About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Energy Secretary Wright testifies on Trump’s budget request before Senate committee from PBS NewsHour, published April 21, 2026. The transcript contains 18,009 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"predictably immediately when demand is high and not just when conditions are most favorable. That shift is welcome and it was very necessary. The recent winter storm gave us a reminder of what's at stake because when demand spikes there's no margin for error. Either the system performs and it..."
[0:00] predictably immediately when demand is high and not just when conditions are most favorable.
[0:07] That shift is welcome and it was very necessary. The recent winter storm gave us a reminder of
[0:13] what's at stake because when demand spikes there's no margin for error. Either the system performs
[0:21] and it provides the energy at the moment it's needed to the degree that it's needed or it does
[0:26] not. I'm looking forward to hearing from you today on what has worked on and on what doesn't work
[0:35] and also on what changes are necessary before the next big test arrives because we never know when
[0:42] that next big test might occur. But there will be a next test and another one after that and an endless
[0:48] succession of other tests following that. The coming demand that people often speak of has in fact
[0:57] arrived and it won't wait for us to get comfortable. Data centers, advanced manufacturing, and the push
[1:04] for electrification are all factors that are driving demand even higher. If we're serious about competing
[1:11] in the global AI arms race and other energy intensive endeavors, we're going to need a lot more
[1:19] dependable power. Not intermittently, not when conditions are ideal or when they happen to cooperate,
[1:25] but when it's actually needed, at the moment it's needed. That brings me to the energy dominance
[1:32] financing authority authorized in the Working Family Tax Cuts Act Republicans passed last year. The
[1:39] program enables the Department of Energy to finance projects that restart idled infrastructure, increase
[1:47] output at existing facilities, and build new sources of baseload dispatchable power. It can support
[1:56] upgrading plants so that they produce more power, replacing retired infrastructure with new capacity,
[2:04] strengthening transmissions so electricity can actually move from where it's generated to where
[2:10] it's needed in the moment. I want to learn more about your vision for this program and about how you
[2:15] intend to keep it focused on projects that strengthen the grid rather than repeating the same old tired,
[2:21] rushed, last-minute decisions that have undermined confidence in the past and have led to grid on
[2:28] reliability. Secretary Wright, the task before us is demanding, to put it mildly. The United States needs
[2:36] an energy grid and an entire system that can meet rising demand without dependence on others to fill in the
[2:44] gaps. I have utmost confidence in you and your ability to get the job done, and I look forward to your
[2:51] testimony. So again, thank you again for being here, Mr. Secretary, and I'd like to recognize my friend and
[2:59] colleague, the ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Heinrich, for his opening statement.
[3:04] Thank you, Chairman Lee. Welcome, Secretary Wright. Over the past year, I have grown increasingly
[3:11] disappointed with the Department of Energy's actions under your leadership. When you came before this
[3:17] committee almost a year ago, I asked you if it was the case that political appointees were on review
[3:25] boards for the cancellation of $3.7 billion in awards. You responded, well, it's absolutely the case.
[3:33] Those are your words. Since then, it has become abundantly clear that politics are indeed calling the
[3:40] shots in your Department of Energy. Last October, DOE unlawfully canceled $8 billion in federal
[3:47] investments in 223 energy projects almost entirely in states with Democratic leadership. DOE then
[3:58] confirmed in federal court that the cancellations were based on whether a project was in a blue state.
[4:05] Satisfying a president's desire for political revenge or intimidation is not a lawful basis for
[4:12] terminating projects that were on track to help reduce soaring electricity prices. And a federal
[4:19] judge has already said as much ruling that these cancellations were unlawful and that they violated
[4:25] the Fifth Amendment. These cancellations on a political basis are a blatant betrayal of the communities,
[4:32] the workers, and the businesses who are counting on those investments to lower their energy costs.
[4:38] And now it is those communities, workers, and businesses who will pay the price regardless of
[4:43] their particular politics. Unfortunately, this budget reflects the same lack of concern for the real
[4:50] costs facing hardworking families trying to keep the lights on and their vehicles on the road.
[4:56] For example, this budget eliminates the Weatherization Assistance Program, which saves households
[5:02] on average $372 every year. It also rescinds $15.2 billion of infrastructure bill funding,
[5:11] congressionally directed funds that are ready to go out the door to support grid reliability
[5:17] and help reduce electricity prices. It cuts the Office of Science by 15 percent and it cuts ARPA-E by 43 percent,
[5:27] undermining the very innovation pipeline that makes the United States of America so competitive.
[5:34] And it eliminates the wind and solar offices entirely while cutting the critical minerals and energy
[5:39] innovation office by 64 percent. As electricity demand grows, we will not be able to meet the energy
[5:47] needs of new data centers and keep household bills stable if you restrict the growth of the sources of
[5:54] energy that are the cheapest and the fastest to build. This administration is also hurting families
[6:01] by holding back billions of congressionally appropriated funds that would help people save on
[6:07] their electricity bills. Congress appropriated $8.8 billion for home energy rebates to help families lower
[6:15] their utility bills through more efficient appliances and home upgrades. While 12 states have launched programs
[6:22] and are delivering real savings to their residents, the Department of Energy has stalled implementation for
[6:28] the remaining states, including those with approved applications, for over a year and a half. That's
[6:36] obstruction. And while these cost-saving programs are being obstructed, the Department is taking actions
[6:43] that actively raise prices. Under your leadership, DOE has abused emergency authority under Section 202 of the Federal
[6:52] Power Act to keep uneconomic fossil fuel plants online past their retirement dates. Half of these are not
[7:00] even generating electricity. And according to a recent report, keeping these plants open has cost Americans $275
[7:09] million and counting. That is not reliability. That is waste. And your department's insistence on propping
[7:17] up coal plants doesn't end there. You also are willfully defying congressional direction by redirecting
[7:25] funds for carbon capture toward subsidizing coal plants, raising serious concerns that the department
[7:32] may be violating the law. Secretary Wright, if you want to change the law, run for Congress. Until then,
[7:39] you have no right to ignore the direction of Congress. It is your responsibility to execute the law,
[7:46] and right now you are not faithfully executing the law. My concerns come at a moment when DOE's mission
[7:52] is more critical than ever. Not just here at home, but abroad. From global energy markets affected by the
[7:59] war in Iran to instability in Venezuela, the department's decisions have real consequences for energy prices and
[8:07] national security. Which makes the pattern we've seen over the past year all the more troubling. Because
[8:13] instead of lowering costs, strengthening our workforce and investing in energy infrastructure, too many of
[8:20] these decisions favor garnering cheap political points. Now, you and I may disagree on the path forward.
[8:27] I'm sure we will. But we ought to agree on this. Americans deserve lower energy costs. Americans deserve a
[8:36] Department of Energy that follows the law and executes the will of Congress. This budget and the actions that
[8:43] we've seen over the past year fall short of that standard. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. Secretary Wright,
[8:53] we'll now turn to you for your opening statement. The written statement that you've submitted to the
[8:57] committee will also be made part of the record. You may proceed. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich,
[9:03] and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the president's fiscal year
[9:09] 2027 budget for the Department of Energy. Under President Trump's leadership, we have put the
[9:15] Department back on mission, delivering reliable, affordable, and secure energy for the American
[9:22] people. Let me highlight what that looks like. We have taken decisive steps to restore grid reliability.
[9:31] Using emergency authorities under Section 202 of the Federal Power Act, we kept critical baseload
[9:37] generation online after DOE analysis warned outage risk could increase up to 100-fold by 2030 due to supply
[9:48] shortfalls. This action, and the market response to our action, preserved 17 gigawatts of critical
[9:55] dispatchable generation for the American people. Hundreds of American lives were saved by these actions
[10:02] during winter storm ferns. Historic cold drove record heating and electricity demand. Dispatchable energy,
[10:10] natural gas, coal, hydro, and nuclear were the MVPs of the grid. In New England, at peak demand,
[10:17] hydrocarbons, hydro, and nuclear provided 95 percent of power. Wind, solar, and batteries combined
[10:25] provided 2 percent less than burning wood and trash. The lesson? When reliability is on the line,
[10:33] dispatchable energy shows up. We have worked to establish American energy leadership globally.
[10:40] Since President Trump ended the previous administration's reckless LNG export approval ban,
[10:46] the Department has approved more than 19 BCF a day of new export authorizations,
[10:52] which is more than America's entire capacity on Inauguration Day last January. The United States
[10:58] is the global leader in LNG exports and will become even more dominant under President Trump's
[11:04] leadership. This is a win for America, a win for our allies, a win for global energy security,
[11:11] and a blow to our adversaries. We are advancing national security at home and abroad. From day one,
[11:19] President Trump has focused on delivering prosperity at home and peace abroad. Occasionally, power must be
[11:26] projected to create long-term peace. American national security is anchored by our nuclear deterrent.
[11:33] DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration is honored by this mission to ensure a safe, secure,
[11:39] and effective deterrent against new and evolving threats. Today, NNSA is delivering more new weapons,
[11:47] weapons, seven warhead modernization programs, and plutonium pits than any time since the Cold War.
[11:54] We are driving a nuclear power renaissance. Our efforts span next-generation reactor pilot programs,
[12:01] reestablishing American nuclear enrichment capacity, and domestic nuclear fuel fabrication,
[12:07] reprocessing, and a pathway to spent fuel permanent storage. I am proud to share that we will have
[12:13] multiple advanced reactor prototypes critical by America's 250th birthday. We are driving
[12:20] hard to meet President Trump's goal of quadrupling nuclear capacity to 400 gigawatts by 2050. This
[12:28] ensures nuclear energy will play a central role in powering America's reindustrialization and leadership
[12:34] in AI. Our budget request reaffirms our commitment to cleaning up nuclear waste in
[12:40] communities that carried the weight of America's earliest nuclear programs. We are bringing
[12:46] professional management and innovation to enhance cleanup efforts while seeking to redevelop cleaned
[12:52] up sites like Portsmouth, Paducah, Hanford, and others. We launched the Genesis mission to bring AI's
[13:00] immense promise to scientific and technological innovation. In our nation's history, we have seen two
[13:08] great scientific mobilizations – the World War II Manhattan Project and the Apollo Space Program.
[13:14] The Genesis mission is the third. Genesis mission is focused on the most difficult scientific challenges
[13:21] of our time – quantum computing, fusion energy, advanced materials development, and human health.
[13:27] We are partnering where industry alone cannot go, tackling long-term challenges that require national
[13:33] commitment, bringing together our national laboratories, universities, and private industry to accelerate
[13:40] scientific discovery. We are winning the AI race and lowering energy costs. By leveraging department-owned
[13:47] land and assets, we are enabling rapid deployment of large-scale compute capacity through public-private
[13:53] partnerships. We are working closely with industry and communities to ensure these projects adhere to the
[14:00] president's important ratepayers' protection pledge to rapidly expand our nation's electricity grid and
[14:06] end the Biden administration's ruinous rise in electricity prices. We are securing critical minerals. We have
[14:13] strategically reorganized the department, consolidating five offices into a single office of critical minerals
[14:20] and energy innovation. This creates one hub across DOE, the national labs, and external partners to manage the full supply
[14:28] chain from mining and processing to magnets and batteries. We have committed $1 billion in existing funding to
[14:35] strengthen domestic supply chains, reduce reliance on foreign adversaries, and reshore American manufacturing.
