our Nation is confronted with proposals to slash $20 billion in251Department of Energy programs. $20 billion. Despite clear and252present threats to U.S. energy stability, the administration's253devastating 74 percent cut to energy efficiency and renewable254energy is not just shortsighted; it is dangerous. Since255January, the Department of Energy has suspended critical energy256programs, canceled executed awards, and contracts, authorized257by this Congress, severely reduced staffing, including removal258of the Inspector General, who tries to go after the crooks, and259changed contracting policies. The resulting confusion has260disrupted communities, businesses, and project developers261across our country. This chaotic approach to this critical262sector of a strong America and our national security impacts263every family, business, and community. Already our people are264feeling directly how the pinch feels when rising energy costs265impact every family and business.266    Let me be crystal clear. Weakening U.S. energy progress at267DOE is a direct threat to America's energy security and gives268our enemies relief. Weakness in advancing America's energy269intelligence leaves us open and exposed to foreign influence.270Radical cutbacks weaken our domestic supply chains and delay271the very innovations that would shield our economy from global272price shocks and hasten enemy targeting. I am shocked by the273damage the administration's proposals are causing already and274will continue to cause.275    Energy is essential to our way of life and economic growth276of all of our communities. Take oil; you know that well. The277United States is producing more oil than ever before. Record278high production levels. Something that in theory should be279bringing gasoline prices way down, not bobbing back and forth.280But the reality is American families have not been seeing281sustained record low gas prices. Why? Because we are still282tethered to a volatile global energy market dominated by283cartels and petroleum dictators. Oil prices declined recently284after the OPEC cartel and its allies agreed to a further boost285output. U.S. crude fell 2 percent to $53.13 a barrel, its286lowest value since February of 2021. Let me be the first member287of Congress to warn you that growing dependence on foreign288crude is not in our national security.289    48 years ago, as our Nation's economy tanked and sank into290deep depression due to the first Arab oil embargo, President291Carter and our predecessors in Congress created the U.S.292Department of Energy. With their vision and steadfast293bipartisan commitment over decades, our Nation has steadily294made progress in attaining domestic energy independence. We are295not at home plate, however. We cannot take our foot off the296accelerator. Over the last 40 years, America's made remarkable297progress through expanding domestic oil and gas production.298Ohio knows this well. We have developed cheaper, cleaner energy299sources. Competition breeds lower prices in energy. Innovations300including biofuels, solar energy storage, and thermal recovery301are pushing the new energy frontiers of fusion, as well as302advanced nuclear and hydrogen.303    Let's not forget when Russia invaded Ukraine, it wasn't304just a European crisis. That illegal invasion sent energy305prices soaring around the world. And the Department of Energy's306swift action to deploy strategic reserves and accelerate clean307energy development and deployment helps soften the blow. But308without a fully resourced department, our ability to respond309next time will be severely limited. The posture is dangerous,310even foolhardy.311    American energy independence is about more than312geopolitics. Hard-working families in Northwest Ohio and across313our country feel these pressures at the pump, see it in their314utility bills, and at the checkout counter at grocery stores.315Our Nation is approaching 350 million people. We cannot behave316as though this is 1950. Undermining the U.S. Department of317Energy by severely underfunding advanced energy research risks318higher energy costs, increased geopolitical volatility, and319weaker national security. And that is not a future America320should accept.321    Mr. Secretary, I would like to close by raising for your322awareness a district-centric issue that holds national323implications. Two of the five worst commercial nuclear power324incidents in our Nation's history occurred in Ohio's nuclear325north that I represent. That is 40 percent of the bad outcomes.326These dangerous and ultimately criminally negligent operations327represent the worst management of commercial nuclear power in328our Nation's history. Bilked ratepayers in Ohio for 40 years329have been the victims of these corrupt commercial nuclear330operations all through the willful Federal and state abdication331of commercial nuclear quality management, including by the332Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Energy, and the333Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Our ratepayers deserve and are334due justice. They have been paying for the crimes and slipshod335decision of those who should have aspired to such higher336performance. So I ask that your intervention from your position337be used to achieve justice for Ohio's bilked ratepayers.338    The price gouging continues as we meet here today, and as339we work on the fiscal year 2026 appropriations, I will fight to340ensure this energy and water bill invests in America's energy341future and its independence, and world-class innovation and342diversifying energy supplies is fundamental to our continuing343economic strength. I have a notebook I have prepared for you344and your staff outlining what has been going on in Ohio. It is345absolutely un-American what has gone on there, and it has gone346on for a long time. America's energy future is in your hands.347Everything must be made in America for America to assure a348remarkable history for the years and generations to come. Thank349you so very much.350    Mr. Fleischmann. I thank the ranking member for her351comments. Mr. Secretary, again, thank you for being here with352us today. Without objection, your full written testimony will353be entered into the record. With that in mind, we would ask354that you please summarize your remarks in 5 minutes. And so,355our folks on the dais know, we will then be entering into356questions for 5 minutes. Hopefully we will be able to get two357rounds in. So even myself, I will limit myself to 5 minutes of358questions, especially in the first round. But with that, Mr.359Secretary, you are now recognized, sir, and I thank you.360361   THE HONORABLE CHRIS WRIGHT, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF362                             ENERGY363364    Secretary Wright. Whoops. My first mistake already. I am365starting strong. I am starting strong. Chairman Fleischmann,366Ranking Member Kaptur, and members of the committee, it is an367honor to appear before you and this committee today to discuss368the President's fiscal year 2026 budget request for the369Department of Energy. I am especially honored to be at my first370hearing before you as U.S. Secretary of Energy. I want to371commend this committee for its long-standing commitment to372energy policy and its mission of the Department of Energy.373    Energy is the backbone of civilization. It is the essential374catalyst of human progress, enabling everything that we do,375from lights in our homes, to process heat in our factories, and376the innovation in our national laboratories. I have dedicated377my life to increasing access to energy, and I am thrilled to378carry my work forward at the Department of Energy at this379pivotal moment in our history. My priorities for the department380are clear: to unleash a golden era of American energy381dominance, strengthen our national security, and lead the world382in innovation. A reliable and abundant energy supply is the383foundation of a strong and prosperous Nation. It drives our384economy, safeguards our freedoms, and fuels breakthroughs that385improve our lives. When America leads in energy, we lead in386prosperity, security, and human flourishing.387    Achieving this vision means fully leveraging the resources388that have powered our country for generations. The United389States is blessed with the abundance of coal, oil, and natural390gas, and the Trump administration is committed to using them to391provide affordable, reliable, and secure energy for the392American people. America has a historic opportunity to secure393our energy systems, deliver leadership in scientific and394technological innovation, maintain and strengthen our weapons395stockpiles, and meet Cold War legacy waste commitments. The396Department of Energy will advance these critical missions while397cutting red tape, increasing efficiency, unleashing innovation,398and ensuring we are better stewards of taxpayer dollars.399    The President's fiscal year 2026 budget will ensure400taxpayer resources are allocated appropriately and cost-401effectively. This budget will return DOE to its core mission of402advancing energy innovation and global competitiveness through403research and development. We will invest DOE's resources in404sources and technologies that support affordable, reliable, and405secure energy and provide a return on investment for the406American taxpayers. Just last week, the Trump administration407celebrated its 100th day in office, and the Department of408Energy has been hard at work to deliver on these goals of409unleashing energy expansion while improving operational410efficiency. I am proud to report that we have officially ended411the previous administration's reckless pause on LNG export412permits and return DOE to regular order for reviewing and413approving new permits.414    Since January, the department has approved applications for415projects that will export more than 9.5 billion cubic feet of416LNG per day, adding nearly as much incremental capacity as the417world's leading LNG exporting countries. We are advancing418President Trump's pledge to lower the cost of living and expand419consumer choice for all Americans by right-sizing DOE's420regulatory approach to home efficiency standards. This ensures421that the American people can choose which appliances work best422for their homes and budgets.423    While we actively work to strengthen America's role as the424world's leader in oil and natural gas production and lower425costs for all Americans, we are also taking steps to accelerate426innovation in the commercial nuclear development. America must427lead the commercialization of affordable and abundant nuclear428energy. DOE is working to advance the rapid deployment and429export of next-generation nuclear technology, including small430modular reactors. Small modular reactors will provide reliable431power for our Nation's growing energy demands with the added432benefits of flexible deployment due to their compact size and433modular design. The responsible stewardship and modernization434of the Nation's nuclear weapons system is paramount for the435Department of Energy and this administration.436    DOE is focused on addressing critical upgrades for the U.S.437nuclear stockpile and maintaining our engine powerhouses for438submarines and aircraft carriers. Both tasks will become even439more crucial in the next few years. We also need to unleash440American energy innovation, and the national labs are the441engine that drives research and development to further this442aim. When it comes to our national labs, we are capable of443doing more with less. We can both increase efficiency and drive444innovation. We will prioritize research that supports true445technological breakthroughs such as nuclear fusion, high-446performance computing, quantum computing, and AI, which will447maintain America's global competitiveness.448    AI is the Manhattan Project of our time. AI will define the449future of the world, and it is essential that the U.S. leads in450the development of this technology. DOE has a significant role451to play in driving AI innovation for scientific discovery,452energy innovation, and national security. Our agency has the453world-class high-performance computing capabilities that enable454fast and efficient AI research and development, including four455of the world's top ten supercomputers. We need all energy456sources to power the global AI race and meet growing energy457demand while also ensuring the security of the grid.458    America doesn't back down from big challenges or big459builds. If we want abundant, affordable, and secure energy, we460must invest in the transmission, generation, and innovation461that get us there. We are working to accelerate projects462through permitting reform. We need to break ground faster with463streamlined permitting, standardized designs, and public-464private partnerships to build at the speed of national need.465    DOE will work to replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.466The SPR is a national asset that protects our security in times467of crisis. The last administration's politically motivated468depletion of 180 million barrels has significantly degraded SPR469infrastructure, brought storage levels to historic lows, and470weakened America's ability to respond to new geopolitical oil471market shocks.472    As Secretary of Energy, I am honored by the responsibility473to help meet the American people's growing energy needs and474lead the world in energy development. Thank you for the475opportunity to testify before this committee.476477[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]478479    Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your opening480statement, sir. At this time I am going to begin with481questions, including my own, and I thank you again.482    My first question, Mr. Secretary, is going to be dealing483with high-assay low-enriched uranium, as we know as HALEU. Mr.484Secretary, there is an urgent need in our country for485commercially available HALEU to enable U.S. leadership in the486deployment of advanced reactor technologies.487    Congress has provided the department with substantial488resources to increase domestic production of HALEU. In the489fiscal 2024 bill, I was able to work to secure $2.7 billion for490fiscal 2024 to support these efforts. However, the department491has been slow-moving in taking meaningful action to accelerate492the availability of new and diverse domestic uranium enrichment493capacity. I am so pleased that this administration has taken494steps to increase the availability of HALEU, including495allocating HALEU material from DOE sources to address the near-496term fuel needs of our nuclear developers. And I thank you for497that. What steps is the Department taking to accelerate the498development of commercially competitive HALEU capacity in the499United States, sir?500    Secretary Wright. Mr. Chairman and the whole committee,501thank you for your efforts to allocate over $2 billion for this502critical issue for our country. And you are right, that capital503has not been deployed yet. And since I have been on this job,504about 100 days, we are looking at that in detail of what is the505greatest bang for the buck. How do we deploy that money to506reestablish enrichment capabilities in the United States owned507by American companies, and not just for low-enriched uranium,508but for HALEU for next-generation. And as you know, we have509already allocated amounts of HALEU that are in DOE stockpiles510to five companies that have new next-generation reactors that511are coming out to help those reactors get into testing and get512into commercial production. We are evaluating. We put out a513request for interest to companies for producing low-enriched514uranium in the United States. We have not got back proposals515yet, but we will evaluate those carefully, and soon we will516send out a solicitation for HALEU as well, looking to deploy517the money you have allocated.518    As you know as well as I do, a little less than a third of519current enriched uranium powering the United States nuclear520reactors actually comes by American companies produced in521America. Two thirds of that is imported from overseas. This is522unacceptable. And this is where we are today