[14:42] We are restoring fiscal discipline. We inherited a department that prioritized political objectives
[14:49] over energy security. The restructured Office of Energy Dominance Financing is correcting that. We reviewed
[14:57] every loan commitment of taxpayer dollars, restructuring or eliminating over $80 billion in loans, more than
[15:04] 80 percent of the Biden-era loan portfolio, and are redirecting that capital toward projects that strengthen
[15:11] reliability and American energy production, including an historic $26 billion loan to the Southern Company that
[15:18] will lower costs and expand grid capacity in multiple states. Finally, we are preparing for the future.
[15:25] America is open for business again, and trillions of dollars are being invested in American infrastructure
[15:31] for manufacturing and AI data centers. Meeting this moment requires abundant, reliable, and secure energy,
[15:38] and that is exactly what this budget delivers. As Secretary of Energy, I'm honored to lead this effort
[15:43] for President Trump and to work with this committee to strengthen America's energy future.
[15:48] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We'll now proceed to five-minute rounds of questions. I will start,
[15:56] followed by Senator Heinrich, and then we'll go back and forth between Republicans and Democrats,
[16:00] in order of seniority, subject to the early bird rule.
[16:04] The Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General investigated the Biden administration's Loan
[16:09] Programs Office and some of the decisions that it made, particularly in that last period between
[16:17] the November 2024 election and January 20, 2025. And while no formal ethics charges were filed, the IG report
[16:31] that resulted from that inquiry does seem to substantiate that the prior director of the Loan Program Office
[16:40] violated standards of ethical conduct by giving preferential treatment to a friendly company,
[16:49] while also misusing his position in order to create the appearance of government sanction
[16:55] or endorsement of a clean energy group. His allegations are especially concerning, especially when you
[17:03] consider this point that we've mentioned before, that the Biden Department of Energy issued nearly $90
[17:10] billion in loan guarantees just between Election Day in 2024 and Inauguration Day in 2025.
[17:18] So what steps in the energy within your department is the Energy Dominance Financing Office taking
[17:27] in order to solicit loan guarantee applications without breaching these standards?
[17:32] So frankly, that track record you just laid out and digging into the details of those was quite alarming,
[17:39] very alarming to obligate $90 billion in sort of a rushed haphazard way. Let me let me point out one other
[17:46] thing, too. We have an excellent team at the Energy Dominance Financing Office right now, true
[17:52] professionals that have that have spent their careers lending money in a thoughtful, sober way so they can return
[17:58] money, get the money returned and have businesses advance. In all of the loans done in the four years of the Biden
[18:06] administration. We have yet to find one reference in loan documents, loan justifications about the cost of energy.
[18:15] None, none of the money was lent to reduce the price of energy for American consumers, which is pretty shocking
[18:23] for us as the United States Department of Energy. We have, of course, flipped part of your mission, isn't it?
[18:30] It's part of our mission. It's to me, it's it's part of the central mission of energy infrastructure is to
[18:36] make people's lives better by giving them affordable, reliable energy so they can afford to pay their
[18:41] bills. And so businesses can locate in your state, in your country and bring jobs and opportunities to
[18:47] the citizens there. So all of our loans are focused number one on will this deployment of capital lower the
[18:56] cost of energy and increase the available energy energy available for American citizens and businesses.
[19:03] So it's quite a different shop today. Thank you. Let's talk about Section 202 emergency orders.
[19:12] Your department has issued a number of them in this this past winter, keeping critical gas and coal
[19:17] generation online at moments when demand is peaking. Can you talk to us a little bit about this authority
[19:23] and about how important it is for maintaining reliability, especially when reliable coal,
[19:31] gas and nuclear units have been forced offline due to environmental regulations and a number of other
[19:37] policies that are favoring intermittent electric power generation rather than baseload firm power?
[19:44] Yeah, the previous administration and we've talked about it spent enormous amount of resources for
[19:49] energy electricity sources that work some of the time, but you're not sure when. But what we heard
[19:55] less about was they spent massive efforts to force the closure of reliable, dispatchable energy sources.
[20:03] Both legs of that stool is why electricity prices rose almost 30 percent under the Biden administration
[20:09] with no increase in electric production capacity. So one of the first things we did was study
[20:15] the electric grid and say, what's going to happen if we continue this trajectory going forward?
[20:21] There was a plan for another 100 gigawatts of dispatchable, meaning it's there when you need
[20:29] a capacity to be closed in the subsequent five years, and a plan to build only 22 billion, 22 gigawatts of
[20:35] replacement. So a net reduction of 78 gigawatts as artificial intelligence is arriving and reshoring
[20:42] of manufacturing. This analysis we did showed blackouts would be 100 times more likely five years from
[20:50] now, well, five years from last year, four years from now, than they were at that time. We've already
[20:55] seen after 100 years of the American electricity grid getting cheaper on an inflation-adjusted basis
[21:02] and more reliable, we've seen a reversal of these critical trends. Not just us, the National Energy
[21:10] Reliability Council described the American electric grid when we took office as a five-alarm fire.
[21:19] So not just 100 percent more likely, but 100 times, meaning 1,000 percent more likely?
[21:25] One hundred times. Meaning 10,000 times more likely.
[21:28] Yeah. Thank you. Senator Heinrich.
[21:30] Secretary Wright, on television earlier this week, you said that gas prices may not fall below $3 a gallon
[21:41] until 2027. Do you stand by that today?
[21:45] I don't know the future of energy prices. Often I will speculate or look at those things. I would
[21:51] say gasoline prices, looks like they peaked about a week or so ago, $1 a gallon cheaper than they peaked
[21:58] during the Biden administration. Yet we're in the midst of ending a 47-year conflict in the Middle East,
[22:04] a major energy producing region.
[22:06] It is over $4 a gallon. Is that a reasonable, do you think that's a good price for people to pay at
[22:14] the pump? Well, in contrast to the last administration, our goal is as low as possible of energy prices. And
[22:20] yes, we were proud to have gasoline prices below $2 a gallon earlier this year. And we look forward
[22:26] to getting them back there. What are they right now? Just over $4. And what is diesel? Diesel's over $5.
[22:35] It's closer to $6 in my state. It's over $8 in California. You've used emergency authority to
[22:44] keep thermal coal plants online. And in cases like Washington, Indiana, Colorado, those thermal coal
[22:55] plants are sitting idle. However, those utilities have already purchased replacement generation. So
[23:04] when they're ordered to stay online, effectively, customers are charged for the cost of maintaining
[23:11] those thermal coal facilities, plus they're charged for the price of replacement generation,
[23:17] because those utilities had to come up with replacement generation before they decided to retire
[23:22] those facilities. Is it appropriate to pass those costs on to consumers? Shouldn't the Department of
[23:29] Energy be responsible for those costs? $42 million in the case of the Michigan plant?
[23:36] It's hard to overstate the cost to health and businesses and consumers of blackouts. You mentioned
[23:44] the Michigan plant. The first one we issued- The state of Michigan and the utility in that case
[23:49] completely disagree with your conclusion that they were at risk. Days later, days later,
[23:57] after we kept the Campbell coal power plant running, it was running at maximum capacity and they were at
[24:03] the edge of a blackout. Northern MISO is one of the most at risk regions there is. That plant has run
[24:10] over that entire summer, above average for all assets on the grid. It was critical to their grid.
[24:16] How often has the Colorado plant run?
[24:18] The Colorado plant is in western Colorado and it's in a region that suffers with transmission bottlenecks.
[24:25] If that plant is not there, if a peak demand event comes to that region, they're at high risk of blackout.
[24:32] We want the lights to stay on.
[24:33] I want the lights. Reliability is not negotiable. However,
[24:38] I've had co-ops come and complain about those costs being passed on to them
[24:44] when the replacement generation has already been purchased. So my concern is if you're going to
[24:53] declare an emergency, should you be able to pass those costs on to the customer?
[24:59] The benefits go on to the customers as well. Let me explain Senator Heinrich one other point.
[25:07] We've used 202Cs for a certain number of gigawatts of coal. A much larger increment of coal slated coal
[25:15] closures were not closed because the utilities and everyone got the message.
[25:19] Oh, you're going to have our back because state and other politicians were forcing us to close
[25:24] assets. We don't want to close. You're going to cover us. We're not going to close them then.
[25:28] Well, I don't think it was politicians that decided to close the plant in Colorado. I think it was the
[25:33] the utility. The Department of Energy appears to have also repurposed funds that Congress
[25:40] appropriated specifically for carbon capture, also to subsidize coal-fired power plants.
[25:49] What statutory authority allows you to move those dollars? I couldn't find anything in the statute
[25:56] that allowed those to be reallocated. What are you, what's the authority you're using to reallocate
[26:01] those funds? So we have continued to look at proposals for carbon capture on coal plants. When we,
[26:07] when we find one or ones that, that make economic sense, we will deploy those funds,
[26:12] but we can't deploy carbon capture fund on coal plants that are closed and gone. So yes, these were
[26:18] funds targeted enhancing coal plants. We're enhancing them to keep them open. But if you, if you want to
[26:23] spend those funds on keeping those plants open, you need funds that are authorized to keep those plants
[26:29] open, which does not exist. So you're, you're changing the authority without any statutory basis.
[26:36] They're funds that are dedicated to enhancing the operations of coal plants, and we're deploying
[26:42] them to enhance the operation of coal plants. I think you're on very thin legal ice. Senator Hoeven.
[26:53] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary, thanks for being here and appreciate your service very much.
[26:58] The, the shale play has helped take this country from domestic production of oil from about 5 million
[27:05] barrels a day to about almost 14 million barrels a day. We all know how important that is.
[27:12] When I started as governor in 2000, we started a real push to crack the code on the Bakken
[27:18] shale play to produce oil from the Bakken shale. You, of course, were one of the pioneers there. And you
[27:24] and others made it happen. And you know, we see that result. And so again, energy security is national
[27:33] security. And we want to continue to produce more energy here at home from all sources, oil, gas, coal,
[27:39] renewables, everything, right? Nuclear. It's just in the interest of our country, both
[27:44] from a security standpoint and from an economic standpoint. Now we find ourselves in a situation
[27:51] where we need to do it again. What we're seeing is that without enhanced oil recovery and the shale
[27:56] plays, we're starting to decline. We drove, for example, in North Dakota, we drove our production up
[28:02] from less than 100,000 barrels a day, up to 1.5 million barrels a day. I mean, that rivals some
[28:08] of the OPEC countries, okay, just North Dakota. But now we're sliding back, we're down about 1.1
[28:13] million barrels a day. And we need to use enhanced oil recovery, because we're only getting about 10%
[28:21] out of that shale rock, only about 10% of all that's in place, billions of barrels there. And we can do it
[28:27] with enhanced oil recovery. So we're embarked on that. And one of the key ways we can do it helps with
[28:32] the very issue that you and the ranking member just got done talking about, dispatchable coal-fired
[28:37] electricity. We take the CO2 off the coal plants, extending the life of those coal plants. We put
[28:43] it down whole for EOR and we double our production. North Dakota, we've produced about 6 billion
[28:48] barrels. We can easily produce another 6 billion and more. That would still only be less than 25%
[28:53] of the oil out of the rock. So we've got to crack the code 2.0. That is the major initiative in our
[29:00] state right now. That is a major initiative that I am determined to drive in our state. And if it
[29:03] works in North Dakota, it's going to work on the Eagleford and the Permian, places like Texas,
[29:09] Owen, New Mexico, and in places like the Marcellus Shale, Pennsylvania and Ohio. We need to do that.