before we even get523the growth and the nuclear renaissance we're both so passionate524about. So this is a critical issue. We need to grow the525capacity to enrich uranium on our soil, and we will deploy526those funds in that effort.527    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you for your comments, and I agree528100 percent with the Secretary, and we look forward to529furthering those goals. The next issue, with my time remaining,530is going to deal with spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. Mr.531Secretary, there is over 91,000 metric tons of spent nuclear532fuel stored at nuclear plant sites around the United States. We533originally in this country developed technology to reprocess534spent nuclear fuel during World War II and, in fact, operated535some of the largest reprocessing facilities in the world until536it came to an abrupt end during the Carter administration. One537of the biggest faux pas, in my view. I have put up money in538previous bills for nuclear fuel reprocessing. Many of my539friends, not only on my side of the dais but also on the540Democratic side, are supporting reprocessing. What is the541department's strategy to advance spent nuclear fuel542reprocessing technologies in the United States and ensure the543long-term domestic commercial viability of these technologies,544sir?545    Secretary Wright. Fantastic. Yeah, just yesterday afternoon546this was a subject of discussion among the DOE team in this--in547this area and a representative from the White House on nuclear548science and discussing reprocessing. I agree with you; this has549been a mistake in our country for 50 years. Coming up on 50550years. All of that spent uranium fuel from our reactors today551is just a growing liability for our country, and we have failed552to find a long-term storage for that waste. And we have a553growing hole, a growing burden overhang on us for this waste.554And as you pointed out, a lot of this waste and burden right555now could actually be fuel and could be of value to next-556generation reactors. So there is a--DOE has worked hard to557prepare a study that will come out before too long on what is558the appropriate way to move forward of reprocessing. We are559aligned on that. This is a resource, not a burden.560    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. My time is up. But I want561to say even the previous administration worked with me on this562issue, and I look forward to working with you as well. At this563time, I would like to recognize Ranking Member Kaptur for 5564minutes for questions.565    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just ask one566question and allow my colleagues to go on, and I will come back567in the second round. Mr. Secretary, our Constitution delegates568to Congress the responsibility of the ``power of the purse.''569During your confirmation hearings, you acknowledged the570executive role in this system, and I am quoting you directly,571``You would respond to issues of concern to Congress,'' and572that is what I want to ask you about.573    It is now May 7th. Last January--January, February, March,574April, May--5 months ago, we sent a letter to the department to575your attention to freeze; relative to the department's actions576to freeze funding to vital energy programs. We followed up with577a letter to you the next month in February on the same topic,578freezing funds to vital energy programs. In February, we579requested a briefing from you regarding the firing of NNSA580workers and other Department of Energy staff. It is serious and581it is consequential. And then last month, April, we sent582another letter, a follow-up letter regarding setting an583arbitrary 15 percent cap on indirect costs for university584research grants, which are going to have a significant impact585across this country.586    Mr. Secretary, I have to tell you, and I know you have been587busy, but we have not had a single response to any of those588requests, despite the commitment that you made to Congress to589respond. Can you please explain how you might address this590going forward?591    Secretary Wright. You bet. I have received numerous dozens592of letters accusing me of things that are reported in593headlines, in blog posts, and media all over the place, almost594all of which are false. Everyone who has reached directly out595to me, I have jumped on the phone with. I have texted back. I596have not responded to the dozens of letters yet because we are597in the middle of reorganizing the department. But a few quick598summary points I will hit.599    We have not frozen funding. We don't have a single unpaid600invoice at our department, not one. If we have an ongoing601project for an existing commitment and work is being done, we602have paid our bills. All of our bills. We are reviewing603existing projects. We have canceled zero so far, much to the604frustration of people on the other side as well. There is a605huge deployment of United States funds allocated by Congress606and administered by the Department of Energy. I take that607responsibility deathly serious. Every night I go to bed worried608about that, and I wake up in the morning to make sure that we609are being appropriate stewards of American taxpayer funds. And610we are reviewing, and I will walk through later in more detail611exactly how we are doing that.612    But let me say up front, why do we need this careful study613right now? You guys are moving too slow. Active projects where614work is being done, we have paid our bills. We have never not615paid our bills. Never. The last administration, let me give one616example because it is indicative of other financial support617programs. The Loan Program Office is 15 years old. In its first61815 years, it deployed a little over $40 billion towards energy619projects. 15 years, a little over $40 billion. We had an620election in November. From the day after that election until621Inauguration Day, the Loan Program Office issued $100 billion622of loans and loan commitments. Two and a half times what was623done in 15 years, they did in 76 days.624    Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for625beginning to respond. I am not asking about the entire loan626portfolio. I am asking why you haven't answered four requests627from the Congress of the United States and the House here.628    Secretary Wright. I am here testifying.629    Ms. Kaptur. By the way, it is a bipartisan request, and it630is bicameral.631    Secretary Wright. I could not do the work I am doing and632responded to the dozens of letters I have got. I have had633several phone calls. I am happy to jump on with--jump on the634phone with you at any time. And it is hard to respond to635requests where the premise of the questions and the premise of636the accusations are simply false.637    Ms. Kaptur. Well, sir, do you have a congressional staff638hired yet?639    Secretary Wright. I do. I have--it is lean and mean, but it640is--it is actually a tremendous staff.641    Ms. Kaptur. Well, we have not since January gotten a642response to our letters to you, and we are very concerned about643the firing of NNSA workers and Department of Energy staff. What644percentage fewer staff do you have now than you did in January645when you inherited the office?646    Secretary Wright. People in the doors that are on the staff647right now, it is low single-digit percent. We are working on a648restructuring of the Department, which will be a more649meaningful change in that, but it is in progress and it is650almost entirely voluntary.651    Ms. Kaptur. And how many thousands have left?652    Secretary Wright. Well, less than a thousand.653    Ms. Kaptur. Well, would I have your commitment that you654could look back at our initial request and every subsequent655request and get back to us by next week.656    Secretary Wright. We will continue to provide updates as657things evolve in the Department. I have spent a fair amount of658time on communications in this, but it is not been my biggest659dedication of time. If I was to respond to the dozens of660letters I have got, it would be the majority of my time. I am661happy to jump on the phone at any time to talk to you or others662about it. And when we finish our----663    Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Secretary, we need a more thorough briefing664than that, sir. I am sort of disappointed in your answer this665morning. I think it speaks for itself.666    Yield back.667    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Ranking Member.668    At this time I would like to recognize my friend, the669distinguished former chairman of this subcommittee, the current670chairman of the Interior Subcommittee representing the great671DOE reservation in Idaho, my dear friend, Mike Simpson.672    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairman. Congratulations,673Secretary. This is the first time I have had a chance to674congratulate you on your nomination and, frankly, on your675confirmation through the body across the rotunda. But we are676glad to have you here and glad that you have taken the time677both to brief us and your time from being a successful678businessman to join the government in addressing these, these679issues.680    I have appreciated that several times since you have taken681over as Secretary, you have referred to the National Lab682complex as a crown jewel of our Nation. I wholeheartedly agree683with you. They do more research that is important there. I tell684people, if you ever want to get wowed by government, go visit685one of our National Labs and see what they are doing. Every686time I walk out of one, I am just amazed at what they are687doing.688    So I would invite you out to visit the Idaho National Lab.689I would like to know when you are coming, so I would like to be690there with you. And I know the same is true for Congressman691Newhouse that represents PNNL and the Hanford cleanup site. But692it is great to have you here. And when you come out, we will693have a barbecue in my backyard. I have done that with every694Secretary, I think, for the last 20 years or something like695that. Some of them get fairly memorable, but they are a lot of696fun. So anyway, congratulations.697    Let me talk about your budget. Reactor development, and I698know you have already talked about HALEU fuel that are going to699be--that is going to be needed by a lot of these new700demonstration reactors and so forth. Can you give us some701insight into what the President's '26 budget request might look702like regarding reactor development and demonstrations?703    Secretary Wright. Yes. Well, I can't provide any details704beyond the skinny budget. And as you saw, we do have a705reduction in spending within the Nuclear Energy Department at--706in DOE, but it in no way indicates a lack of focus or a lack of707desire, even a reduction in desire for nuclear energy. As a708career entrepreneur, to really make nuclear energy work, the709biggest thing we need by far is private capital, investment710capital. And I have spent a fair amount of time in my first 100711days meeting with not just nuclear plant developers, both the712big plants and the small modular reactors, of course, folks713from Idaho National Labs, but also the hyperscalers, the714ultimate customers and end users of nuclear.715    Our goal is to bring in tens of billions of dollars during716this administration in private capital to get reactors built.717And I am highly confident we will achieve that goal. We will718use funding from direct grants through our Nuclear Energy719Office, as you are well aware of, to continue the advanced720reactor development program to get more test reactors done at721Idaho National Labs. And we will also use the Loans Program722Office to provide debt capital on top of a large equity stack,723mostly from hyperscalers. The off-takers of these reactors are724willing to put equity capital in there.725    So our goal, and I believe you will see it happen, is726vastly more money will be invested in nuclear energy during727this administration than during the last administration or many728administrations before that. But the majority of that capital729will come from private sources. There will be government730capital, as you are well aware of, there will be government731loans and loan guarantees and they will be catalyzing732regulatory events to bring that private capital in.733    But Idaho National Labs is the leader, the leader, in734commercial nuclear technology and will be absolutely central to735launching the nuclear renaissance. From the test reactors that736will be done there to the scientists that are leading ideas on737this, that are collaborating with virtually all of the next738generation commercial reactor developers, it is a gem. I am739excited to go out there. I am signing up for the barbecue.740    Mr. Simpson. All right.741    Secretary Wright. And I made a pledge, I should say as742well, I made a pledge right on the day I walked into the office743at the DOE that I would visit all 17 of the national labs in my744first year in office. They are indeed the gems of our country's745scientific research. I am passionate about science my whole746life. I visited several of them already and I forgot my other747point, but----748    Mr. Simpson. Well, I appreciate that.749    Secretary Wright [continuing]. Go nuclear.750    Mr. Simpson. I agree with you and I am glad to see that you751understand the importance of nuclear energy if we are going to752meet the energy demands of the future. With data centers and AI753and all of that stuff, it is amazing how much power local754communities are going to have to have if they are going to put755a data center in there, somewhere in their community and stuff.756In fact, nuclear power is what is going to solve that problem,757I think.758    Let me ask you one other question or at least bring up the759issue. The cleanup projects that we are doing in the site, I760noticed they are over--in the skinny budget they are--the761funding is down overall. We keep Hanford the same. I fully762understand that and agree with that. That is a problem that we763have got to solve and it is going to take a long time to fix764it. Has there been an analysis done? And to pay for that and to765keep that at the same level, we have lowered the cleanup costs766or budget in the other sites. Has there been an analysis what767the increase in the total cost, say at the Idaho cleanup768project, what it would be by delaying it because we underfund769what is necessary to keep it going at the current level?770Because that is going to extend the time and cost of cleaning771it up. So has there been that analysis done?772    Secretary Wright. Well, Congressman, the total reduction in773the environmental management budget is actually quite small.774And our firm belief is that through efficiency, through doing775things smarter, there won't be any slowdown. It is a small776reduction in budget. We are hoping that the actual work777achieved will be larger than it was the year before. So we are778banking and believe strongly in efficiencies. That is why I am779here, is to take a Department that hasn't really been run like780a business and run it like a business. So with a few percent781more in the budget, we can achieve several percent more in782output. So no intentions to slow down the cleanups at Idaho or783any of the other sites.784    Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that. And I will tell you that I785know you have met with all the lab directors and John Wagner786gave you a big thumbs up when I talked to him last time, so you787are off on the right foot.788    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Congressman.789    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Chairman Simpson. Mr.790Secretary, I alluded to the strong bipartisan support in my791opening statement. I chair eight nuclear-related caucuses and792energy caucuses. And at this time I would like to recognize for7935 minutes my friend from California, Mr. Levin, who is my co-794chair on the Spent Nuclear Fuel Caucus.795    So, Mr. Levin, I thank you for your work with me on that796caucus and I recognize you for 5 minutes.797    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chairman Fleischmann. Thank you,798Ranking Member Kaptur, and thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is799great to have you here.800    And as my friend from Tennessee mentioned, we have a801bipartisan Spent Nuclear Fuel Solutions Caucus. I represent San802Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, which you may be familiar803with. And it has been for a long time a symptom of a greater804problem in this country, which is the lack of a really clear805and coherent long-term strategy to deal with the Nation's spent806nuclear fuel. And particularly, as you and the administration807seek to increase nuclear energy as a priority for this country,808we have got to fix the backend of the fuel cycle.809    So I would love to work with you as I have with your810predecessors on this issue. It is critically important that we811do so in a bipartisan way and that we fund the spent nuclear812fuel program commensurate with the need and really with the813challenge that exists.814    I have a chart from the DOE. We blew it up and I couldn't815even believe it. I couldn't believe the numbers on this chart.816But the amount of money that taxpayers are on the hook for817right now--hopefully, you can see these numbers--has gone up818from $27 billion in 2014 all the way up to $48.7 billion. It is819around $2 million a day that it goes up by.820    So in terms, my friend Ms. Wasserman Schultz is not here,821so I will use this, but in terms of efficiencies or taxpayer822liability, this is crazy. And as a member of this committee, I823am going to do everything I can to try to protect taxpayer824dollars, which means we have to do better.825    The current projections from DOE says, you know, 2040 maybe826for a consolidated interim storage facility or facilities all827the way out to 2060 or 2065 for a geologic repository. I want828to work with you and my friend Chuck and others to dramatically829accelerate that timeframe however we can.830    So, my first question for you is, are you willing to work831with us in a bipartisan way and support an appropriate level of832funding? Because that is the other thing that this line on the833bottom, by the way, is what the DOE has spent on these efforts,834so that number has not caught up, obviously. So are you willing835to work with us in a bipartisan way to support an appropriate836level of funding for your Department's work on spent fuel so we837can finally get this problem solved?838    Secretary Wright. Absolutely, Congressman Levin. And you839have laid out a problem quite nicely. We share a desire to see840nuclear power thrive and grow, yet we have had a spent fuel841problem as long as both you and I have been alive. You know, we842are over 25 years late in our commitment as a government to843start taking the fuel away.844    I definitely want to work with you and all others.845Certainly Ranking Member Kaptur as well is passionate in846knowledge about nuclear and she has got a lot of experience and847knowledge I don't have. We need to work together on this issue.848    The broader issue I arrive with is that we have tried one849direction. We are going to pick a location and then we are850going to just do it. That hasn't worked for many decades. My851desire is to do this in reverse.852    If you tell someone it is going to be here, you are853imposing it on people, their gut reaction is, no, you are not.854No, you are not. We want to try the opposite approach. We want855an opt-in approach. Who would like to host a site for nuclear856waste disposal? May have reprocessing business there. It may857have other nuclear business associated with it. I have floated858that idea around. There is all sorts of states that want to be859the nuclear state, that want to do something like that.860    I think we have got to change the paradigm and invite861people to partner with us to their economic benefit at their862choice. My suspicion is we will get many hands raised in the863air and many proposals. And my hope is that working together864with you and others that we can move something that is just865been stagnant for our lifetimes into motion. But I am all ears866for ideas and partnership and collaboration.867    Mr. Levin. So this is music to my ears because we have been868working with DOE now for my 6 years on a consent-based869approach, a collaborative, more collaborative approach. We have870funded now in this subcommittee quite a bit of money over the871last number of years, but it is a drop in the bucket compared872to what this taxpayer liability really is. So I am really873encouraged by that.874    And I would ask whether you would be willing to report back875to us with a integrated management plan for spent nuclear fuel,876it is long overdue at the DOE, that is based in collaboration,877informed by lessons learned from past experiences, and878incorporates also best international practices. Can we work879with you on all this?880    Secretary Wright. Absolutely. That is one of the things our881nuclear team is working on right now.882    Mr. Levin. Great.883    Secretary Wright. Right now.884    Mr. Levin. I will end it there other than to say you have a885fantastic team that we really do enjoy working with, that are886doing great work. It is obviously very tough. This didn't get887started overnight. It is not going to get fixed overnight. But888I look forward to working with you to hopefully shave several889years off that timeframe.890    And with that, I will yield back.891    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Congressman.892    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. At this time, I would like to893recognize my distinguished friend from the great state of894Mississippi, the Chairman of the House Ethics Committee,895Congressman Guest.896    Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, thank you897for being with us today. I want to thank you for ending the898pause on LNG exports. I want to thank you for your commitment899to replenish our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And I also want900to thank you for setting an agency goal that you list as901unleashing American energy dominance while strengthening our902national security.903    I noticed in your testimony on page 3, you talk about the904importance of AI, artificial intelligence. You refer to it as905the next Manhattan Project. I have also heard it referred to as906the next space race. You list there that we need all energy907sources to power the global AI race and meet growing data908center energy demands, including nuclear, gas, geothermal,909coal, while also ensuring the security of the grid.910    And so I would ask if you would just take a brief moment to911talk to the committee about how the Department is planning to912meet the growing energy needs not only of data centers, which913are extremely important, but also, we know, advanced914manufacturing, as we bring more advanced manufacturing online,915the energy needs of transportation now as we see more vehicles916being electrified. So can you just tell us briefly your goal as917to how you would like to see the Department of Energy move918forward to make sure that we have the energy necessary to919compete in this AI race?920    Secretary Wright. Fantastic. Love the question and love the921premise of how critical AI is. And I have called it the next922Manhattan Project for a reason. I am sure you are aware, you923know, in the original Manhattan Project, Nazi Germany was also924trying to develop atomic bomb. So the cost of being second was925just devastating. Like that was a race, not, you want to win,926we had to win. And I think AI has similar overlay.927    You know, we see the great commercial and personal928lifestyle uses of AI already, but its uses will be dramatically929impactful to basic science, and maybe I will get to that later,930but also to national defense. If we are lagging, if we are931behind China in AI, our sovereignty, our national defense is at932risk. I think it is not an option for us to get second in AI.933And I think in the last administration where we saw very little934growth in America's energy production capacity, we were on a935road where we were not going to lead in AI. So as I think you936and I both believe, we need to lean in and if we are going to937win AI, it is an energy-intensive manufacturing industry, we938have to enable the growth, dramatic growth of American energy939production if we are to lead in AI.940    Fortunately, we have the resources, we have the businesses,941and we have the technologies here to invest in those energy942things. The main thing I view the Department and the government943as a whole is to get out of the way and to enable private944businesses and enterprises to bring the hundreds of billions of945dollars of capital investment that will be needed to lead in946AI.947    You mentioned LNG exports and natural gas. Today, natural948gas is by far the U.S. largest source of electricity. It is949fast to stand up. We got a lot of capacity rooms to grow there.950We want to remove barriers to growing that. Nuclear, I think,951has a huge runway. It has not grown in the United States for952decades, but it could and it should. That is another reliable,953affordable, dispatchable energy source, very well suited for954AI.955    Coal, liquid coal is the largest source of electricity in956the United States for decades and on the globe for 100 years.957And we have been dramatically shrinking our coal capacity when958we want to grow our electricity generating capacity. That just959makes no sense.960    Mr. Guest. Mr. Secretary, I agree with you. This is a race961we can't afford to lose.962    You mentioned nuclear as being a key component. We have963heard a lot about SMRs, small modular reactors. But I also want964to talk more about large-scale nuclear reactors. In my home965state of Mississippi, we have the Grand Gulf Nuclear Power966facility, which is the most powerful single-unit nuclear power967plant in the United States. It is also one of the most968efficient and most reliable. The facility there that has969operated that nuclear power facility has an existing early site970permit that expires in 2027. So that permit, which existed for97120 years, will soon expire. They have indicated to me that they972would like to renew that permit, but have also talked about973that being cost prohibitive, that it is projected to cost tens974of millions of dollars just to renew a permit where there has975been very little done.976    And so in my last few seconds here, can you talk about how977important it is to cut red tape and to streamline the978permitting process for projects such as that?979    Secretary Wright. Just central. Look, our Nation became980great, we have gorgeous buildings like the one we are in right981now because before in America we built big, grand things with a982reasonable balance between being safe, being careful of the983local environment, and making stuff happen. Now that balance984has swung so far, it is easy to stop something, it is hard to985do something. I am all-in on trying to change that.986    You have got a great nuclear power plant with a fantastic987operating record. Should be a quick audit of how it is working,988what it is doing, and it should be easier and much cheaper to989extend that permit and keep the plant operating. I am fully990aligned with that objective and thank you for raising it991publicly.992    Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And Mr. Chairman, I993yield back.994    Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank the chairman for his995questions. At this time I would like to recognize my friend996from Indiana, Mr. Mrvan, for 5 minutes.997    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank998you for joining us today.999    My district is in Northwest Indiana. I am home to BP Amoco,1000one of the largest oil refineries east of the Mississippi1001River, also one of the top steel-producing regions in the1002Nation. That being said, through the infrastructure bill, there1003were seven awarded hydrogen hubs. One of the hydrogen hubs was1004absolutely awarded within my district, the MACH2. Current1005reports have shown that that is one of those Department review1006programs that have been paused while you are reviewing it. I1007would like to ask specifically what is the criteria in which1008you are judging that specific project?1009    Two, I just want you to know with the theme in a bipartisan1010way, we are working with Senator Young, we have worked with the1011governor, then Holcomb, now Governor Braun in Indiana, the1012state legislature to set the table for the hydrogen hub. It1013creates 12,000 construction jobs. It allows for our steel1014industries to have a cleaner distribution by capturing carbon.1015It is a blue hydrogen and it is something that will be1016transformational, transformational, in economic development1017within my community.1018    With that, I would like to ask you what the current status1019is and the criteria of which you are judging it. Because like1020you mentioned, you take your job deathly serious. I take work1021and wealth in my community deathly serious. And this is1022something that creates work and wealth, has passed the1023Congress, and is now being reviewed by the Department of1024Energy.1025    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Congressman, for that1026question. And I have seen several articles or headlines as well1027that we are canceling the blue state projects and advancing the1028red state. I don't even know where these rumors or this stuff1029comes from.1030    Mr. Mrvan. They are not coming from us.1031    Secretary Wright. I know it is not coming from you, but I1032am saying it is all out there in the press. Everyone reads and1033hears. And look, we have made, and maybe to some people's1034frustration, zero decisions on projects yet. Because key to me1035was to get thorough data and a process, a process that was1036thoughtful, thorough, and deliberate.1037    Mr. Mrvan. So what is the process and what is thorough1038data? Give me examples of that.1039    Secretary Wright. So all of the hydrogen hubs today right1040now are being funded in feasibility studies. They are1041developing, you know, what is the economics going to be, where1042is the capital sources coming from, where the potential offtake1043is going to be at the end. So we are just looking the same way1044any business would look at investments. We are looking at the1045legal aspects, the technology, the engineering, the market. Is1046there offtake agreements for these that make them viable?1047    Mr. Mrvan. So, with the market, if I may interrupt----1048    Secretary Wright. Yes, you bet.1049    Mr. Mrvan [continuing]. Both steel mills, Cleveland Cliffs,1050U.S. Steel, have created a system that could use hydrogen that1051would be through the carbon capture project, that would be able1052to be used in the blast furnace to be able to make more1053globally competitive steel and put less carbon out in my1054district, so we have cleaner air and cleaner water.1055    Secretary Wright. Yeah, look, that is great. If it is a1056project that meets--it is got the cofinancing lined up, that is1057the science, the engineering works, it looks viable, it has got1058an offtake agreement so it is not a bridge to nowhere, it is1059going to continue to go forward and be viable, those are the1060kind of things that we are going to go forward with.1061    Mr. Mrvan. Very good.1062    Secretary Wright. We want to improve the energy system.1063    Mr. Mrvan. So, I guess, my question is or my statement----1064    Secretary Wright. Yeah.1065    Mr. Mrvan [continuing]. I want to work in a bipartisan way1066to make sure that this project comes to fruition. I have to1067face the Northwest Indiana trades that wants to be able to1068create the apprenticeship programs that allow for the jobs to1069be filled of those 12,000 jobs. So the theme of uncertainty,1070how soon do you think those decisions will be made so that1071there can be a ramp-up, so that these investments can continue1072forward, so that BP Amoco, or BP, and the steel mills and my1073technology and unions and nonunions and contractors can have1074certainty that this project is going to go forward? Because it1075was awarded, now it is held, and uncertainty is blowing up our1076economy.1077    Secretary Wright. The