[29:15] We have a huge demonstration project showing we can do this at scale. So we've got these small
[29:20] projects we've shown we can do it. But we've got a large demonstration project now in North Dakota.
[29:26] We've got about five companies participating. We have the state of North Dakota participating.
[29:31] And we have you at DOE participating. And we're going to show we can do it at scale. We're using
[29:36] rich gas, migrating to CO2. And again, then using the 45Q tax credit and others want to be doing this
[29:43] with our coal-fired electric plants and our oil and gas companies. And this can take us to the whole
[29:48] next level. And you are a key player right in the middle of it. You've been out there to our Energy
[29:52] Environmental Research Center. You've seen it. You're helping us drive this. We've worked through
[29:58] the project. I'm also on the Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, as well as this authorizing
[30:04] committee. Notified by OMB, they've signed off. And it's been sent up to Congress now for the 30-day
[30:12] congressional notification. That happened on April 2. So we're looking as of May 2, we should be able to
[30:17] jump on this thing and go forward and make it happen. I want you to talk about that for a minute
[30:25] or two. I think this is a huge, huge thing, not just for our state, but for the country.
[30:30] And you are a key player in making it happen. Senator, I agree very much with your comment.
[30:36] You put it as you do with heart and passion in the context centered in North Dakota. But you're right.
[30:42] It's not only gigantic for North Dakota, it's gigantic for the United States of America.
[30:46] The shale revolution transformed the energy situation of our country in both oil and natural
[30:52] gas and natural gas liquids. We need that next generation shale revolution to increase recovery.
[31:00] As you call it, Bakken 2.0. I love the name. I think it's spot on. I started my career working in oil and
[31:07] gas production in California in the 80s in fields that started producing in the 1910s. And they were
[31:14] continually reinvented with different technologies. Yes, California used to be our largest oil producer.
[31:21] Forty percent of American oil at one point came from California. Today, it's only two percent.
[31:26] They've gone the wrong direction. In North Dakota and New Mexico have gone the right direction with new
[31:34] new energy technology, shale production changing the game. But you're right. We need a shale 2.0. We need
[31:40] to figure out enhanced recovery to increase that recovery out of shales and tight rocks. We're
[31:46] starting that in the Bakken shale right there. And you make another great point to close the discussion
[31:51] I had briefly with Senator Heinrich. If we can figure out CO2 as a major player in enhanced oil recovery,
[31:58] we add and it closes the loop economically on carbon capture from coal plants that now they become viable.
[32:06] So the plant can continue to run in the long run, both generating a reduced amount of electricity because
[32:11] the energy to capture the CO2. But that captured CO2 adds lots of economic value and everybody wins right on.
[32:18] And I'm the kind of person that never says, whoa, in a horse race. And New Mexico has edged a little
[32:25] bit ahead of North Dakota in daily barrels of oil production. And we've got to reclaim that lead.
[32:31] I know Texas is out pretty far ahead, probably not going to catch them, but we are hot behind New
[32:37] Mexico. So if you know anybody from New Mexico, let them know that we're looking to overtake them again.
[32:42] Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your very important efforts.
[32:45] Thank you, Senator. Senator Wyden.
[32:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wright, last year, energy demand, you said repeatedly it's about people
[33:02] and math. Now, a few months later, you and the president threw most of the clean energy tax credits
[33:10] in the garbage can and took a wrecking ball to solar and wind energy projects. So here's my question.
[33:20] When energy demand is up, supply is tight, manufacturing is down and utility costs are
[33:31] going through the rough. Why would you continue this ideological crusade against clean energy that
[33:40] clearly is not working? So, Senator, thanks for reminding me of my words last year that energy is
[33:48] about humans and math. And that's exactly why the Republicans in this administration has followed
[33:55] those policies. Because if you look at the 28 states across the country that have renewable portfolio
[34:01] standards, which means mandates for a certain amount of wind and solar and mandates to close reliable
[34:08] capacity, those states on average have 50 percent higher electricity prices than the other 22 states
[34:14] that haven't followed those policies. There's a role for wind and solar. There is a role. But when
[34:20] it's mandated, forced and subsidized- Well, what would you do to have a role for wind and solar today?
[34:27] I mean, you're saying there's a role. Why not? We had a role with clean energy tax credits,
[34:32] and the private sector loved the fact that they were technologically neutral. They were voluntary.
[34:38] There were no mandates. And you all pulled that up by the roots over the opposition of people in
[34:44] natural gas of all industries who said, look, we love gas, but we also need renewable clean energy.
[34:50] And you pulled it up. So why don't you do something now? The subsidies, the production tax credit,
[34:56] for example, for wind power pays from the federal government four cents per kilowatt hour of
[35:03] production that comes from a wind turbine. What happens when the wind blows right now? The wind picks up.
[35:08] There's more wind power. We turn down natural gas plants, which are the firming agent in the grid
[35:14] almost everywhere else. And we save two cents in reduced natural gas price. We pay a four cent subsidy
[35:21] and save two cents. And then we have the utility pays its compensation to the wind power company.
[35:29] Those subsidies have distorted our electricity market.
[35:31] But what you are describing is fiction. It's fact.
[35:35] The natural gas industry said publicly in big speeches they wanted clean energy because of demand
[35:42] and AI and you turn them down. My second question is this. It deals with wildfire and grid resilience.
[35:49] My home state is looking right now at one of the toughest white fire seasons in modern history. It's documented
[35:56] that outdated power infrastructure is a major factor in these wildfires. I think we would agree with that.
[36:02] Yes.
[36:02] I wrote the disaster safe power grid law in 2021 to maintain and improve existing power lines
[36:10] and lower wildfire risk. It passed into law with the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
[36:15] But over the last year, and this is where I'm just baffled by what you're doing, you all held up on
[36:21] funding for many of those projects. You kept it locked in a government bank account
[36:27] instead of distributing it to communities that are working hard to deal with this record,
[36:32] what looks like a record fire season. Will you let those go and actually let us help our communities?
[36:40] Yeah, absolutely. We've worked hard to evaluate all of the projects that are in grid resilience,
[36:47] grid improvement, grid expansion. We've gone forward with lots of them. We've modified other
[36:52] ones. We share your passion and your interest to make our grid more reasonable.
[36:56] When can I have a list of the projects you will let go in the next few weeks? Because this is urgent
[37:02] business. Can you give me a list within two weeks of the projects you will let go now?
[37:06] I believe we released a list 10 days ago or whatever of all those projects, but we will get you
[37:12] all of the ones specific to the Northwest delivered to your office in the very near term.
[37:16] The next two weeks?
[37:17] Yeah, absolutely.
[37:18] All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[37:19] Thank you, Senator.
[37:20] Senator Barrasso.
[37:21] Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. Great to see you again.
[37:23] Mr. Secretary, I'm so grateful you visited Wyoming. You're always welcome there. We love when you come.
[37:28] You know about our abundant energy resources, our skilled workers. We are America's energy breadbasket.
[37:34] Our energy resources are essential to unlocking American energy security, ingenuity, affordability. And I did
[37:40] want to ask about the Department of Energy's efforts to unleash American coal production. Can you talk a little bit
[37:45] about that and what?
[37:46] Yes, you bet. Look, coal, most of my life, people love to hate coal. And as a person who, as Senator
[37:57] Wyden just pointed out, who believes that energy is about people and math, I look at where the world
[38:02] gets energy, how that changes with time. Coal has been the largest source of global electricity since the
[38:09] data began. We have pretty good data starting in the year 1900. Coal is 125 and zero in how many years they
[38:18] have led the world in electricity production. I'm pretty confident coal will lead the world in global
[38:23] electricity production when I die. So coal is critically important to the world. In the United States, for
[38:30] most all of American history, it was the largest source of electricity generation in the United States.
[38:35] It has been attacked by politics, by government, by regulations, some of them towards clean air. I can support
[38:42] those. Most of them were really just trying to strangle an industry coal. I will point out in this cold storm
[38:49] fern that we had in the east, the two things that kept the lights on and kept people alive were natural gas and coal.
[38:57] Nuclear played a central role. It was unimpacted by the weather where wind and solar went on vacation.
[39:03] Nuclear was rock steady. But coal electric production rose 25 percent during that storm versus the same week
[39:11] a year ago. And natural gas rose also. That's why we kept people alive. If we had closed those coal plants
[39:17] slated to close, people would have died. We pushed the grid to the edge. Coal kept things alive and around.
[39:24] So, of course, we're looking at projects where there's existing coal infrastructure that want to
[39:30] make some upgrades. We're getting co-funding with the partners where they're funding the larger chunk
[39:35] of the money. And we're matching their money to extend the life of these coal plants. If we don't
[39:39] extend the life of these coal plants, we will continue to have ruinous rises in our electricity prices.
[39:45] We will not be able to meet the challenge of reshore manufacturing and A.I. Coal is central,
[39:51] central to global energy and critical to American energy.
[39:55] Can I ask you also then about what we're doing to expand rare earth mining in the United States?
[40:00] Yes, it was one of the reasons I was in your great state of Wyoming that that among these coal seams are
[40:06] significant deposits of rare earth elements.
[40:10] And, of course, you have to have both the elements in place and you have to have a state
[40:14] where you have an environment where you can permit things and move forward. And, of course, Wyoming
[40:18] checks those boxes as a great state to do business in where you can deploy funds and energy.
[40:24] We have, through our Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation Office,
[40:28] a number of partnership progress. The Department of War has a lot of projects.
[40:32] In fact, we have a whole of administration effort trying to figure out how we can quickly
[40:38] stand up a supply chain in our country of mining, a number of which will be done in your state of
[40:43] Wyoming, processing of those, manufacturing of magnets. China has just had a stranglehold over the
[40:49] United States in this area. Everything with a button on it, every device with a button on it has
[40:56] rare earth elements inside it. We get almost all of those from China, even the little bit we mine in
[41:02] California. We were sending to China to process. We need to reverse and we need to change that,
[41:07] and we are hard at work at that task.
[41:09] You mentioned the word permitting, and this committee has been working on that. We had
[41:13] previously we have a chairman and ranking member committed to that. I think it would be a big win
[41:18] for everyone. A key goal for me is eliminating administrative barriers and unleashing our energy
[41:23] production. I think it has to provide certainty for people that apply for permits in order to really
[41:29] spur the domestic energy development we need. How do you view as what do you view as a top priority in
[41:33] permitting reform? We've got to make it easier to build things in America, build big things in
[41:41] America. And my choice is businesses should choose what they want to build. I don't believe that's the
[41:46] government's choice, but we need to make it easier for businesses to get permits to build big things in
[41:52] America. Certainly one of the things that's hurt our energy system the most recently has been the
[41:57] inability to build interstate natural gas pipelines. These are 401 water permits. The six states of New
[42:04] England pay wildly higher heating and electricity prices than they should because one state, the
[42:10] state of New York, decided not to give this water permit to two critical pipelines eight years ago.
[42:16] I believe we will get those two pipelines under construction and hopefully completed in this
[42:20] administration. You need permitting a short, a reasonable window of what time to get a permit,
[42:27] and then you need certainty when you get permits. We need bipartisans. We need Republicans and
[42:31] Democrats to come together to make it happen. It's critical for our country.
[42:34] Appreciate it, Mr. Secretary. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
[42:37] Thank you, Senator Barrasso. Senator King.