funding for the feasibility study is1078ongoing. I don't think that is even done yet. I don't think we1079are actually holding it up. There probably is uncertainty of1080are they going to fund it? So I get that that is real.1081Certainly in the next few months, by the end of this summer,1082hopefully before the end of this summer, we will have run1083through all of the 4- or 500 large projects that are currently1084in the pipeline at the DOE.1085    To me it was key to get in the right people to develop a1086series of processes. You used a key term, ``bipartisan.'' My1087whole life, I have been outspoken about energy my whole life.1088And I have always said energy should not be political. It is1089the basic infrastructure of human lives.1090    Mr. Mrvan. And creating work and wealth in my district1091along with energy is something that should be done in a1092bipartisan way. I have a United States senator, Senator Young,1093sent a letter, and recently United States Senator Banks and1094myself sent a letter in support of this in conjunction with the1095Trump administration unleashing energy and how this plays into1096domestic manufacturing. So these hit all those criteria. It is1097blue hydrogen, it hits the oil, it is carbon capture, and it1098creates jobs and wealth. So I look forward to working with you1099and having a open line of communication between my office and1100your Department so that we can communicate accurately what is1101going on over the next few months.1102    Then I have another question, if I may. Within your1103testimony you talk about critical minerals. Just this morning1104at Ford plant in South Chicago, they are going to halt1105production because of the lack of critical minerals on the1106braking systems. So, one of the-part of your testimony is how1107important it is to our national security, domestic1108manufacturing, and basically our economy on critical minerals.1109The current tariff system is halting minerals coming in from1110China. You are talking about critical minerals and how1111important they are. I want to give you an opportunity to speak1112to how we are going to speed up our critical minerals, our1113mining, and how we are going to do that so that people aren't1114losing jobs under this time of uncertainty.1115    Secretary Wright. Critical issue, Congressman. Thank you1116for raising it. It truly is critical.1117    For decades China has worked to get a large, controlling,1118in some case complete control of supply chain of what seem like1119small businesses, but they are critical businesses, hence the1120term. You can't build the brake system without that magnet. And1121that is of great concern.1122    There is a cross agency effort in this government right1123now. Not a day goes by, not a Saturday or Sunday goes by that1124there is not a dialogue about how do we change this calculus on1125the ground? How do we develop capacity of mines, of refining,1126of production in our country of so many? Of the 50 critical1127minerals we are 100 percent dependent on imports for 12 of1128them. We are up to 40 of them that we produce less than half of1129in this country.1130    So, yes, it is a priority issue for us and it is something1131you are going to hear a lot more about. But thank you, again,1132for raising that and for your bipartisan and job-focused1133sentiments on energy.1134    Mr. Mrvan. Yes. And just in closing, the real life of that1135is that in Riverdale, a steel mill that is part of my Local11361010, they just laid off people because the pinching of the1137auto industry. And I just received notice today, they are going1138to be closing down or reducing workers within a plant near me.1139Eighty percent of those people live in my district. I will work1140with you in any way possible to close that gap, to make sure1141that the minerals are there, to make sure that those1142individuals are working and providing for their families. So1143we, definitely, we take that deathly serious together. And I1144want to work with you in order to find solutions quickly so1145that there isn't this uncertainty and economic disruption to1146those people's lives.1147    Secretary Wright. Fantastic, Congressman. Thank you for1148those words and for your passion.1149    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you.1150    Mr. Fleischmann. I thank the gentleman for his questions.1151And I would respectfully remind the members that we want to1152limit the first round of questions to 5 minutes so that1153everyone can have an opportunity to ask.1154    At this time, I would like to recognize the distinguished1155vice chair of this subcommittee, Mr. Cloud from Texas, for 51156minutes.1157    Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I come from the1158district that is home to Corpus Christi, the number one energy1159export port. So we were very thankful to see your removing of1160the LNG export ban. I had just some months ago, was at an1161energy summit, and there were 14 other countries there. I had1162the opportunity to speak to them. And the first question they1163had from other countries was, how soon will you be able to send1164LNG to us? And that was their biggest concern because of all1165the wonderful benefits of it. And certainly us producing energy1166is a lot better than them going to other countries who don't do1167it nearly as well as we do. So thank you for that.1168    This conversation is really so important. I appreciate what1169you have done and what you bring to this office in the sense1170because you have always made the connection between energy1171production and human flourishing and uplift and understanding1172that our policies are actually directly connected to humans1173advancing and being able to heat our homes and travel and all1174those different kind of things. So I appreciated the heart you1175brought to it. And just, you know, about a year and a half ago,1176as I talked to different energy producers, the conversation was1177kind of like everybody was trying to get their piece of the1178pie. And as you mentioned, with the advancement of data, AI,1179everything that we are looking at the future, and expecting1180exponential energy growth, it is more like how much pie can we1181make than it is everybody having to kind of fight for their1182piece of the pie.1183    Having said that, I also appreciate your understanding how1184it is so important that we prioritize consistent, affordable,1185baseload energy. We have had a lot of investment in1186intermittent energy sources that isn't returning a good1187necessary ROI to the American taxpayer or to industry for that1188matter. And some of our investments have had the effect of1189distorting the economy in a way that is not very helpful or1190natural.1191    As we are competing with China, one of the biggest concerns1192that I have is just the speed it takes to get things done in1193our country. And I am wondering if you could speak to that,1194what you could do in your agency to help with permitting1195processes and those kind of things, what you need help from us1196in Congress, any advice you would have on what we need to do to1197work with the NRC or other regulatory agencies to speed up the1198permitting process.1199    We used to be known in America as people who can get things1200done and do it pretty effectively and quickly. And now that1201seems to not be the case. We need to return that. So how do we1202go about that?1203    Secretary Wright. Boy, that is the big question. It is a1204very big question. It is certainly one of the reasons I am1205here.1206    I just came from abroad. I was in Central Europe last week1207and I traveled in the Middle East a week or two before that.1208And everyone wants to invest in America, right? Because you got1209rule of law and you can do business in America. And there is a1210growing concern that we can't get permits. We are ready to1211bring a lot of money. And obviously, everybody wants us to1212build a data center or a power plant or whatever it is their1213investments go into, but it has taken us forever to get a1214permit. This is making our society more stagnant. It is pushing1215manufacturing and things overseas. It is chilling investment in1216our country, which means less jobs are created in our country,1217less pressure to push wages up that we all want to see. So it1218is absolutely critical.1219    I can tell you a few things we did at the Department of1220Energy. For example, in the National Labs, think of OSHA,1221right? We have a very robust, maybe overly robust, health1222regulatory agency that all businesses comply with, including my1223former businesses when I was in a different life. At the1224Department of Energy you have to comply with all that and then1225another layer, another layer that is mostly duplicative and1226slightly different in some areas. You can't even get most of1227the people to bid on building something because they are not1228going to go through that extra hoop. It cost the Department of1229Energy to build like a laboratory building where scientists are1230working on computers 60 percent more to then it would cost a1231business across the street to build the same thing.1232    So the government, of course, is just--and so we--I1233convened all the national lab directors within 2 weeks of my1234arrival in the doors to tell us how can I help you? How can we1235make things more efficiently? Now, that is just in the labs,1236but they gave me a bunch of lists and we are rapidly1237implementing them so we can build stuff quicker and faster and1238remove some of this red tape. But for commercial businesses,1239they have a ton as well.1240    The National Energy Dominance Council was really created to1241get all of the agencies, EPA, Interior, Energy, Commerce,1242Treasury together of what--and what we basically do is we1243listen to businesses everywhere. Why can't you invest in that1244or what is slowing you down? And we are trying to knock things1245over that we can that are regulatory. But I think some kind of1246congressional permitting reform is necessary as well.1247    Part of our team is working with people in Congress. What1248is the bipartisan way to get bills that just put timelines on1249certain things? You know, NEPA is to protect our environment.1250Everybody wants clean air and clean water. But if a NEPA thing1251makes something last six or seven years to get approved, most1252things just simply won't get built. It just means nothing1253happens.1254    So thank you for expressing that sentiment. I think it is a1255huge problem in our country. How can we advance if we can't1256build anything?1257    Mr. Cloud. Yeah, thank you for that. One thing I did want1258to--because this seemed like a headline to me and we kind of1259skated through it, but the Biden administration, in their last1260few days in office, sent out $100 billion as opposed to 40.1261Could you speak to that? I mean, that seems almost criminal.1262Are those employees still employed with the DOE? I mean, you1263know, that is--anyway, that just seems work--I am also on the1264Oversight Committee, so I, you know, have a natural penchant1265for looking into stuff like this. But could you speak to what1266really happened there?1267    Secretary Wright. It is extremely concerning. And so to1268balance the moving things forward, projects forward, but to1269understand how did this happen, what was in it? I could go on.1270There are clauses in loan agreements that are in all previous1271loan agreements that somehow weren't in the loan agreements1272rushed out at the end. So this is a longer topic, but extremely1273concerning. A little over $40 billion of commitments and loans1274out of the Loan Program Office in 15 years and then nearly $1001275billion in 76 days. I think we should all be concerned about1276that. And that is one of the reasons I am trying to assemble a1277top-notch team and be very careful that we do things in a1278responsible way.1279    Mr. Cloud. Thank you.1280    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. At this time, Mr. Secretary, I1281would like to recognize the ranking member of the full1282Appropriations Committee, Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut.1283Ranking Member.1284    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman and1285Ranking Member Kaptur. And welcome to you, Mr. Secretary.1286Delighted. I apologize to my colleagues for interloping, but1287there are five hearings I am trying to get to today and this is1288the second.1289    So, let me just talk about the budget for 2026, which makes1290strategic investments that lower energy costs for American1291families, promote American energy independence, support a1292robust modern manufacturing sector. I want to know more about1293the funding that is already been appropriated in law. The1294fiscal year 2025 Continuing Resolution required the Department1295of Energy to submit a spend plan for the Department at a level1296of detail provided for in the previous year's explanatory1297statement within 45 days of the enacted legislation. The1298Department has not met this deadline and did not submit to the1299committee a spend plan. We were supposed to get spend plans by1300the end of April at the level of detail as required by law in1301the Continuing Resolution.1302    It shouldn't be a difficult exercise since it is the fiscal1303year 2024 energy and water bill included the Department of1304Energy funding tables into law. It dictates all the programs,1305projects, activity levels for DOE except for the three accounts1306exempted by the Continuing Resolution so that we have the1307blueprint because by law, for 2025, we are under the year-long1308CR reflecting the 2024 budget as enacted.1309    So, when will the Department comply with the requirement of1310the Continuing Resolution to submit a spend plan with required1311level of detail? Will that spend plan follow the law by using1312all levels incorporated into statute from the fiscal year 20241313energy and water bill?1314    Secretary Wright. Yes. Thank you for being here,1315Congresswoman DeLauro. And I have spoken to this a little bit1316beforehand, but I can summarize that as well.1317    When I walked into the Department, I mentioned we had a1318rushed commitment just in the Loan Program Office of $1001319billion in the 76 days from Election Day in November to1320Inauguration Day. So we are funding and paying all of our bills1321that are current for work done. But do we know whether the1322projects that we have are going to meet the next hurdle to go1323on to the next step? We do not know that.1324    Ms. DeLauro. Well, let me just say, and just because I want1325to ask another question, but the requirement by law under the1326Continuing Resolution was to provide the Appropriations1327Committee with a spend plan as to how you want to, for 2025,1328spend this money. As I say, it shouldn't be difficult because1329we are under 2024, and it is all outlined in 2024. So, I really1330want to press you on getting us that spend plan with detail, so1331we know where we are trying to go in 2025 because we haven't1332settled that budget yet, given a year-long Continuing1333Resolution which was very specific about getting us the1334material and how you intend to spend the money in 2025. Again,1335simple, it is 2024. You can carry it over. I have got a fear1336that we are going to illegally trying to move these funds and1337move them elsewhere. But the law of the land is the 20241338enacted budget applied to 2025. So, really we are going to1339press on getting that.1340    Let me move quickly to another question, if I can. At the1341moment--and I want to talk about what is happening right now,1342we need to know more about the funding already appropriated1343into law. It is not a directive. It is not an idea or a1344suggestion. This committee, Democrats and Republicans came1345together, passed legislation signed by the President of the1346United States. That is how a bill becomes law. It is very, very1347simple. But the Department refuses to release more than $671348billion in the face of court orders out of the $430 billion in1349frozen funding across the Federal Government.1350    Connecticut, $70 million of Energy Efficiency and Renewable1351Energy awards have been inexplicably recommended for1352cancellation, including