[42:40] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To follow up on Senator Barrasso's questions,
[42:46] you feel that certainty is important in permitting and that's an important quality. We need to be able to
[42:52] move permitting faster. That's correct, isn't it? Yes. How do you feel about offshore wind projects
[42:59] being canceled that were fully permitted, fully financed and under construction? What does that say
[43:06] about certainty for investment? So there's, I'll come back, there's some complexities to that issue,
[43:13] Senator, both with national security concerns with drones that we learned more recently on the wars.
[43:19] Isn't that a risk of the developer? It's, it's a risk I think we need to manage with the developer,
[43:26] just to understand, just to make sure we're not introducing a critical vulnerability of our East
[43:31] Coast population. But to your, to your broader point, yes, Senator, I believe that we need the
[43:37] parties to come together, we need a robust dialogue about that, and we need to deliver more certainty.
[43:42] And if you as a former developer, the idea of getting all your permits going through all the process,
[43:46] getting your financing, being under construction, and then suddenly having the government say,
[43:49] you can't do this, you wouldn't like that very much if you were in that position. Is that correct?
[43:54] That's correct. Okay. You've spent a lot of time this morning disparaging wind and solar and
[44:02] interruptible power. The market doesn't seem to agree with you. This year, according to the Energy
[44:08] Information Administration, we're talking about increases in capacity, electrical capacity
[44:16] predictions, 51% wind, 28% battery storage, I'm sorry, 51% solar, 28% battery storage, 11% wind,
[44:31] natural gas six. In other words, the market is saying solar, wind, and storage are where the action
[44:36] is. And I would commend to you an article in Forbes on February 26, talking about Texas. No subsidies,
[44:43] pure economics, and they've gone from, let's see, solar 2% in 2020 to 14% in 2025. Storage has doubled
[44:53] in the last year and a half. That's the market telling us these technologies work and are economic.
[45:01] We're not talking about Texas as being a blue state and lots of climate concerns. This is pure economics.
[45:09] Well, there's two responses to that. Well, one was there's huge subsidies in place for the building
[45:16] of wind and solar that are still in place. They have, if you start a project today and you finish
[45:21] it in the next two years, you're going to get 10 years of subsidies. So yes, there's very strong
[45:25] federal subsidies that have encouraged this build out of wind and solar. Anything that's going into
[45:31] service this year was started during the Biden administration, where basically the only thing you
[45:36] could get permits for to build were wind, solar, and batteries. So there's a lot of distortions in
[45:41] that data. I think if you look at where new capital is going, you're going to see a very different
[45:46] survey. You'll see natural gas is by far the lead. You'll see nuclear merging. You'll see solar still
[45:52] as a significant player and storage as a significant player as well. So Senator King, our views overlap a lot.
[45:58] Absolutely, there's roles for multiple energy sources. My passion is to get rid of the market-distorting
[46:05] subsidies for intermittent resources. Let them compete in the marketplace and some of them will
[46:09] still go on. We'll see what the marketplace responds. We'll have this other conversation in another year
[46:14] or so. Yes. Here's my concern about the budgets. Budgets are policy. And some of the cuts that are
[46:21] made in your budget are concerning basic research, 15 percent cut. Fracking came out of basic research at
[46:30] the Department of Energy. The federal government is uniquely positioned to support basic research that
[46:37] doesn't have an immediate commercial payoff. And it just concerns me that there are cuts in that,
[46:43] in ARPA-E, 43 percent cut, cuts to CSER, which is, as you know, the grid reliability.
[46:53] Those cuts just, to me, don't make any sense. They're in the wrong places.
[46:56] So in the science budget, I think you were referring to at the start, there actually is
[47:01] no proposed cut. It's just part of it is in AI and quantum computing. The science budget is
[47:06] breaking into two pieces. Our request for the science budget is basically, I think, up one percent
[47:12] from last year. I agree with you. It's critically important and I want to work with you on that.
[47:17] For ARPA-E, our budget request this year is up like one percent from last year. It's below
[47:25] the actual enacted last year. You worked with us to plus that up. I hope you'll do that again with us
[47:32] this year, too. So I share your passion about basic science. I don't want to shrink that.
[47:37] About high risk early stage projects in ARPA-E, I'm a believer in those things as well. And the
[47:44] CSER office also very important. I think it's more visual than not real cuts proposed to CSER as well.
[47:50] Well, we can pursue those numbers. When I see less dollars this year than last year,
[47:57] I'd call that a cut. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Thanks, Senator King. Senator
[48:02] Cassidy, you're next. Hey, Mr. Secretary, how are you? I'm very well, Senator. Great to see you.
[48:09] My state manufactures steel, aluminum fertilizer, and as we both know, it spends thousands of dollars
[48:15] complying with the Clean Air Act standards for SOX, NOx particulate matter. We've made this investment.
[48:21] They make some of the cleanest industrial products in the world. But China will not enforce those
[48:27] regulations, may lower their manufacturing costs by as much as 20%. Our jobs move there. Their
[48:34] economy is stronger. They use that strong economy to support their military. It is a bad cycle.
[48:41] Now, to make it worse, there's at least 85 counties in the United States designated as non-attainment,
[48:48] as being a non-attainment, partly due to foreign-produced pollution. Chinese pollution contributes
[48:55] between 8% and 28% of the sulfur dioxide found in the Western United States. So it's the worst of all
[49:01] worlds. They get our jobs, economic growth to support their military. We get the pollution,
[49:06] and our counties are in non-attainment, so they cannot address, they cannot increase industrial
[49:12] development because they're in non-attainment from people polluting across the Pacific.
[49:15] Yes. Yes. So, can the national labs, let me start over. I have a Foreign Emissions Fee Act,
[49:27] which tasked DOE with providing the technical expertise to calculate emissions intensity
[49:35] for covered products. In medicine, there's an adage, that which is measured is addressed. When we measure it,
[49:43] eight to 26% of sulfur dioxide is coming from overseas to our counties, it should be addressed.
[49:50] So, can the national labs do this with existing resources, or do they require new investment?
[49:57] I believe we can do this with existing resources, and we are already in dialogues and efforts to get
[50:03] these things going. I love your comment about that, which is measured is addressed. In my home state of
[50:10] Colorado several years ago, they decided to stop considering the flowing in from other states of
[50:18] emissions into Colorado. Why did they decide to do that? Those pollutants are just as real as any others,
[50:25] because it allowed more regulation of industry and more reduction of business activities.
[50:33] It's leading to this unvirtuous cycle you talk about. You just export your industry to somewhere else,
[50:37] with less pollution controls. Ultimately, you add to pollution, and you export your jobs.
[50:43] So, I share your passion for this topic. It really rips off the working American,
[50:48] who is counting on that economic development. Now, as the department develops a methodology for
[50:53] measuring intensity, emissions intensity, or we get in the full picture, we know that SOx and NOx,
[51:03] particulate matter, is, if you will, in an ecosystem that includes carbon.
[51:08] Now, if you take care of one, you sometimes lower the other. In fact, you almost always lower the other,
[51:13] with if you're using coal, for example, as a feedstock, not necessarily natural gas. We both know that.
[51:18] But still, so to what degree can we be sure that the methodology is getting the full picture of that
[51:26] which is involved here? Yes, and you're right. It's complicated. And states and the federal government
[51:33] have used pollution regulations now really to go after greenhouse gas emissions. They've turned them
[51:40] so low that it's not going to change the ambient background pollution in our states and in our air,
[51:47] but they do it because it is another way to have a backdoor carbon tax in our country. I know you're
[51:53] talking about the other side. How can we more accurately count what happens overseas in their
[51:59] production of things, both pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions? It is a complicated topic because
[52:05] you have to follow the supply chain. So when we spend so much money controlling these emissions
[52:11] and they don't, we are putting ourselves at an economic disadvantage. Economic disadvantage and
[52:17] an air quality disadvantage because the emissions- And a national security disadvantage.
[52:22] And all of the above. So our foreign emissions fee uses right now carbon as a surrogate for these other
[52:30] matters. Yes. Okay, so instead of trying to have, okay, this for SOX and that for NOX and that's for
[52:35] particulate matter, we say, okay, this is a fellow traveler. Let's address the fellow traveler as we do
[52:41] this. It's the flip side of what you just said. They're going after a particular matter to go after this. No,
[52:46] if we measure that, which we are already doing, and we've already, as we both know, decreased our carbon
[52:51] emissions lower in absolute amounts relative to 1995. So that's a playing to our advantage. Any
[52:59] thoughts about using this, which the labs are developing in terms of implementing, giving the
[53:04] president the power to assess a fee on the emissions from overseas from not using internationally accepted
[53:12] standards of controlling pollution? So I share your passion to reshore manufacturing in this country
[53:18] and ultimately have significant environmental benefits by doing it as well, by producing things
[53:23] in with tighter environmental regulations, then exporting it to areas that don't care about those
[53:28] pollutants. And of course, they circle the globe. So I share absolutely your mission and want to
[53:34] continue to work with you on your particular mechanism for the way to achieve that. But you and I are very
[53:39] aligned on this issue. And it's important. It's not being addressed today. It's important. And we've
[53:44] continued to outsource energy intensive manufacturing out of our country. And no one wins by it.
[53:50] Sounds good. Thank you. I yield. Thanks, Senator Cassidy. Senator Gallego, you're up next.
[53:55] Thank you, Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich for holding today's hearing. And thank you,
[53:59] Secretary Wright for attending. As we review this proposal, I want to start with a few top priorities
[54:03] for me, the affordability for American families, transparency and how taxpayer dollars will be spent.
[54:07] And of all the above all the plan that utilizes the full range of resources available to us in this
[54:12] country. This budget proposal contains significant plans to restructure the agency and impose reductions
[54:18] to non-defense energy programs. That makes it especially important for us in Congress and the
[54:22] public to have a clear understanding of what your priorities are and how these programs will be
[54:27] administered. And as energy bills continue to rise, unfortunately, especially as gas skyrockets during
[54:32] this ill-conceived war, we definitely need to know how every energy dollar is being spent and it's being
[54:37] spent wisely. So I echo the comments of my colleagues around removing political decision-making
[54:41] unfunded attacks on energy sources like wind and solar that could bring these costs down quickly.
[54:46] So a couple questions for you, Secretary. A recent change to the DOE's authorization of nuclear reactors
[54:52] for DOE's nuclear power programs are meant to streamline efforts to demonstrate new reactor designs,
[54:57] which I am 100 percent for. But there are concerns that DOE has made these changes without adequate
[55:02] transparency and that they may undermine overall public safety. Also, there's been no explanation of the
[55:07] review process, no insight into what staff compromise review team that led this effort,
[55:12] and no IDing of any additional steps DOE would take to resolve potential conflicts that could arise
[55:18] from these changes. When will DOE provide a public explanation of what changes have been made,
[55:23] why they have been made, and how they impact the overall safety to uphold the public trust in nuclear energy?
[55:28] Thank you for the great question, Senator. And we should hold a briefing for you and for any
[55:35] others that want to hear what have we done with nuclear regulations. One thing I should say here,
[55:41] for sure, is it's been hand in hand with the NRC. We've detailed over roughly 10 people from the
[55:48] Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the DOE to work with us on the certifications we're doing for these
[55:55] research and test reactors, the reactors that will go critical this year. So it is a collaborative effort
[56:01] with NRC. It is not, you know, reckless and fast moving and behind closed doors. It is highly technical.