an award focused on technologies to1353produce hydrogen energy. We should be at the forefront of new1354energy technology, not retreating to the sidelines. In1355addition, your Department recommended canceling a $389 million1356award from the Grid Deployment Office for the Power Up New1357England project, reduce energy costs for New England customers1358by over $1.5 billion while bringing 4,800 megawatts of offshore1359wind power online.1360    Now, it appears that some projects previously deemed worthy1361of funding are being canceled without adequate justification.1362Some cases, no clear rationale other than administrative1363convenience. Troubling reports have surfaced suggesting that1364the review and subsequent cancellations may be, and I say may1365be, politically motivated targeting projects in Democratic1366states and in districts. These actions will raise energy prices1367for businesses and families and make the U.S. less competitive.1368    These are my two questions and, again, it is yes or no. Can1369you provide to this committee a list of awards that are being1370considered or recommended for cancellation?1371    Secretary Wright. Yeah. You listed a couple that have been1372recommended for cancellation. That is just simply untrue. We1373have made----1374    Ms. DeLauro. Fine.1375    Secretary Wright Yeah.1376    Ms. DeLauro. Because we can't seem to get the information.1377That is why I wanted to ask you directly and I appreciate that.1378Well, that would be great. But getting that list considered or1379recommended for cancellation and what specific criteria are is1380being used to evaluate awards, we need to know that in this1381committee so we can say, yes, you have made a good decision on1382this or let's take another look at this.1383    So with that, if you can get us that information as quickly1384as possible, it would be helpful and your spend plan. Thank1385you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.1386    Secretary Wright. You bet. Thank you, Congresswoman.1387    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. And I yield back. Thank you so1388much, Mr. Chairman.1389    Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank the Ranking Member for coming1390today. Appreciate that. There are several hearings going on1391right now, so appreciate the fullness of the dais in that1392regard. Mr. Newhouse, my friend from Washington State was here1393earlier. He represents the great Hanford reservation, has1394worked with me for years on legacy cleanup and he is got a1395great lab out there. So, I recognize Mr. Newhouse for 51396minutes.1397    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that1398and enjoy the work that we do together on important stuff. Mr.1399Secretary, welcome to the committee. Appreciate you being here.1400You have picked up the ball very quickly and are running fast1401with It, I appreciate all your hard work. I wanted to bring up1402a couple different things, try to get to them in the short1403amount of time that we have. But first, the lower Snake River1404Dams as we have talked about before, hydroelectric power, it is1405vital to my region of the country. It produces a reliable, low-1406cost electricity for ratepayers. It provides us so many1407different kinds of benefits from irrigation, the power, the1408clean, clean power generation that is critical for us. It also1409provides us a tremendous amount of help for the agricultural1410industry and the irrigation water. It provides flood control,1411transportation is huge.1412    All these different benefits that we derive from the dams.1413But as you know, there is been efforts over the past decades to1414breach the dams due to one reason, and that is migrating fish,1415the salmon that are very important to the Pacific Northwest as1416well. So, I am just. I wanted to bring that up. Unfortunately,1417Mr. Simpson isn't here. We have engaged in a lot of1418conversations about this. But I just wanted to make sure that1419hear your commitment to work together with us so we can1420continue to derive the benefits of the hydroelectric system and1421as well as a strong salmon population, I think we can do both.1422We have proven that efforts that if allowed, we have been able1423to make significant increases in the number of salmon.1424    And your insight, even though this is a congressional1425decision, your insight, your help on this issue will be1426tremendously important. Just wanted to ask if there is any1427plans in place as you get it up to speed, conversations you1428might have that we can maybe utilize to get away from the1429efforts of the Federal Government, particularly executive1430branch, recently of removing such an important asset in the1431Pacific Northwest.1432    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Congressman Newhouse. And yes,1433I share your perspective on that. Hydroelectric dams were1434again, large infrastructure projects when America was bold. We1435built a number of great dams. They have been critical to the1436economic prosperity of our country. Very early suppliers of1437firm, reliable power. What is great about dams is when demand1438for electricity goes up, you can release more water. When you1439are in low demand periods, you can release less water. So, they1440provide what I call high value electricity, which means it is1441there when you need it and you can hold it back when you don't1442need it. They are very valuable assets. We are going into a1443period of significant demand growth in electricity driven by AI1444and resourcing of manufacturing. We got to be ready to meet1445those demands without harming ratepayers by driving up price to1446kill demand.1447    So yes, I am passionately in support of those dams staying1448in place. They have been tremendous assets for decades. We1449should not spend money to go backwards to reduce our energy1450generating capacity, particularly of such high value1451electricity as that from those dams. So yes, I am fully aligned1452to work with you and so is the whole administration to think1453first about the American taxpayers and the American citizens1454that need it. And I was a board member of an environmental1455group until I was confirmed into this role. So also passionate1456about fish and the outdoors and animals and clean air and clean1457water and all that. And as you said, they go together. They are1458not always in opposition. In fact, they are rarely in1459opposition.1460    Mr. Newhouse. Yeah, absolutely. That is great. I appreciate1461hearing that. And in that note, we have talked about Hanford.1462Mr. Simpson talked about that as well. Mr. Chairman did as1463well. When you come out to visit Hanford, which I know you will1464as Secretary of Energy, I would love to be able to include in1465your trip a visit to one of the hydroelectric dams on that.1466    Secretary WRIGHT. Absolutely, absolutely. When I go out to1467PNNL, I will also visit Hanford and I would love to go visit a1468dam or two with you as well.1469    Mr. Newhouse. Good, good, good. We will make that happen.1470So, talking about Hanford, a significant effort on the part of1471DOE in Central Washington, some of the legacy cleanup of our1472efforts to win World War II and the Cold War, the Manhattan1473Project, all those things that are tremendously important but1474we have a problem that we are facing. I do appreciate the1475comments that you have made in conveying the importance of that1476and really anxious to have you out there and visit firsthand so1477you can see exactly what is going on. The tremendous work that1478is happening there requires a stable steady budget in order to1479make that successful and long-term commitment which fortunately1480that has been there and we want to continue that.1481    I just wanted to ask you about any kind of thoughts that1482you have been putting into this. Are you planning to ensure as1483you look at the adequate resources that are necessary for1484Hanford as that as this work continues and ramps up? We are1485just about close to opening the VIT plant which is an exciting1486thing. So just wanted to get your perspective on that and again1487reiterate looking forward to your, I am sure we will the1488upcoming visit.1489    Secretary Wright. Yeah. One of my key picks for my team for1490assistant secretary was environmental management. You know, and1491I picked a guy who is been a constructor, developer, investor,1492businessman about building things and moving dirt and making1493stuff happen. So, I think he will be a great asset to1494environmental management team. But yeah Hanford is key. You1495know, the funding for that, unlike almost everything else in1496the department is flat that we have proposed in our budget for14972026 versus 2025. I am very excited to see the direct feed low1498activity waste plant come online this year. I have had multiple1499meetings with Bechtel about that and I have continued to1500express the importance of it. And I have gotten great1501assurances all the way from the top of the company that top1502people are on it and that that plant will be operating very1503this year. I am excited to see that. In fact, I will probably1504be out for the ribbon cutting when we get that going. Thank you1505for your commitment to that.1506    Mr. Newhouse. Yeah, thank you. And I apologize, Mr.1507Chairman. I am way over time. So thank you. I yield back. Maybe1508not so much overtime.1509    Mr. Fleischmann. Okay, thank you. Mr. Newhouse. At this1510time, I would like to recognize my friend and colleague from1511Nevada, Ms. Lee. Mr. Secretary, we talked earlier about our1512eight caucuses. Ms. Lee is my co-chair on a critically1513important caucus, the Nuclear Cleanup caucus, which is probably1514one of the largest caucuses, bipartisan caucuses in all of1515Congress. I took that over from my dear friend Doc Hastings1516from Newhouse, from Mr. Newhouse's district. So at this time I1517would like to recognize my friend and colleague, Ms. Lee.1518    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Good morning. It is nice to1519see you Secretary Wright, thank you for being here and your1520work. Since coming to Congress, I have worked with everyone,1521Republicans, Democrats, multiple administrations to make sure1522that no Federal money goes to the failed Yucca Mountain1523repository project. So, your assessment was music to my ears1524and Nevadan's ears who have opposed this for decades. And so,1525my heart goes out to my colleagues who really need a solution1526to spent nuclear fuel. And so that is why I am proud to work1527with the Chairman on the Nuclear Cleanup caucus, because I1528don't think you should always be a brick wall. That you should1529come up with an alternative solution. So it was good to hear1530your assessment on consent based sighting and asking1531communities to opt in, which I do believe is the best approach1532to nuclear waste.1533    So, I just wanted to confirm and get your commitment that1534in your final fiscal year 26 budget request, it will reflect1535your commitment that not one dime for the Department of Energy1536to license or otherwise force a nuclear waste repository on my1537home state of Nevada.1538    Secretary Wright. So I am prohibited for talking about the1539details of the budget request that hasn't been released yet.1540But yeah, I think you heard my strong sentiment that the1541solution to this problem is to get communities to opt in and1542not a top down force down. So I think we are aligned on that1543and I think we are also aligned, hopefully that it is not just1544some people, but it is all of us need a solution for long term1545disposal to waste. But then we have got to do it a different1546way. The ways we have tried in the past decades have simply not1547worked.1548    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Thank you. And I am happy to continue1549to work with you and your team on that. I want to pivot to1550something that I do think it is safe to say that you and I both1551believe in and is in our country's best interest. And that is1552more geothermal energy. At your confirmation hearing you1553referred to geothermal as an abundant energy resource right1554below our feet. So, the DOE has estimated that thanks to1555enhanced geothermal systems, the U.S. has the potential,1556potential to affordably capture enough of our domestic1557geothermal resources to power the equivalent of more than 651558million homes by 2050. But continued support from the1559Department of Energy will be essential.1560    Can we expect again, I know you are probably limited in1561identifying, but can we expect in the final budget request that1562it will reflect the enthusiasm you have expressed, in1563particular through robust funding of the Geothermal1564Technologies Office as well as investments in next generation1565geothermal demonstration projects?1566    Secretary Wright. Yes, as you know, I can't speak to any1567specifics in the final budget request that will be coming. But1568yes, I share your belief. What is valuable about geothermal is1569you get energy when you need it and when you want it and you1570can even flex it up and down. So, I think it is a tremendous1571energy resource. I look forward to helping to push it forward.1572Both that will be government efforts. But the biggest driver1573there, like with nuclear, is going to be commercial private1574money which has started to flow in that space. And so, I want1575to work not just at the department but together with commercial1576players in that space. How can we enable more capital? How can1577we make permitting simple? How can we help on technology1578development? But yeah, I am bullish on the future of1579geothermal, but permitting and a sober government is necessary1580to make that happen.1581    Ms. Lee. Well, I have several bills that are bipartisan1582aimed at streamlining the permitting process. So hope to get1583your support on those.1584    Secretary Wright. I think that is important. So I am very1585happy to hear that.1586    Ms. Lee. My state doesn't have much oil or gas to speak of.1587In fact, more than 20 out of the 22,000 oil and gas leases1588issued in Nevada since 1953 fewer than 100 or less than 1/2 of15891 percent have ever produced any energy. But what we do have1590300 or more sunny days each year. And so I was pleased to see1591the BLM approve the first utility scale solar facility on1592federal land since the start of the Trump Administration, which1593was in Yuma County. Can we interpret this positive news to mean1594that the DOE under the new administration will also champion1595solar as part of the all above energy strategy, including1596maintaining and supporting the Department's Solar Energy1597Technologies Office?1598    Secretary Wright. Well, my comment on that, I have never1599been all of the above myself because there is energy sources1600that, that swallow money and don't deliver value. So I am not1601for them, but I am for all energy sources that are affordable,1602reliable, secure and better. Our energy system. And I think1603solar, you see meaningful growth of that in the marketplace1604with commercial money. It is heavily subsidized, so that is a1605distortion there. But yeah, solar I believe, my personal1606belief, an energy source with the future. And yes, and I think1607you will see continued work on solar at the Department of1608Energy.1609    Ms. Lee. Great, thank you and I yield, sir.1610    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank the gentlelady for her questions. At1611this time I would like to recognize the newest member of our1612subcommittee, Ms. Malloy from Utah. Thank you for 5 minutes.1613    Ms. Malloy. Thank you, sir. Thank you for being here, Mr.1614Secretary. I represent Utah's second district, which is most of1615the west desert in Utah and that has some world class1616geothermal resources. And I was prepared to ask you a lot of1617questions about that. And then my colleague from Nevada mostly1618covered what I was going to ask. So I am glad to hear that that1619is a priority. I am glad to hear that you are planning on1620utilizing private investment to get some of these resources up1621and running. We do have some good research facilities where1622they are trying to take geothermal resources that we used