[56:07] So I apologize if we haven't communicated very clearly what we're doing, but we would love to get together with you and any other senators
[56:15] interested in that and walk you through the decisions we're making and how we're doing it.
[56:19] Well, from my from what I understand in talking to my colleagues, it's a fairly, you have a fairly bipartisan consensus that we want to see nuclear be built, be fast, be permitted. And we want it to be done, obviously,
[56:29] safely. So, you know, if you can do either a, a hearing or briefing for all of us that are interested, or two, if you'd like to explain those changes, maybe with the next 90 days through correspondence, to be very clear, so we could all look through it.
[56:43] I think that'd be greatly appreciated because, again, you have probably for the first time in quite a while bipartisan support for nuclear energy. We want to be able to go out there and talk about how this is potentially a win for America. But we actually need also to be able to work with our colleagues, our constituents, who are
[56:59] probably worried about some of the changes, how they're made, what the thought process is. And the more information we have, the better we could be in assisting you there.
[57:06] Secondary question, it's very specific to Arizona. We have 22 federally recognized tribes. I want to talk about the Office of Indian Energy.
[57:13] The stated goal of this office is to expand the development of energy and federally recognized tribes, which is very important. Some of my tribes still do not have, you know, many of the houses do not have electricity.
[57:22] Your proposal slashes the office budget by 33%, however. The justification for this office to focus on affordable, reliable, and secure energy infrastructure.
[57:30] If the department is telling tribes what kind of energy sources they should be focusing on, while also cutting funding for tribal energy, doesn't that conflict with the self-determination and sovereignty principles that you can support?
[57:40] And why aren't tribes allowed to determine and develop what energy sources work best for them? Because in some areas of Arizona, we need distributed energy.
[57:49] It's too far, too expensive to put down a line. In some areas, it can be carbon-based. But, you know, I think giving them the sovereignty to figure that out is important.
[57:58] But number two, if they don't have the resources and the backup and the staffing technical assistance, when you're slashing the budget of the Office of Indian Energy by 33%, that's not going to be feasible.
[58:10] Like, there's no alignment in what you're claiming you want and what the outcomes are going to come from the tribal communities.
[58:16] No, I share your concerns there. This is a lifelong passion for me is getting access to bringing energy to disadvantaged communities or remote communities, as you said, that are off the grid.
[58:28] We need to be able to bring solutions and bring a partnership with that. And the efforts with Indian Energy have been a significant disappointment. Very few, not just our administration, but the previous administration.
[58:41] We've just not been successful at finding projects, funding projects and making them happen. I'd love to work with you on that. I'd love nothing more.
[58:48] I don't disagree with that. But if we're going to move forward, slashing the kind of the 33% support, especially for the technical advice, is going to be harder.
[58:57] And, yes, there can be smarter ways to build energy, build it faster. But if you're cutting the one-third of the capability for them to actually be able to lean on some of that effort,
[59:06] I think you're basically creating a scenario that's going to not have good outcomes. And I'd love to make sure that we change that direction of that.
[59:13] No, I understand your concerns. Look forward to following up on that. Thank you.
[59:19] Okay. Senator Hirono, you're next.
[59:22] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[59:27] Secretary Wright, to negotiate a resolution to the war that President Trump started with the Iran illegal war,
[59:36] he has sent Vice President Vance, Steve Witkoff, who is a real estate developer and the president's special envoy,
[59:43] along with the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who leads his investment firm managing billions in assets from Saudi Arabia.
[59:51] And none of these three people have expertise on nuclear energy or nuclear weapons,
[59:56] and they are supposed to be negotiating a new nuclear deal with Iran, right?
[1:00:02] So is anyone from the Department of Energy going to be in the room with the Iranians,
[1:00:06] while the vice president and the others are negotiating a new nuclear deal with Iran?
[1:00:12] Thank you for the question, Senator.
[1:00:14] We are in contact with all three of the parties you mentioned on the nuclear issue,
[1:00:20] what would be required, how we might implement such a deal.
[1:00:23] So we are absolutely involved in that process and have been from the start.
[1:00:27] Is there a name? Is there somebody with expertise from the Energy Department who is constantly in touch?
[1:00:34] Who is this person?
[1:00:35] Well, the number one of that person is me.
[1:00:38] We have a background in nuclear as well, but people on our nonproliferation team have been engaged as well.
[1:00:44] In fact, we have a special team that is focused on solutions to the Iran situation, depending upon which way it goes.
[1:00:52] Does anybody have the kind of expertise that Secretary Ernie Marnese had when he participated in the JCPOA?
[1:01:00] Absolutely, absolutely.
[1:01:02] Who?
[1:01:03] Our whole team of nuclear nonproliferation of weapons.
[1:01:08] You can see by my questions that I have some major skepticism about it because these negotiations took a long time.
[1:01:17] It took a number of countries and it was just immediately torn up by the president.
[1:01:22] Moving on.
[1:01:24] Hawaii is increasing its use of renewables to find cheaper and cleaner sources of power because Hawaii people pay among the highest, if not the highest, for energy.
[1:01:33] The highest.
[1:01:34] And you're nodding. Thank you for acknowledging that.
[1:01:37] And our utility customers on Oahu have been warned to expect power bills to rise up to 30% over the next several months due to the higher oil prices from President Trump's war of choice.
[1:01:52] And that is a $40 to $60 higher power bill every month for an average customer on top of record amounts that we also pay probably the most at the pump, if not the most, for gasoline.
[1:02:07] Did you understand the harmful impact on energy prices for consumers in Hawaii and the rest of the country and parts of the world, as a matter of fact, before the president launched his illegal war against Iran?
[1:02:22] Absolutely, Senator.
[1:02:26] Iran has been a threat to global energy supplies for 47 years.
[1:02:30] I think it was very clear eyed that to solve this problem.
[1:02:33] But Mr. Secretary, a lot of the energy that is provided is through the Strait of Hormuz, which was open and now it's closed.
[1:02:42] Cause and effect, rising prices of oil, rising prices of energy.
[1:02:47] Is that something that you did not contemplate happening before the president declared his illegal war?
[1:02:53] No, we knew exactly what would happen.
[1:02:55] It doesn't seem like it because the president doesn't know how to end this war.
[1:02:59] How do we reopen the straits?
[1:03:01] I think the war and the president's effort-
[1:03:03] Are you telling me you have a handle on this?
[1:03:05] Repeat the question, please, Senator.
[1:03:07] Are you telling me that you are involved in opening the Strait of Hormuz?
[1:03:12] So that the energy prices, which are directly impacted by the closure of the strait, is going to ease?
[1:03:21] Are you directly involved in making that happen?
[1:03:25] Look, I'm the primary energy advisor to the president and have been discussing the Iran situation,
[1:03:31] potential solutions to the Iran situation since the day I was sworn in.
[1:03:35] You mentioned that you have some background in nuclear.
[1:03:40] I didn't know that.
[1:03:41] I thought you were the CEO of an oil company.
[1:03:45] But be that as it may, there's no end in sight with this, what I would call the illegal war.
[1:03:54] You know, the reference of the war of choice, what is that?
[1:03:57] It's an illegal war that the president declared.
[1:04:00] And where is the end here?
[1:04:02] Are oil prices going to go down?
[1:04:05] Are people going to be able to look to the lowering of gasoline prices?
[1:04:09] When you have people to fill up their cars, it now costs like $50, $60 more.
[1:04:14] You see, that's something that people cannot sustain.
[1:04:18] I agree with you.
[1:04:19] Energy prices are higher than they've been before right now.
[1:04:22] They're still more than a dollar a gallon cheaper than they were during the peak in the Biden administration.
[1:04:27] And we're fixing a 47-year problem in the Middle East that would increase the security of energy supplies after this war than before the war.
[1:04:36] Frankly, that is really hard to believe.
[1:04:40] Thank you.
[1:04:42] Thank you, Senator.
[1:04:44] Senator Padilla.
[1:04:45] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[1:04:48] Welcome, Secretary.
[1:04:49] I want to just jump straight in and get to the bottom of a few things, because ever since your first appearance before the committee as part of your confirmation hearing,
[1:05:00] you, the administration as a whole, has talked a big game, declaring a golden era of energy dominance.
[1:05:09] And I recall a commitment or prioritization that you shared with us of exhilarating scientific capabilities.
[1:05:18] But I contrast that rhetoric with the realities of the proposed budget, which seems to undermine those claims.
[1:05:26] So, Secretary Wright, you have said that our labs, our national labs, are the forefront of innovation and the gemstone of our department.
[1:05:35] Do you still believe that, yes or no?
[1:05:39] Absolutely.
[1:05:40] The labs are tremendous, which is why our science budget is actually up slightly proposed this year from last year.
[1:05:45] So, you claim that, but your budget cuts.
[1:05:47] The Office of Science is funding by $1.1 billion.
[1:05:51] It slashes basic energy science by 20%.
[1:05:54] Earth and environmental science, excuse me, systems science by 79%.
[1:05:59] High energy physics research by 17%.
[1:06:02] Even some user facilities, which are the backbone of the labs, are looking at over 50% cuts.
[1:06:08] So, you've claimed many times this affordable, reliable, and secure energy for all Americans is a top priority.
[1:06:17] How is that still a priority, given all these cuts?
[1:06:19] So, there's a separate line item in the Office of Science budget that's now called AIQ, artificial intelligence and quantum.
[1:06:27] That's all lab funding, and that's all tech work that's done at the laboratories.
[1:06:33] We've just brought it out as its separate category.
[1:06:35] In fact, I want to grow that category as much as I can.
[1:06:38] It accelerates our scientific efforts across all the labs, but it is across the labs.
[1:06:42] So, AI is the magic wand?
[1:06:43] Because AI doesn't magically create data.
[1:06:46] It doesn't create instruments.
[1:06:48] It doesn't create the experiments.
[1:06:50] It can be used to crunch a hole out of that data, but not to do the fundamental work that our scientists and engineers in these labs do.
[1:06:58] Let me just point out also from the proposed budget, it cuts the Office of Electricity by 22%, including 61% from transmission planning.
[1:07:08] We should be looking at how to invest more in our transportation capacity in the United States.
[1:07:17] It cuts 40% from energy storage, which has been a solution to the intermittency challenge that our chairman has relayed and outlined so frequently.
[1:07:28] It's critical for reliability, not just in California, but across the country.
[1:07:32] It cuts 17% from resilient distribution systems when we need to be working on more resiliency, not less.
[1:07:38] It cuts 18% from the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response.
[1:07:45] How does this help us feel better about the reliability and stability of the grid?
[1:07:51] A lot of these are just more efficient operations within the department.
[1:07:55] We're not reducing efforts in any of the things you just mentioned.
[1:07:59] But AI, for example, is a tool that dramatically enhances our ability to do grid studies of new load interconnections.
[1:08:07] It used to be very slow, very labor-intensive. We can do that much faster now.
[1:08:12] You're right, it's even more important than ever.
[1:08:14] But just because we're spending less money on it doesn't mean that we're reducing our effort in it.
[1:08:20] It's just efficiency. And the science one is not actually a reduction in spending.
[1:08:24] It's just a recategorization of part of it into this specific tool of AI and quantum.
[1:08:29] Yeah, we'll see. We'll see.
[1:08:30] But one thing that we have seen, and anybody who's filling their car with gas every week to get to and from work,
[1:08:37] is seeing is nothing but increased prices.
[1:08:39] Let me bring the conversation to one specific project.
[1:08:43] I understand the unprecedented review of 2,000 Department of Energy projects is finally concluded.
[1:08:51] In the process of reviewing all these projects, I assume no laws were violated in that review?
[1:08:58] I think that's a good assumption.
[1:09:01] Okay. And in the final decision, the determinations of which projects to allow to move forward versus not that all the applicable laws were complied with?
[1:09:12] Yes. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
[1:09:15] Okay. Well, let me bring to your attention then that as a result of this review,
[1:09:19] the administration has taken steps to move forward with five of the seven regional hydrogen hubs,
[1:09:26] leaving out California's Arches hydrogen hub.
[1:09:32] However, according to the law, quote, at least one regional clean hydrogen hub shall demonstrate the production of clean hydrogen for renewable energy.
[1:09:46] Secretary Wright, the five that the Department has made the determination to advance do not satisfy that requirement.
[1:09:57] It seems the determination was blatantly partisan and in this case seems to have violated the law.
[1:10:04] Will you reverse the decision and fund all the hydrogen hubs as required by law?
[1:10:12] We review all of the projects on a bottom up basis.
[1:10:15] It's not political.
[1:10:16] All of the hydrogen hubs have some stuff in what you would call red states and some stuff in blue states.
[1:10:21] They're all cross state endeavors.
[1:10:23] The West Coast projects had particular cost problems even worse than the other hydrogen hubs and lack pipeline infrastructure.
[1:10:30] Even if you could dramatically lower the cost of producing hydrogen, you got to move it somewhere where it can be used or have a state regulations where you can build infrastructure.
[1:10:38] I would request a follow up with you in my office to demonstrate how the California Arches Hub is actually the superior of the proposals.
[1:10:46] And as far as the politicization of the process, I'll end with this, Mr. Chairman, not just reminding the secretary, but the entire committee.
[1:10:54] The court in City of St. Paul versus Wright explicitly said that, quote,
[1:11:01] Defendants, your lawyers, freely admit they made grant determination decisions primarily, if not exclusively, based on whether the awardee resided in the state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2024, end quote.
[1:11:18] That's not merit.
[1:11:19] That's not science.
[1:11:20] That's politics.
[1:11:21] And it's wrong.
[1:11:22] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:11:23] Senator Cotton.
[1:11:25] Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
[1:11:28] It's time for our annual reminder and public service announcement.
[1:11:32] The Department of Education or Department of Energy does many important things.
[1:11:35] But surprisingly, to most Americans, one of the most important things you do is safeguard and expand our nuclear weapons stockpile.
[1:11:43] If I'm not mistaken, that's about 60 percent of your total budget at Energy, right?
[1:11:47] That's correct.
[1:11:48] This budget request increases the National Nuclear Securities Administration to about $32.8 billion.
[1:11:57] That includes $27.4 billion for weapons activities and about $570 million for salaries and expenses.
[1:12:04] Can you elaborate on how the budget improves your department's ability to keep our nuclear modernization on schedule?
[1:12:11] Yes.
[1:12:12] And thank you for your service to our country in the military, Senator.
[1:12:16] We have seven weapons modernization programs going on right now, seven simultaneous programs going on, spread across our weapons laboratories.
[1:12:27] We want to accelerate those projects to deliver on the program of record.
[1:12:33] The previous efforts have been slower, have been behind schedule and over budget.
[1:12:37] We want to change that.
[1:12:38] We want to change that.
[1:12:39] Not just money is required to change that, but attitude, people and management practices.
[1:12:44] We need to empower the people that have responsibilities to deliver on those responsibilities.
[1:12:51] I'm very proud of the team we have right now.
[1:12:54] We also have some facilities, of course, that need upgrading.
[1:12:57] These are- a lot of this work is done in very old and aging facilities.
[1:13:01] But we are very passionate about driving these seven weapon modernization programs as quickly, as efficiently and wisely as we can, while ramping up pit production.
[1:13:11] Both today, weapons delivery and pit production are the highest they've been since the Cold War, but not nearly high enough.
[1:13:17] We are on the early stages of a ramp upwards.
[1:13:20] Yeah.
[1:13:21] Thank you for that, Mr. Wright.
[1:13:22] I also think you make a good point that money is really important, but it's not just money, it's also mindset and management.
[1:13:29] The NNSA recently stood up a rapid capabilities office to try to get away from the old mindset of developing and deploying capabilities that might take a decade or more to deliver.
[1:13:38] Can you please describe a little bit more of your thinking on that front and why NNSA is moving towards a quicker and more novel approach to get capabilities in the hands of our combatant commanders?
[1:13:48] We're just trying to move it a little bit more like a business.
[1:13:53] You know, before I think it had just gotten stuck in its ways for too long operating in one fashion.
[1:14:00] So we hired, you know, retired admiral, people from business world, people from the military to say, look, our adversaries are moving quickly.
[1:14:10] Our threats are changing more rapidly.
[1:14:12] We've got to look carefully at what we're doing.
[1:14:14] We've definitely made personnel changes.
[1:14:16] We've made management changes.
[1:14:18] And we've set out schedules and timelines in which there's reviews and meetings saying, are we on track?
[1:14:24] And if we're not on track, what is it that's holding us up?
[1:14:27] What can we do differently?
[1:14:29] We've brought in, you know, outside private industry and businesses in the appropriate frameworks where we can to move things along faster, to share best practices.
[1:14:39] If we've got to build a small facility and it's going to take us X dollars and X months and we can do it for two thirds of that by having a contractor build again, not a secure nuclear facility, but just a simple facility.
[1:14:53] Let's do that.
[1:14:54] We're just saying just because we've done it that way in the past doesn't mean we need to need to do it that way going forward.
[1:15:00] We have a crew of patriotic Americans that are about delivering on time and on.
[1:15:05] Thank you.
[1:15:06] And on spec.
[1:15:07] Yeah.
[1:15:08] Thank you, Mr. Wright.
[1:15:09] I couldn't agree more.
[1:15:10] I'll take the opportunity of this annual hearing as I do in the Armed Services Committee.
[1:15:14] When we address this topic to address the critics who say, why do we spend so much money on weapons we never use?
[1:15:19] And it's wrong on both accounts.
[1:15:20] We don't spend that much money on these weapons.
[1:15:22] It's a fairly small percentage of our overall budget to include the budget of the military or your department.
[1:15:29] We just happen to be spending money for the first time on modernization projects at higher levels and they're badly needed.
[1:15:35] And second, we do use our nuclear weapons.
[1:15:36] We've used them every single day for 81 years.
[1:15:39] There's a reason why there hasn't been a conflict on the scale of World War II since we first attained nuclear weapons.
[1:15:47] I want to look in the time remaining on something a little bit closer to your home.
[1:15:51] Very good news story.
[1:15:52] The Smackover Foundation in South Arkansas contains about 19 million tons of lithium reserves, which is more than enough to meet American demand.
[1:16:00] The last administration provided a $225 million grant to advance lithium extraction.
[1:16:07] The Trump administration has followed up by designating the project a priority critical mineral project under Executive Order 14241 and granting it special FAST-41 designation.
[1:16:18] I'm aware that you have officials down in Arkansas this week to visit the project.
[1:16:23] I suspect they'll be as impressed as I have been on it.
[1:16:26] As you continue to build out your critical mineral strategy under this budget, what steps can the department take to ensure that products like the Southwest Arkansas Formation, which is shovel-ready, domestically sited, and commercially validated, have continued permitting support, technical assistance, and access to financing tools?
[1:16:43] Yeah, again, I think business-like practices.
[1:16:49] We need to make government move at the speed of business, and this critical minerals offshoring to China and elsewhere has gone on for decades.
[1:16:56] That crisis, I think, has hit everyone in the face, and we're moving as quickly as we can to bring things back into the United States with business partners that have economics that work and can move quickly.
[1:17:09] Very excited about extracting lithium from brines from the smack-over formation.
[1:17:14] We get almost none of the lithium we use today from in this country, and it's a critical metal.
[1:17:21] We use it in batteries.
[1:17:22] We use it in a number of different devices.
[1:17:24] We've got to produce it here in America and as soon as possible.
[1:17:27] We don't want to just talk about it.
[1:17:28] We want to actually do it.
[1:17:30] Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[1:17:32] Senator Cantwell.
[1:17:33] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:17:34] Secretary Wright, I was hoping when you went to Hanford, which I'm glad you did go in December, that we might get on the same page as it related to those milestones for the Hanford cleanup.
[1:17:44] And yet the President's budget has a massive cut suggested in it, I think $3.76 billion less than what was requested to meet those tri-party agreements, including some devastation of the Hanford 324 building and radioactive leaks at 1,000 feet from the Columbia River.
[1:18:03] So I'm trying to understand, is the department intending to seek modification to the tri-party agreement or the consent decree?
[1:18:10] How do you expect that you could possibly meet those legal requirements with that kind of cuts to the timeline?
[1:18:19] I don't think the cuts are modest.
[1:18:24] The cuts are about efficiency improving.
[1:18:26] We're not planning to revisit the agreement or not meet any of the targets.
[1:18:30] In fact, our plan is to exceed the targets.
[1:18:33] And the monitoring, you mentioned going to the Columbia River, the monitoring of those groundwater things are going on.
[1:18:41] We'll pump a lot of groundwater out to treat them.
[1:18:43] No change in the scope or the urgency of the project that Hanford's cleanup.
[1:18:48] Where is the savings coming from?
[1:18:50] Because you will become in a long line of energy secretaries.
[1:18:53] I think I'm going to create a plaque in my wall of every energy secretary that ever said.
[1:18:58] My colleague from Idaho is laughing because he knows it's true.
[1:19:01] That basically said, I can do cleanup on the cheap and cut the budget and then basically couldn't.
[1:19:06] And then the literal agreement between the federal government and the state that is just holding the federal government accountable basically gets met.
[1:19:14] And then people come up with the resources.
[1:19:16] So we're definitely disappointed.
[1:19:18] The workforce is definitely disappointed.
[1:19:21] And when you think about the progress that has been made at the VIT plant, now is not the time to short-term that.
[1:19:26] But I've got to go on to another subject that's affecting our economy, and that is just this high fuel cost.
[1:19:32] Obviously, I don't agree with what the president is doing in the Middle East.
[1:19:34] But as my colleague from California just said, you're also cutting these programs that are the future for how we get out of this situation.
[1:19:43] And so for us, we are a very expensive fuel state writ large because we're an isolated market.
[1:19:51] No one is dragging fuel from the Atlantic all the way up to the North Pacific where we are.
[1:19:58] That's not going to happen.
[1:19:59] So our fuel comes from Alaska, and we refine it, and we use it for jet fuel.
[1:20:04] So this whole process of us now having flights canceled, front page of the Seattle Times this morning,
[1:20:12] flights canceled because of the high cost of jet fuel.
[1:20:15] In fact, the story says that Alaska Airlines is expected to spend $600 million more in expenses this quarter because of these high fuel costs.
[1:20:24] Okay, so you can complain about the Middle East.
[1:20:27] I'm not even complaining about the Middle East.
[1:20:29] I'm complaining about the fact that you're cutting the hydrogen program and that in the big, beautiful bill,
[1:20:34] they cut the sustainable tax credit in value.
[1:20:38] And so you're really crippling the next generation of jet fuel.