to1623think weren't adequate and prove that they are. So, I hope you1624will support those efforts. And I also have several bills to1625help with the permitting process. So, I look forward to working1626with your team on that.1627    Secretary Wright. Fantastic. I look forward to working with1628you on that.1629    Ms. Malloy. And since we covered all of that, I am going to1630get to two other questions that I was really hoping I would1631have time to ask. Given the importance of reducing our reliance1632on foreign countries for critical minerals, for fossil fuels,1633for a lot of the inputs to energy. What are you doing at the1634cabinet level with the other secretaries to support domestic1635mining, oil and gas development, refining capabilities so that1636we are not just talking concepts about how we could be1637producing energy, but we are moving towards producing more1638energy and more of the inputs to energy here?1639    Secretary Wright. Oh, great question, Great question, of1640course. And critical minerals and mining and processing and1641refining of minerals and materials in the United States is1642central to President Trump's agenda. You know, we have gotten1643ourselves, fortunately, most oil and gas developments on1644private land. And so, it, in spite of withering Federal1645opposition, it is sort of advanced. In spite of efforts at the1646Federal Government the last four years to strangle it, mining1647is more difficult. You know, a lot of mining is on--a lot of1648the resources for mining are on federal lands. And the U.S. was1649a great giant, proud mining nation when I was born. And we have1650gone backwards that entire time. It is incredibly hard to1651permit a mine in the United States. And it is what got us in1652some of the tough situations that were mentioned earlier of1653there is so many critical materials we don't produce any of in1654this country. And we can.1655    Ms. Malloy. And I am going to interrupt you just to make1656this point. What we have seen in the past sometimes is the1657Secretary of Energy says, we want to be producing more of this,1658but the Secretary of Interior is working on a different agenda.1659And what I am hoping we can avoid is having secretaries working1660across purposes. So, you are saying what I want to hear. But1661then there is another secretary implementing policies because1662we are producing energy on public land in my part of the1663country almost exclusively.1664    Secretary Wright. That is correct, yeah. And I am well1665aware of that. And it is a success story because of local1666support in Utah that is driven that forward. But you had a1667bigger fight to make that happen than in other states where it1668is private lands. But that is why President Trump and Secretary1669Burgum led the effort to create the National Energy Dominance1670Council. And energy means critical minerals and materials and1671mining as well. So that is absolutely. And we talk about this1672every day. Every day we have a list of mining projects that1673look like they are credible, that will produce important stuff1674for our country. And we are trying to find out what is the1675barriers. And it is multiple agencies. What are all the things1676that have tripped them up and how do we knock those down? And I1677think you are going to see in this year, the first year of this1678administration, you will see a number of exciting announcements1679of mines fully permitted and shovels in the ground to get them1680going. Mines that have been in process for over a decade are1681finally going to happen. But it is critical to our National1682Security, not just to our economic wellbeing, but to our1683National Security.1684    Ms. Malloy. Well, as the daughter of a miner, I am really1685glad to hear that. And that leads to my other question that I1686hope you can answer quickly in the time I have left. How are1687you working with state and local elected officials to make sure1688the plans you are making work for regional plans and that1689everybody's engaged so that we don't have the Federal1690Government saying they are going to do something that then1691local governments have buy in?1692    Secretary Wright. No, you are so right. We have a great1693federal system in this country. I have talked to more1694Democratic governors in the last 100 days than in my entire1695life combined. And great conversations. It is amazing how1696embracing so many Democratic governors are. They have seen that1697high price of energy and jobs not in their states anymore and1698they want to see activity go ahead. A couple, there is more1699contentious negotiating going on, but for the most part it is1700been a welcoming environment. But you are right, it is not just1701federal. We need state. We need local communities and towns1702into it, which is why I am very outspoken on this stuff. This1703is in America's best interest. It is in the planet's1704environmental interest as well as economic interests for us to1705start building things in America again.1706    Ms. Malloy. Well, I was just at breakfast with the Speaker1707of the Utah House of Representatives and he would be mad at me1708if I didn't reiterate what he keeps saying, which is anytime1709you need to do a pilot project and have a proof of concept,1710Utah's willing to move quickly and we are eager to be part of1711the solution.1712    Secretary Wright. I love it, look forward to working with1713you and your great state.1714    Ms. Malloy. Okay. With that I yield.1715    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. And If I may, Mr. Secretary, I1716want to thank you for meeting with our governor, Bill Lee. You1717have been so good to talk with so many governors and maybe at1718some point in time would be great if we could have a bipartisan1719group of governors come up and have a conference with you. So1720appreciate your being so open and available to speak with all1721of our governors because our states are a great hotbed for1722innovation and especially in new nuclear. So I thank you for1723that. At this point in time, I would like to recognize my dear1724friend from Florida, Mr. Franklin, for 5 minutes. Thank you.1725    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,1726Secretary. As others have mentioned, I apologize for bouncing1727back and forth. We have got multiple secretaries here and it is1728a shame because we wait all year to have the opportunity to1729speak with you all. But thanks for your patience and I1730apologize if I get into something that you have maybe already1731touched on, but if nothing else, maybe give you a chance to1732expand a little more. But also, I am really excited for this1733because for my entire life we strive so hard to achieve energy1734independence and in four quick years we unilaterally handed1735that away. So, with your appointment to this position, I was1736extremely excited at what we have coming.1737    So, in the last Congress I had the chance to serve on the1738AI task force that the Speaker put together and across the year1739with all the various stakeholder groups. The one thing that1740kept emerging from all of them, regardless of their specific1741needs, they said but the long pole in the tent is going to be1742energy. You have probably touched on this some before, but1743specifically on that a recent center for Strategic and1744International Studies report projects that just generative AI1745alone could require up to 84 gigawatts of additional1746electricity by 2030, the equivalent of adding another Texas to1747the grid. So, when you combine that with the growing demand1748from EVs, semiconductor fabrication plants, data centers, we1749are headed for a very massive strain on the infrastructure.1750    You may have touched on this before, but if you could maybe1751put some more meat on the bone, could you talk about what DOE1752is doing to ensure we have the generation capacity, permitting,1753reform, grid resilience needed to support this demand,1754particularly in regions like Florida where just our growth1755alone is already outstripping our production capabilities?1756    Secretary Wright. Yes, great question and let me give one1757background comment. Look, the United States, industrial1758powerhouse of the world for about a century, the last full year1759we have data on, we consumed 25 exajoules for manufacturing in1760our country. Forget the unit, it is a lot of joules. But the1761relative thing is what matters. China consumed 70. So almost1762three times as much energy is consumed manufacturing in China1763than the United States. For 100 years we led in that category,1764and we have made it hard to permit things in the United States,1765hard to get air permits, hard to build big infrastructure1766outside of the Texas, Louisiana, Gulf Coast. And so, what has1767that industry done? It is all gone mostly to Asia and the1768largest piece to China. This is not good for the economy of our1769country. It is not good for the environment. It is certainly1770not good for our National Security.1771    So, the next energy intensive manufacturing industry is AI.1772A lot of people don't think of it that, but that is what it is.1773It takes a lot of energy in the highest and most expensive form1774of energy, electricity to manufacture intelligence of very high1775value. So yes, we need to have that here, which means we need1776to grow our electricity production a lot in this country. And a1777lot of citizens are worried about that. They look at the last1778four years and say, wow, the U.S. grew electricity production1779about 2 percent in the four years of the Biden administration1780and prices went up over 20 percent. And now you are telling us1781we are going to grow our electricity production by 10 percent1782or so. How much of price is going to go up? I don't want that1783to happen in my country or in my community. And so, our answer1784to that is we are going to grow energy production, electricity1785production more than supply and therefore we can accommodate1786the growth of AI and cap the rise in prices.1787    Now a lot of that, that price rise was all self-inflicted1788wounds. There is no shortage of energy. That is the government1789putting their finger on the scale. The more cheap energy we1790build, the more expensive our grid gets. Like that just, that1791tells you that the expression cheap energy is just false1792referring to unreliable intermittent energy sources there is1793across the board they make electricity more expensive. So, we1794need to be reasonable and get out of the way and allow people1795to build energy sources that are reliable, firm and secure to1796power their data centers. And everyone we are dialoguing with1797is, `build a little bit more capacity than you are going to1798use'.1799    In fact, even if they build at their peak demand, our grid,1800the most important part of our grid is to meet peak demand when1801it is super cold at, they can throttle back a little bit and1802feed a little electricity into the grid at peak demand times.1803So, I actually think the big build out that is needed to win1804the AI race is actually going to be a positive for our grid,1805but only if we allow the building of so much new capacity of1806different sources. But of course, the biggest source of1807electricity in the U.S. today is natural gas in Florida. It is180875 percent of Florida's electricity. And it is also why Florida1809has half the electricity price of California and produces 251810percent more electricity with a population only a little more1811than half of California's. Well done Florida.1812    Mr. Franklin. Well, thank you for that chamber of commerce1813announcement there. That is why we are getting so many1814Californians moving to Florida. And I have heard you mention1815before that it is going to be an all the above approach on the1816different sources. And I was appreciative of your comments on1817nuclear, on the small modular reactors and we have absolutely1818got to get regulatory burden out of the way to make that1819happen. But I am over time now and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I1820yield back.1821    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Thank the gentleman for his1822questions. At this time, I would like to recognize my friend1823from Florida, Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. For 51824minutes.1825    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary1826Wright, it is nice to see you. Thanks for joining us. Congress1827passed and the President signed into law billions in funding1828for energy efficiency, grid modernization and other programs1829designed to lower costs for consumers and strengthen our energy1830infrastructure. But the Trump Administration froze nearly all1831Department of Energy funding and even now, more than $671832billion remains frozen. This is in clear defiance of both1833congressional intent and multiple court orders. And it is not a1834theoretical delay. We are talking about shovel ready projects1835tied to contracts with American businesses that will result in1836energy bill savings for families, all of which your department1837is blocking. So can you explain under what legal authority you1838continue to withhold these funds? And will you commit right now1839to release this money immediately or do you intend to continue1840violating the law and hurting our American families?1841    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Congresswoman. We are in1842compliance with the law in everything we do. We are not1843withholding any funds and we have paid every invoice we have1844had for work done and funds that are due. So, the premise of1845the question's wrong. I am happy to go into the evaluations we1846are doing now on future funding.1847    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time for a moment1848because I knew you were going to say that. And I am happy to go1849through the energy programs that you are with currently1850withholding funds for so that we can all understand the1851difference between what you are referring to and what I am1852referring to. Let me just scroll down so that I can. You have1853$2 billion frozen for the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon1854Management. You have $7.6 billion in frozen funds for the1855Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, you have $7351856million for the Office of Nuclear Energy frozen. You have $141857billion for the Office of State and Community Energy Programs1858frozen. You have $11.3 billion for the Grid Deployment Office1859frozen. You have. Should I go on? In all of these programs----1860    Secretary Wright. You must define what frozen is because1861there is no money being withheld. So, what does frozen mean?1862    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Meaning the funds are being1863withheld, not released to the recipients for contracts that1864have been leaded and that are being targeted for cancellation.1865So I mean, I have just read all of those programs. There are1866more. So what legal authority do you have when Congress has1867appropriated these funds and they are not subject to your1868review before release, what legal authority do you have to hold1869those funds?1870    Secretary Wright. We are not withholding those funds.1871    Ms. Wasserman Schultz.. Okay, well, I just read you a list1872of funds that are held.1873    Secretary Wright. Where did the list come from and how do1874you define them as held? What do you mean by held?1875    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. As in, like, not released? I mean,1876it is a standard dictionary definition. If we have appropriated1877the funds and the Department of Energy is supposed to release1878them to the recipients and they have not received them and they1879are not getting answers now, I am happy to follow up with you1880to make sure that you understand which programs we are talking1881about. But for the front, for the $67 billion that remain1882frozen that we have identified, that have been identified, what1883legal authority do you have to hold onto those funds? And if1884you don't, if you haven't done it, then you are saying that1885there is no legal authority for you to hold funds that Congress1886has appropriated and you agree and you have released funds and1887somehow