[1:20:43] And so I want to hear what your answer is to do you believe in those cripplings of this,
[1:20:48] or do you believe in us continuing to lead as a nation is going to diversify off of the high cost of jet fuel
[1:20:55] as a way to have our airlines grow?
[1:20:57] It's a very big export for us as a country.
[1:21:00] So I want a strong, healthy airline industry.
[1:21:02] I want a strong aviation innovation sector.
[1:21:07] Absolutely.
[1:21:09] And so do I.
[1:21:10] So do I.
[1:21:11] I would say it is frustrating to see a little bit higher energy prices right now.
[1:21:16] They're still well lower than they were four years ago in the middle of the Biden administration.
[1:21:20] I want to stop you right there.
[1:21:21] There's nobody in the Northwest who thinks that.
[1:21:23] Okay.
[1:21:24] There's nobody in the Northwest that thinks what's going on right now is okay.
[1:21:27] Not when they wake up and the airline flights are being canceled because of high fuel costs.
[1:21:31] Or we're in the diesel is that whatever it is, six or seven.
[1:21:35] No one thinks it's okay.
[1:21:36] We're trying to.
[1:21:37] I didn't say okay.
[1:21:38] I just said cheaper than they were during the Biden administration and they will be cheaper as time goes forward.
[1:21:43] They will continue to come down.
[1:21:45] And things were horrible during Katrina.
[1:21:47] But does that mean we want to still have hurricanes and devastation or do we want to try to get out of the way in front of them?
[1:21:52] So I think here we're trying to say let's get out of the way in front of diversifying our fuel source so that we're not so dependent on Middle East oil and certainly diversify off of a jet fuel source.
[1:22:03] But if you cut the hydrogen hubs and you basically are supportive and that's just what I want to know.
[1:22:09] Are you supportive of this cut that was done to reduce the sustainable aviation fuel tax credit that was done in the big beautiful bill?
[1:22:16] That's sustaining the sustainable aviation fuels to date are meaningful drivers of upward prices for jet fuels.
[1:22:24] We want to have affordable reliable energy for everyone.
[1:22:27] We want to have choice in that and as we get better fuel technologies that can drive down the cost of alternative sources, we're all for that.
[1:22:34] Hydrogen hubs, for example, had a target production cost of $2 a kilogram.
[1:22:39] They couldn't demonstrate anything on their plan below $8 a kilogram.
[1:22:43] And there's a lack of infrastructure to move fuels on the West Coast, as you said.
[1:22:48] Well, I know you've been in the private sector and I know you've been in innovation and you know the difference between early tax credits for things that haven't been developed.
[1:22:56] Where no one else will develop it and the government does.
[1:22:59] And long-term stable companies that no longer need the tax credits because the market has been well established.
[1:23:05] Jet fuel, the market isn't established, okay?
[1:23:08] Alternative sustainable jet fuels.
[1:23:10] And so if you could for the record just write me something that says whether you agree with the cut that the non-hydrogen cut that was in the big beautiful bill as it relates to the sustainable aviation tax credit.
[1:23:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:23:22] Thanks, Senator Cantwell.
[1:23:23] Senator Risch.
[1:23:24] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:23:26] Mr. Secretary, thank you for visiting with us today.
[1:23:28] I appreciate you coming.
[1:23:29] I appreciate your remarks on weapons modernization.
[1:23:31] You know, those of us that are in an oversight role go out to do our oversight, walk into those buildings and just are blown away by the fact that you're walking into a building that was constructed at the dawn of the nuclear age.
[1:23:45] I mean, it's incredible that those buildings are still standing, let alone housing one of the most important operations that our government does.
[1:23:53] So appreciate what you can do on that.
[1:23:55] It certainly needs some work.
[1:23:56] I really want to focus, though, today on nuclear.
[1:23:59] As you know, Idaho is the birthplace of nuclear energy.
[1:24:02] We're very, very proud of the Idaho National Lab, which not only was the birthplace, but today remains the flagship for nuclear energy.
[1:24:10] I think one of the things I want to talk about a little bit today is the fact that you know that on or about the 4th of July, they're going to go critical with three micro reactors at the Idaho National Lab.
[1:24:22] That's really appropriate.
[1:24:23] This is the first time it will happen in the universe, just as when in December of 51, when they lit three light bulbs with electricity.
[1:24:32] It was the first time done in the universe.
[1:24:33] So it's appropriate.
[1:24:34] It's being done there.
[1:24:35] Most people in America don't understand this, number one.
[1:24:38] And number two, they don't really have a full comprehension of what that means that we're actually going to start a micro reactor and put it online.
[1:24:52] Now, admittedly, they're not commercially being produced, but they are coming online for the first time.
[1:24:58] Can you give us a very short summary, if you would, of how this is going to change the world?
[1:25:05] Fantastic, Senator.
[1:25:06] And, yes, as you know, look, I've had a lifelong passion for nuclear energy.
[1:25:11] It has not had a great few decades.
[1:25:13] It's been stagnant.
[1:25:14] But we have a lot of things coming together right now, a lot of private capital, a lot of innovation.
[1:25:21] A president who signed four executive orders that said whatever is holding back nuclear power, look at it carefully, bring gold standard science, and let's let innovation reign.
[1:25:31] Let's let small modular reactors get going again.
[1:25:33] And it has.
[1:25:34] Yes.
[1:25:36] What?
[1:25:37] And it has.
[1:25:38] And in your great state, in the next few weeks before July 4th, we will have multiple small modular reactors running their entire nuclear systems, producing the process heat out the other side.
[1:25:50] We know how to turn that into electricity through a steam turbine.
[1:25:53] It just won't have the steam turbines on it.
[1:25:55] But this is dramatic.
[1:25:56] And we have the nuclear regulatory commission personnel detailed to the DOE working with us on these permitting processes for these tests and demonstration reactors, so that they're getting early insight and knowledge and seeing the evolution of these reactors, so we can move quickly to the next phase to license these to sell commercial electricity.
[1:26:17] But if we can build something small and modularly in a plant, we can drive down the cost of it, we can reduce the time it takes to build them, and we're going to dramatically grow American electricity that will be deployable to remote locations or into giant data centers.
[1:26:32] So, it's a huge deal, and of course, Idaho is a central state in this renaissance of nuclear energy, as it was in the first chapter of nuclear energy.
[1:26:40] And renaissance is a really good term.
[1:26:43] I've worked in this for decades, and as you point out, the recent decades in Three Mile Island have not been good to us.
[1:26:50] That's behind us.
[1:26:51] We're moving forward.
[1:26:52] And I am actually stunned by what's happened in recent years with the private sector.
[1:27:02] Capitalists who have money to invest are stepping up and doing what they're doing.
[1:27:06] They recognize that this race to developing the micro-reactor is very lucrative, whoever gets there first.
[1:27:15] Turning the switch on a micro-reactor is a big deal.
[1:27:19] It's important.
[1:27:20] But the guy that builds the factory and can build the parts and put them on a truck and haul them off and put them together out on site, they're going to make a lot of money.
[1:27:28] There's no question about it.
[1:27:29] The free enterprise system has recognized that, and boy, are they there.
[1:27:34] The stream of people that come to my office with new technology, new ideas, new ways that they want to do this is really stunning.
[1:27:43] So that's important, and I think the world's going to wake up when this happens.
[1:27:49] We can't go into all the details here, but we know we have a couple of competitors in Russia and China that want to beat us to the marketplace.
[1:27:57] I think we're there first right now.
[1:27:59] Some of the other details we can't talk about here, but as time goes on, we're going to be an aggressive competitor in this marketplace.
[1:28:08] I really believe it.
[1:28:09] In the few minutes, a few seconds I have left, I've been pressing the ARC Act quite aggressively.
[1:28:16] I appreciate you guys getting on board on that.
[1:28:19] Your thoughts on the ARC Act briefly?
[1:28:21] I think it's critical that we put together some pieces of legislation like the ARC Act that just enshrine this attitude and these necessary infrastructure we need to enable the growth of this new industry.
[1:28:36] It is a brand new industry. It should have a very bright future, but we should not be complacent about it.
[1:28:41] And I look forward to talking to you more about the ARC Act and pushing that forward.
[1:28:45] Thanks so much, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate you coming, Mr. Chairman.
[1:28:49] Thank you, Senator.
[1:28:50] Senator Hickenlooper.
[1:28:51] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary, welcome back.
[1:28:57] I wanted to start talking about the National Laboratory for the Rockies, close to both our hearts.
[1:29:06] Obviously, world-class research, analysis, energy, security, grid reliability, advanced energy technologies.
[1:29:16] At both its Colorado and Alaska campuses and in partnership with industry, the lab has really done a lot of work in terms of our critical mineral supply chains and advances and accelerates a lot of the next generation technologies, energy technologies.
[1:29:34] How do we – how are you going forward – because we saw the cuts – how do you plan on utilizing the full capabilities and, I would say, the incredible personnel at the lab to continue that we are the global leader in energy innovation?
[1:29:51] So, National Lab of the Rockies is indeed fantastic and strong in the many areas you talked about. Grid, grid stability, which is key.
[1:30:00] They're building secure communication facilities for more defense work there.
[1:30:05] Innovation on new materials, on new energy technologies, energy technologies for space.
[1:30:11] It is incredible what's done there.
[1:30:13] One thing I should clarify, Senator, we are not proposing a reduction in the budget for the Office of Science.
[1:30:20] It's just broken into two pieces.
[1:30:22] It looks like it's a reduction of 18 or 19 percent, but it's just pulling out the artificial intelligence and quantum, AIQ, which is work that will also be done at National Lab of the Rockies as a separate line item.
[1:30:35] We've actually proposed like a 1 percent growth for the Office of Science.
[1:30:41] I personally am very passionate about that, and I personally believe the bang for the buck on these investments is tremendous.
[1:30:48] I would happily work with you and the committee here to move up our investments in science and particularly in AI and quantum, which is enabling technologies for science across all 17 of the labs.
[1:31:03] Sure. Although there's so much other work that has been going on and needs to continue.
[1:31:09] Yes, yes, yes.
[1:31:11] I wanted to ask whether, and I just got a new data point a couple of weeks ago, the snowpack in Colorado, because I know you and I have clashed on the urgency around climate change more than once, maybe 20 times, I'm not sure.
[1:31:28] But at Fremont Pass, up where the Climax Mine is, they do multiple snowpack readings, and they've been doing that for 100 years.
[1:31:37] And over that 100 years, the average has been 240 inches, so 20 feet of snow.
[1:31:44] The lowest they've ever had, so the average is 240, the lowest they ever had was 182 inches.
[1:31:51] Right, so 240 average, lowest ever in 100 years was 182 inches.
[1:31:56] This year it's 60 inches.
[1:31:58] This is right about the middle of March.
[1:32:00] That kind of statistical aberration really defies explanation, except unless you look at some sort of disequilibrium in our natural systems.
[1:32:14] And I'm not sure if there are other explanations that could explain something like that than global climate change.
[1:32:23] So global climate change is a slow-moving gradual phenomenon.
[1:32:28] When you see a dramatic interruption like that, that obviously was just, that is the path of the jet stream last year.
[1:32:36] We had a cold and snowy east coast, and a very warm and dry western U.S.
[1:32:42] But talking about the data sets, we have the Snowtail database in Colorado from 1936.
[1:32:48] If you look at the entire snowpack over those 89 years of data, it's actually flat to slightly increasing.