I have incorrect information.1888    Secretary Wright. Yeah, I think your information is not1889correct, Congresswoman, and we should follow up. But, yes, we1890administer funds that are appropriated by Congress through1891hundreds, in fact, thousands of contracts with various players1892that are on the other end of those deals. And we have ongoing1893work with lots of companies. We are paying bills as they become1894due, and we are engaging with all of those folks on the next1895milestones for their payments.1896    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay, so then you understand that if1897Congress has appropriated funds, and in addition a court has1898ordered you to release those funds, that you are supposed to do1899that. So, when I follow up with you and show you funds that are1900still frozen, then we can expect to see those funds released1901once we point those out to you?1902    Secretary Wright. If you show us a contract we have with a1903party and they have done work and we haven't paid it.1904Absolutely. We pay our bills, and we follow the law. We are1905following all of the laws where we stand today, and we are1906working with hundreds, say, actually thousands of counterparts1907on this. Of course, we are being responsible stewards of that1908money and engaging with these parties to make sure American1909taxpayer monies are being spent in thoughtful, reasonable ways1910that are going to better the energy systems for our country and1911advanced technology and all that. So, we are responsible1912stewards of the money, which, when I walked into the place, was1913certainly not the case in the 2.5 months1914    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay, claiming my time. Every day1915that this money remains frozen, real families are facing high1916utility bills, local businesses delay or cancel clean energy1917projects. And so, I hope you are prepared to take1918responsibility for the consequences of those decisions and also1919follow up specifically and point out to me why funds are still1920frozen and release those funds when it is very clear that you1921are violating the law by holding onto them. Thank you. I yield1922back the balance of my time.1923    Mr. Fleischmann. At this time, we are going to begin, Mr.1924Secretary, a very brief. In the interest of time, second round1925and abbreviated second round, I am actually going to defer my1926questions and just make a comment in support of the Office of1927Science and our great National Labs. You have been very strong1928in your visits to the labs and you are meeting with labs1929directors and your strong support for the great National labs.1930I represent the Oak Ridge National Lab, which actually does1931every function that a National Lab has in its portfolio. And1932again, I thank you for your visit there.1933    And my comment is we have seen the general budget, and I1934would like to work with you to make sure that we see some type1935of an increase there. You have got a very arduous task to come1936forth with a budget on several different things, and I am fully1937cognizant of that, but just wanted you to know that my strong1938support for the National Labs is there. With that, I am going1939to recognize again my colleague. Oh, Ms. Kaptur is back. Very1940good, Ms. Kaptur. We are going to do a very brief, abbreviated1941second round. I think only Mr. Newhouse on our side is going to1942ask, but I wanted to recognize you for a second round of1943questions for 5 minutes, if you desire.1944    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. You know,1945it is sad the way we are functioning. We are trying to ask1946important questions, and we want to hear your answers, Mr.1947Secretary. But the way these hearings have been structured.1948Today we have three simultaneous hearings. Defense,1949Agriculture, and Energy. And we are being squished into this1950tourniquet, and it is not fair to you, and it is not fair to1951the American people, and it is not fair to members. And I know1952this Chairman didn't do it, but I don't like it because we1953can't get into the level of detail that we need to do. And it1954is all part of this squeeze by the new administration. You are1955a businessman. You operate on a regular schedule. What is1956happening here is wrong. I am willing to work until midnight1957any night to get into every single account that we need to get1958into. And to figure out what is happening in this country. But1959the process has been defined by people above our pay grade, and1960it is not fair to the American people. Okay, now one of my1961questions is how many people currently work at the U.S.1962Department of Energy?1963    Secretary Wright. A little less than 16,000 are government1964employees.1965    Ms. Kaptur. 16,000. And how many worked when you got there?1966How many were there when you got there?1967    Secretary Wright. A little more than 16,000.1968    Ms. Kaptur. So how many people do you think have left?1969    Secretary Wright. To date? A relatively small number. Few1970percent, low single digits.1971    Ms. Kaptur. Two percent?1972    Secretary Wright. A few percent low single digits. But1973Congresswoman, it is in flux right now. We are looking at how1974to restructure the department, how to make it more efficient,1975how to focus it on its key missions. And we are doing that in a1976sort of slow, deliberative, thoughtful way. And the changes in1977headcount within the department will be done dominantly by1978voluntary retirements and this delayed resignation programs. We1979are trying to make it for people to choose if they are no1980longer aligned or they don't want to be at the department1981anymore. We want to give them a financially kind as possible1982way to move on to the next chapter of their career. But that1983takes time and that is choice from employees in the department.1984So, we are moving in a deliberate, measured pace.1985    Ms. Kaptur. Have you been given an order to reduce the size1986of your department?1987    Secretary Wright. We have been given a mandate from the1988whole administration to look like a businessman at all the1989departments and figure out how you can deliver improved1990services at lower cost inefficiencies for the simple reason1991that our government, for every dollar we collect in tax1992revenues, we spend over $1.25. So, we have got to be more1993responsible of the taxpayer monies. And my department, for1994example, sorry for the long answer, grew 20 percent under the1995last four years of the administration, under the last1996administration. But energy prices rose in the country and our1997energy output in DOE related things didn't meaningfully1998improve. So, I am a believer that with a leaner, more focused1999team, we can deliver better results. But we are slow and2000deliberate in getting there.2001    Ms. Kaptur. It seems to be done rather quickly over a2002couple months. That is kind of unusual even for a business.2003Maybe if you are letting go individuals who have picked the2004strawberries, and they are not going to get the next crop for2005another 6 months or something. That is pretty clear, and you2006can anticipate it. But this does seem to be a rather unusual2007process. Are you responding to the DOGE team or is this2008something that is coming from OMB. Where's the order for this2009coming from?2010    Secretary Wright. This is the whole administration saying2011we owe it to the American taxpayers to be more responsible2012stewards of their money and to move our gigantic government2013deficit that is a threat to my kids and particularly my new2014grandchild. We have got to just be smarter about doing that.2015But in our case, certainly it is not been in 2 months. We are2016still in the midst of it right now. And I have been working on2017it since the day I walked in the office. But those decisions2018are being made by the leadership at the department. Of course,2019we are getting help and support on understanding various cost2020centers. How can we centralize IT? How can we do centralized2021functions get the same stuff more efficiently? What programs2022maybe are oversized for what they need to achieve? What2023programs are undersized?2024    Ms. Kaptur. I am hearing you. Why is there no Inspector2025General at your department? You spend a lot of money. You have2026a lot of power, a lot of economic power, a lot of scientific.2027Why is there no inspector general there?2028    Secretary Wright. I think there was a broad removal of2029Inspector Generals with the new administration. And then I2030think we have not finished. The administration has not finished2031appointing new Inspector Generals. We have complete accounting2032and complete books of everything we are doing will be all there2033for the public to see. And I complete and 100 percent comfort2034with that.2035    Ms. Kaptur. Well, let me just say I come from a criminal2036state, and I have seen absolute criminality in the field of2037nuclear power and also complete irresponsibility by the Atomic2038Energy Commission in years past with the disposal of waste that2039is very dangerous in our area. We are just discovering more and2040more and more of it. So, I don't trust any department. And when2041you talk about having to balance budgets, honestly, budgets can2042be balanced in two ways, by revenue. And there are some really2043rich people in this country that are not paying their fair2044share. And we can look at tax cuts going back 35 years and2045begin to see who is paying and who is not paying. And I think2046it is a tragedy for the country that the 20,000 individuals2047that the Internal Revenue Service wished to hire to go after2048the freeloaders they were not allowed to hire. How about that?2049Wasn't that a good idea? So, the freeloaders can keep2050freeloading and the middle class and the working class have to2051pay the load.2052    So, yes, we have a spending side, but we also have a2053revenue side. We are not talking about that. And that affects2054everything we do because we want to provide you with the money2055that we need to do to keep pace in this world of today. But2056this charade we are going through right now is sophomoric. And2057I expect more of this country and I expect more of this2058committee. And we don't set the rules. They are set above our2059pay grade. But I just want to say I am uncomfortable. I don't2060like it this way because I got a lot more questions of you, and2061I can't ask them because they are going to limit me on time.2062    So, one of the things I have to ask about is my own2063district. I don't understand why there was a project that was2064to be awarded to a glass company, and for some reason it was2065pulled or it is sitting somewhere over there, and it has caused2066all kinds of problems for the company. You are a businessman.2067You would understand this. If I can find the right sheet here.2068There are so many sheets of paper. It is called Libby Glass.2069And they have two furnaces. I come from an industrial part of2070America, and life there has been hell for a long time because2071we forgot what the defense industrial base of this country2072really is. And we have been trying to catch up, but it has been2073hard. And, oh, here it is.2074    Okay, so the department had $6 billion in DOE investments2075that were leveraged with $14 billion of private sector2076investment. And one of those companies, Libby Glass, which gave2077me permission to even use--I am even afraid to use their name2078in public. They are a great company. They are a legacy company2079in our community. I will start to cry. They are generous and2080they work hard. And they are to replace four regenerative2081furnaces with two larger hybrid electric furnaces to reduce the2082carbon intensity of its Toledo, Ohio, facility by up to 502083percent. And the department is considering canceling more than208460 percent of their industrial demonstration projects, which2085would be devastating to our community.2086    And this is a company that never left the city. They didn't2087go out into the suburbs. Okay. And break more ground. They are2088a responsible company. And for this award review and2089cancellation process, how is DOE or any part of your2090administration assessing which DOE projects will be canceled or2091continued? What criteria are you using? And even if DOE chooses2092not to cancel any of these awards, these actions are creating2093mass confusion. Unemployment is going up in our area, by the2094way. And companies have canceled almost $8 billion in energy2095manufacturing projects so far just this year. Five times more2096than was canceled last year. So given your private sector2097background, what can you do to help me understand what is2098happening to this particular company in the review process?2099Where are they?2100    Secretary Wright. Representative Kaptur, I appreciate your2101passion for industrial America, keeping the industries we have,2102bringing new industries home. We are so aligned on that. It is2103one of the things I am excited about this administration. We2104have outsourced so many of those jobs overseas. That is a--I2105was lucky. I grew up in suburban America and got a great2106education. I have had a dreamy life. I could have been born2107somewhere else. I could have had a very different life. I share2108your passion.2109    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.2110    Secretary Wright. I share your passion. So, I think I2111mentioned briefly I walk into a department that I am very2112passionate about, energy and all that. I want to support as2113many activities and projects as we can to save American2114industry and grow American industry. So fully aligned on that.2115I think I gave the numbers before, but I walked into a thing2116where $100 billion had been shoveled out the door in 76 days. I2117am responsible for that money now, either in money out the door2118or committed to money to go out the door. I can't look at2119American taxpayers, including taxpayers in your district, and2120say, yes, we invested $2 billion, and we built a bridge to2121nowhere. We built something and now it is just closed because2122it had no marketplace. It had nowhere to go. So let me give you2123a quick little summary.2124    So, the answer is we haven't canceled any projects because2125we have been slow and careful and deliberative. We have2126developed a process and in the next few months we will run2127hundreds of projects, including those through our thing. And if2128it is viable and it is going to create jobs and it is going to2129do these great things, we are going to support that project.2130And the simple little criterion we are looking at is legal. The2131technology. Is the technology viable? Is the engineering done2132competently? Is there a market for the thing that is being2133built? Is there a financial model that that co funding is2134coming in together with the DOE funding so the project can be2135complete and does it add to National or economic security? It2136sounds like that one, if all the other things work, certainly2137would. And it is aligned and with this agenda.2138    Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Secretary, thank you for that. Putting that2139on the record. But that was already approved. You are reviewing2140something that was. All the appropriated money was already2141there. Those decisions had been made. So that is a very--this2142is a very strange process because those dollars were to be2143spent already as we work toward the 26 budget so I just wanted2144to put that on the record. I know the Chairman wants us to end2145this, and I just want to say very quickly, you need an2146inspector general. You need one because there is criminality in2147energy and you don't want your neck to be on the line. That is2148my advice to you. You are a good man. You have led a good life.2149    But I will say this to the record. There is a film that is2150just come out on HBO about something happening in Ohio. It is2151been going on for a long time. The film is called the Dark2152Money Game: Ohio Confidential. The first film is 2 hours. It is2153about criminality in the nuclear energy industry. But what is2154interesting is the film concentrates on the type of crime,2155bribery, wire fraud and so forth. And people going to jail for2156decades. All right. Four appellate judges yesterday just ruled2157that they couldn't overturn their prison sentence sentences. In2158nuclear. In nuclear. And the interesting thing about the film2159is it looks at the types of crimes, but it doesn't look at the2160nuclear danger. What is it about this industry that there is a2161cover up, there is a cover up of the damage it can do? I2162support nuclear, but not dangerous nuclear for commercial2163purposes. And this is the poster child for America's failure in2164commercial nuclear energy. And if we don't learn from it, we2165will have it happen again. All right. And nobody wants to talk2166about it. And I support the nuclear industry, but not2167criminality.2168    And this ought to be a casebook study for every employee at2169the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,2170feckless when it should have been doing its job. Who can I2171trust as one congresswoman from one out of 435 in this country2172that my district had to be the place where lives were put at2173risk. People have died from cancers. Okay. Pensions were taken2174away from workers. What kind of country is this and industry is2175this that we allow it? And yes, I am passionate because I have2176to deal with it. Nobody else here has to deal with it. Thank2177you for listening. Watch the film. Everybody in this room, you2178are in charge. We are in charge. What have we allowed to happen2179in this country? Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.2180Chairman.2181    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Representative Kaptur.2182    Mr. Fleischmann. At this time, I would like to recognize2183Representative Newhouse for his final questions.2184    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your2185indulgence. I just had a couple more things I wanted to bring2186up real quickly. The first has to do with the Bonneville Power2187Administration. And let me just say I do appreciate the efforts2188that are going in on behalf of the Federal Government by this2189administration to reduce spending. It is something we have to2190get control of government waste and taxpayer funds. Those are2191the things that we have to pay particular responsibility to.2192However, with the Bonneville Power Administration, that is an2193organization, as you know, that does not receive Federal funds2194and they have been impacted by these efforts, lost 2002195employees up to date, which is significant. Lots of2196institutional knowledge has gone out the door that is not2197easily replaced and certainly has a potential for all PMAs2198throughout the country to impact the operations and reliability2199of producing power for years to come. So, I just wanted to2200bring that up and ask you how these reductions have affected2201your agency and what kinds of cautions that you are taking to2202ensure that they don't impact the grid reliability and raise2203electricity costs.2204    Secretary Wright. So great, great question. And it is a2205concern for us as well in the department. When we did our first2206sort of voluntary who wants to step out a DRP? We call it2207deferred resignation program to give people, to let people go2208out on the best possible terms, we had acceptance across the2209department from it and we granted those wishes of people that2210chose in. Then we did a second round that has been much bigger,2211but we have been specific at saying we can't have people leave2212from Bonneville Power and the other power marketing agencies2213because I don't think we have room to reduce headcount there2214anymore.2215    And so I think, and when I arrived, and I only learned this2216in the last few weeks, that Bonneville Power Administration was2217already below, well below its sort of desired staffing. So that2218gap was much bigger than the one or 200 people that have left2219since then. It was already several hundred short. So, there2220will be no more shrinkage in headcount at Bonneville Power. And2221one of the key things there is to be in all of these things is2222to make sure we are delivering on the mission, make sure that2223that thing is getting done, that the power is being marketed,2224transmitted and bettering the lives of the citizens all in that2225region. So, I understand your concern there and we share it,2226and we will keep. I appreciate that keeping headcount flat2227there.2228    Mr. Newhouse. Appreciate that commitment. And then wanted2229to jump too, to another thing that very proud of in the state2230of Washington, that is Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,2231as you probably know, they are celebrating 60 years of2232scientific brilliance. And I hope we can add that to your list2233of things you are going to have to be in Washington for a few2234days. You know that, don't you?2235    Secretary Wright. I do, I do and I am okay with that. I2236have climbed many mountains in Washington and that took several2237days as well.2238    Mr. Newhouse. Well, the lab, it is focused on addressing2239some of the most complex National issues that we have, the2240challenges that we are trying to meet. It also conducts2241important research for the energy efficiency and renewable2242energy programs as well as nuclear nonproliferation. So, lots2243of crucial funding in offices of the EERE, Office of Science.2244The skinny budget proposals are significant cuts to these2245areas. I just want to make you aware of this and ask you about2246what actions you could take to ensure that the lab and all our2247labs actually throughout the country have the resources2248necessary to continue all their important work.2249    Secretary Wright. Yeah, and I think that was basically the2250criterion in developing the budget. We don't want to shrink or2251stop any of the critical research in our National labs. From2252cybersecurity that PNNL is so strong at, to fusion energy, to2253advanced computing, artificial intelligence, basic fundamental2254physics. All of these things will go on virtually unimpacted.2255We had had certainly over the last several years a growth of2256what I would sort of call political science. We want you to2257work on this problem because it is part of our messaging or it2258is part of our campaign. Universities have been overrun with2259science that politically sounds good. So, students drift into2260that and we are seeing a shrinkage of the percent of people in2261technology that are in sort of hard, fundamental, basic2262technology that enables everything else. And so, this is2263really, and this is together with the labs to kind of just not2264touch the hard science, not touch the basic science, not touch2265the stuff we did 10 years ago or 30 years ago or going to do 102266years from now, but to trim out the fluff that we have been2267working on. So, I think the future of our Natural labs is very2268bright and the scientific and, and substantive output from the2269labs will not be reduced.2270    Mr. Newhouse. Good. Again, thanks for coming to the2271committee and we look forward to having you come out to the2272state of Washington.2273    Secretary Wright. Thank you. Thank you, representative.2274    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Mr. Levin, you are recognized2275to close.2276    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And since everybody is2277inviting you, Mr. Secretary, I have to invite you to the great2278state of California and to come out and see the San Onofre2279Nuclear Generating Station. Look forward to working with you on2280that. I wanted to ask about something that my friend from2281Indiana, Congressman Mrvan, brought up, which is the hydrogen2282hubs. And specifically, I wanted to make sure that you had2283received a bipartisan letter that we had sent on April the 7th2284about our hub in California called Arches. It is a great2285project to boost energy security. Obviously we want to2286decarbonize things that are very tough to do, like steel and2287shipping and trucking. Great American innovation and a more2288resilient future. I would love to get any input that you might2289have. I know you said that, you know, you are reviewing all2290these things, I know you have got a lot of incoming, but we2291would be very grateful to have a reply to that bipartisan2292letter that we sent about a month ago and just get a sense of,2293you know, your thoughts on the hubs and specifically on Arches.2294    Secretary Wright. Yes, and again, I am very cautious about2295giving answers when I don't really have an answer. I have2296assembled a team and a process that is not political, that is2297not focused on buzzwords. It is just a business, technology2298business and end market overview of projects. If we are going2299to invest a lot of money, we want something at the other end2300that is going to go forward, that is going to have customers2301and off takers and move on with it. You mentioned that the2302hydrogen hub there particularly focused on decarbonization and2303that is greenhouse gas emissions in the United States on a per2304capita basis are lower than any year since I was born. So, we2305have had market forces driving decarbonization. Wealthier2306countries in general move to less carbon intensive energy2307systems. And I think this is a positive and I think you will2308see a continuation of that trend.2309    And so, things on decarbonization is more about what is the2310cost? What is the dollar per avoided ton of CO2 equivalent2311emission and if that dollar per ton is low and market forces,2312buyers of those products or users of that will pay that cost to2313drive that process. That is great. That is technology at work2314and customers coming into a marketplace to drive things2315forward. So that is basically the criterion. Is the technology2316viable? What does the engineering show? What does it look like2317the end cost might be? Is there a marketplace of people willing2318to pay that cost? That is the, you know, we are letting kind of2319the marketplace of businesses and people to decide what is2320viable and not what is viable, not what we like or what we2321don't like. It is just sort of an objective business and2322technological evaluation.2323    Mr. Levin. When do you anticipate we might get a reply?2324    Secretary Wright. This summer. This summer. I wish it was2325faster, you know, in the 100 days. You know, one of my things2326that slowed me down is getting people, getting qualified2327business professionals inside of the house and then develop a2328independent thing that every project will go through the same2329thing and we will get results out. But that is now rolling.2330People are in there. And so it is, it is, you know, I wish it2331had been last month, but to me it is more important to get sort2332of the right answers because we have got limited amount of2333resources. Right. We want to get the greatest bang for the buck2334for every resource we deploy.2335    Mr. Levin. I share your desire to get the greatest bang for2336the buck. I guess I want to unpack or understand a little bit2337about how you evaluate the cost benefit of different types of2338electricity generation. So before you talked about geothermal2339being something that was intriguing to you. I don't want to2340mischaracterize what you said, but relatively low cost and high2341benefit. We have talked a lot about nuclear. Of course, nuclear2342has a very high levelized cost of energy, new nuclear, compared2343to certain other sources, but also has, you know, significant2344benefits too. We got to fix the back end of the fuel cycle, as2345I will repeatedly say.2346    Secretary Wright. Yes.2347    Mr. Levin. Can you speak to, you know, how you evaluate2348other sources of electricity? You know, we talked a bit about2349solar. I would love to get your thoughts on, you know, I want2350to figure out how we can best work with you is what I am trying2351to say.2352    Secretary Wright. Yes. Yeah. So again, great question, as2353were your previous ones. So, there it is, I think the key thing2354on electricity. Electricity is complicated. So, it is more2355difficult than other things because everything fits into a big2356complicated system. And what matters is the system cost. Like2357you use the term levelized cost of electricity. And I have been2358for years, you know, a virulent critic of that term.2359    Mr. Levin. Good to know.2360    Secretary Wright. Because it treats electricity as if it is2361like your gas tank. You put a little bit in and you take a2362little bit out and you put a little bit. It is just not how2363electricity works. At every moment in time, you have to balance2364supply and demand. So the most critical design for an2365electricity grid is at peak demand. You got to supply2366electricity at peak demand or people die. Texas lost over 2002367people by not meeting electricity at peak demand. They died in2368our country. Think of how we'd feel with 250 additional2369murders. And so, on Inauguration Day here in PJM, 65 million2370people, 13 states 4:00 a.m. was peak demand for PJM this year.2371And at that time we got 44 percent of the electricity from gas,237222 percent from coal, 22 percent from nuclear, 6 percent from2373hydro, 4 percent from oil. That tells you the grid was very2374tight. Two percent from wind and 0 percent from solar. So, when2375someone tells me solar, you know, when it produces electricity2376and you divide by all the costs, it is cheap. Well, what is it2377doing when the sun is shining and it is giving electricity? It2378just means all the other kit has to reduce its output because2379all that other kit has to be there at 4:00 a.m. on January238021st. Or in this case, thousands of people would have died,2381would have frozen to death. So to me, it is about the system2382cost.2383    Mr. Levin. I am over time, but I would like to invite you2384out to California because there may be some people with a2385different point of view and it would be good to hear your2386interactions with them. Would you commit to that?2387    Secretary Wright. Oh, absolutely. I love nothing. I love2388nothing more to engage. And in fact, I will be in the Bay Area2389very end of May visiting SLAC, Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence2390Berkeley Labs. Yeah. And I will be there for several days.2391    Mr. Levin. Now, I am biased towards Southern California, so2392we got to invite you.2393    Secretary Wright. I think I am briefly going to be at the2394Reagan Library in Southern California as well, like at the end2395of that trip to California. But, yes, passionate about this and2396I love to engage with people that have different perspectives2397than me on energy. That is how I learn.2398    Mr. Levin. Thank you. Appreciate it. I will yield back.2399    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Congressman.2400    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry, Mr.2401Secretary. I want to thank you. I begin with profound thanks to2402you today when you came here. We have had a long hearing, and I2403know it is gone a bit over time, but you are doing a great job.2404You have got a difficult job to do. You have faced our2405questions, or tough questions with candid, honest answers and2406great enthusiasm. And we want to thank you and your outstanding2407staff. I know you have a new chief of staff. We welcome him.2408Look forward to working with him.2409    I would like to please ensure that the hearing record,2410questions for the record and any supporting information2411requested by the subcommittee are delivered in final form to us2412no later than 4 weeks from the time that you receive them.2413Members who have additional questions, and there may be, for2414the record will have until the close of business next Wednesday2415to provide them to the subcommittee. With that, the2416subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.2417    [Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]24182419    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]24202421                             W I T N E S S24222423                                                                   Page24242425Wright, Chris....................................................     124262427                                  [all]24282429                                  (i)