[1:32:57] So we haven't seen a climate impact on snow in Colorado, because Colorado is a little bit wetter and a little bit warmer.
[1:33:04] We have a little bit more snow in the fall than we used to, and a little bit less in the spring.
[1:33:10] But when you talk about anomalous years, even just during our lifetime, Breckenridge, the ski area in Colorado in the 1981-82 season, was open for four days.
[1:33:21] It opened on February 5th, and it closed on February 9th.
[1:33:25] We had a bad ski year in Colorado, but nowhere near as bad as that winter.
[1:33:30] So there's always going to be anomalies in weather.
[1:33:34] Climate is the long-term and average trend.
[1:33:37] And in Colorado, regarding snowpack, it is pretty much flat over the last 90 years.
[1:33:42] If you do the exact line fit, it's a slightly increase in Colorado snowpack over 90 years.
[1:33:48] But yes, we had a terrible snow year this last year.
[1:33:51] Not quite as bad as the one when I was a kid, but a bad snow year.
[1:33:55] Worse on Fremont Pass, apparently, but that's just one location.
[1:33:58] Got you.
[1:33:59] I've got three more questions.
[1:34:01] I'm out of time.
[1:34:02] I will submit these questions in writing, because I know the chair runs the ship with a stiff whip.
[1:34:08] Thank you, Senator.
[1:34:10] I'll yield.
[1:34:11] For the record, I've never wielded a whip, but I appreciate the consideration nonetheless.
[1:34:17] Yeah, we've got a couple of other members in route.
[1:34:20] I understand Senator King has one more question he wanted to ask.
[1:34:24] I agree with Senator Risch.
[1:34:26] The development of small modular reactors is incredibly important.
[1:34:29] We had a sort of a seminar a couple of years ago or a year ago with a group of, it was
[1:34:35] like 20 people from all over the nuclear industry.
[1:34:38] The problem with nuclear, as you know, is cost.
[1:34:42] The high cost of construction, permitting, and all of that.
[1:34:45] The conclusion was that the first 10 are going to be too expensive, and that there needs to
[1:34:51] be federal support of some form like the Chips and Science Act in order to de-risk the initial
[1:35:00] construction in order to have a breakthrough in terms of how to develop these things in a cost-effective way.
[1:35:09] Is that something that you're thinking about?
[1:35:13] I'm worried that, A, it's a terribly important development.
[1:35:16] B, it won't happen by relying entirely on the market.
[1:35:20] I hear your concerns, Senator King.
[1:35:24] And we do have a number of efforts we're doing right now to try to get over that hump.
[1:35:29] In fact, I had one of the large hyperscalers in our office yesterday.
[1:35:32] And one of the things we want to do is have a program we are going to have.
[1:35:36] We're going to build 10 reactors all together.
[1:35:39] We're going to do long lead time supply chain orders for the 10 reactors.
[1:35:43] We're going to use the energy.
[1:35:44] Who's we?
[1:35:45] Who's going to build them?
[1:35:46] You said we are going to build.
[1:35:47] Well, the DOE is going to be the lead lender to them.
[1:35:51] So we're going to lend the capital, but we're going to get equity capital from the hyperscalers.
[1:35:56] So from very large, you know, corporations that really want nuclear power for their data centers.
[1:36:01] So they're willing to lead in.
[1:36:03] And then we're going to spread that risk over 10 of them.
[1:36:06] So that the average cost of those reactors, it's still going to be more expensive than the next 10 or the 10 after that.
[1:36:12] But I think we're going to be able to have with the government funding on loan and with some risk sharing across 10 reactors.
[1:36:22] I think we're going to get this ball going.
[1:36:24] But I share your concerns because they are going to be more expensive at the start.
[1:36:28] And we may need some creative ideas.
[1:36:30] We don't have shovels in the ground yet.
[1:36:31] So I hear your concern and I agree with it.
[1:36:33] Thank you.
[1:36:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:36:35] Senator McCormick.
[1:36:37] Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[1:36:39] And Secretary Wright.
[1:36:40] Good to see you.
[1:36:41] Thanks for being with us today.
[1:36:42] You are leading one of the most consequential federal agencies at really one of the most consequential moments in American history.
[1:36:48] So I'm delighted that you're at the helm.
[1:36:51] The congressional justification for the DOE's budget specifically calls out three goals.
[1:36:57] Unleashing the golden air of American energy dominance, accelerating scientific capabilities and protecting the nation.
[1:37:03] And I'm really proud that Pennsylvania is at the forefront of your agenda in helping achieve these goals.
[1:37:09] As you know, we're the second largest producer of natural gas, third largest electricity producer in the country, and the second largest producer of nuclear power.
[1:37:17] So we've got a lot of incredible assets.
[1:37:19] And that energy we're producing in Pennsylvania is providing the power for new manufacturing and electricity generation, really helping the president's agenda in terms of winning the AI race against China.
[1:37:29] And we're also home to the National Energy Technology Lab, which I visited and I know you have, too.
[1:37:34] So I'm really proud of this work that Pennsylvania is doing.
[1:37:37] And it brings me to my questions.
[1:37:39] First of all, last week, when you were testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, it was announced that DOE had completed its review of a number of grants to ensure they are providing maximum value to taxpayers.
[1:37:51] Two hydrogen hubs in Pennsylvania, Mach 2 and Arc 2, were on their approved list and are slated to move forward in the funding.
[1:38:00] Those two hubs together are projected to create about 41,000 jobs and drive $11 billion in public private sector investment.
[1:38:07] Will you and your team commit to working with me to ensure those hubs receive their funding in a timely manner as they look to move forward in the next step of their implementation?
[1:38:18] Absolutely.
[1:38:19] Great.
[1:38:21] Great.
[1:38:22] Okay.
[1:38:23] There's no…
[1:38:24] Yeah, yeah.
[1:38:25] No, no.
[1:38:26] There's no ambiguity about that.
[1:38:27] This is moving forward and…
[1:38:28] I mean, there's milestones in these projects.
[1:38:29] You know, making hydrogen commercially viable is a tough putt.
[1:38:33] Yeah.
[1:38:34] But there's upside if we can do it.
[1:38:36] So we are absolutely, you know, funding these in phases and will be working with those various contracting groups to see their progress.
[1:38:43] And, you know, is it…
[1:38:44] Is it continuing on a pathway to get to a good result?
[1:38:48] And if it does, fantastic.
[1:38:49] But absolutely, we are ready to fund those early phases to get that work going.
[1:38:53] Great.
[1:38:54] Second, you know, I've been a champion and I…
[1:38:56] Our chairman and a ranking member and also the other committees are very focused on permitting reform.
[1:39:01] Can you talk a little bit about the prioritization the administration is putting on permitting reform?
[1:39:07] And, you know, as I've said this to the president, I've said this to you, this is energy policy, but there's something like $1.5 trillion of capital on the sidelines that can be accelerated by…
[1:39:18] By getting permitting reform across the finish line and getting our economy moving in a much accelerated way.
[1:39:24] I…
[1:39:26] I agree very much with that.
[1:39:28] I had a brief dialogue with Senator King about that as well.
[1:39:31] I think we have bipartisan interest that we've got to make it more straightforward, simpler and easier to permit things so people can build big things in America again.
[1:39:42] We only became the superpower and economic superpower that we are because we built big things in this country.
[1:39:49] We built them timely and on budget and we continued to innovate.
[1:39:53] And then over the last few decades, weaponization of NEPA is just one example.
[1:39:57] We've just made it so hard to build things that people say, never mind, we'll just build the big stuff overseas and we'll build the little stuff here.
[1:40:05] That's not good for America and that's not good for Americans.
[1:40:08] We need to get that done.
[1:40:10] The administration is firmly behind it.
[1:40:12] In fact, Senator Alan Armstrong, a guy I've known for a long time, a great human.
[1:40:16] Yeah.
[1:40:17] He has come in and he's got one goal.
[1:40:19] I'm going to see him.
[1:40:20] Get permitting reform across the line and it must be bipartisan.
[1:40:24] It must…
[1:40:25] It must enable the construction of large things in America.
[1:40:28] Good.
[1:40:29] Thank you.
[1:40:30] One final question, Mr. Secretary.
[1:40:32] Pennsylvania's nuclear workforce has been a huge part of Pennsylvania's success.
[1:40:37] To achieve the President's goals in terms of quadrupling U.S. nuclear capacity, that will require hundreds of thousands of additional skilled workers on top of the hundred thousand or so workers in today's fleet.
[1:40:48] How will this budget proposal support development of our nation's nuclear workforce?
[1:40:55] How will this proposed funding close the skills gap, which I see in Pennsylvania and I'm sure you see everywhere you go?
[1:41:01] Everywhere.
[1:41:02] Everywhere we see that.
[1:41:03] It is a constant dialogue I have with all of the hyperscalers.
[1:41:07] Because, like, who are the people that are driving the demand for these new power plants, nuclear power plants, natural gas power plants, solar plants?
[1:41:14] Who are the people driving this demand?
[1:41:16] It's the hyperscalers.
[1:41:17] I point that issue out to them.
[1:41:19] They're aware of it.
[1:41:20] So part of the ratepayer protection pledge is to get all of those developers to invest monies in those communities for training workers, training people for jobs, operating the plants, using AI skills, and most importantly, all of the trade skills.
[1:41:34] We need more electricians and plumbers and pipe fitters and people that can work with steel.
[1:41:39] It's been a lifelong passion of mine.
[1:41:41] One of the visits I've done around the country is at junior colleges and trade schools.
[1:41:46] I think the economic message is getting there, that the wages for those workers are rising.
[1:41:52] But it's going to be a race.
[1:41:54] It's going to be a race.
[1:41:55] We need millions of workers with skills they don't have today.
[1:41:58] No doubt.
[1:41:59] Thanks for your leadership, Mr. Secretary.
[1:42:00] Thank you, Senator.
[1:42:01] Senator Murkowski.
[1:42:02] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:42:05] Good to see you, Mr. Secretary.
[1:42:07] So many good things to talk about on the energy front in Alaska.
[1:42:14] And so thank you for your leadership and really leaning in in so much of this.
[1:42:20] I wanted to start my questions first with an area that oftentimes just doesn't get talked about enough.
[1:42:29] And yet in Alaska, when it comes to meeting our energy needs, hydropower is there.
[1:42:34] It's the steady eddy, man.
[1:42:36] It just keeps plugging away and we've got more potential to do with it.
[1:42:40] But in looking at the budget, hydropower funding reduced by 78 percent.
[1:42:46] So I want to talk to you just a little bit about where hydropower fits into kind of DOE's proposals.
[1:42:55] I'm going to give you some specifics about some 247 hydropower incentives that were in place back September of 24.
[1:43:07] They got all the materials.
[1:43:10] 18 months have passed.
[1:43:12] And we're still waiting for funds to be released for a salmon creek project, Cooper Lake, Green Lake, SEPA grid resiliency.
[1:43:21] These are, as you know, in this area, core infrastructure projects in communities that rely significantly on hydropower.
[1:43:32] So can you can you just talk to me more broadly about hydropower and then more specifically what may be causing DOE and maybe it's OMB to hold up some of these already awarded hydropower funds?
[1:43:47] So on the budget, Senator, there isn't the dramatic cut it looks like.
[1:43:52] It's just different categorizations.
[1:43:54] We have a new category now, baseload power, you know, and that's a big line item.
[1:43:59] That's gas, coal, hydro and nuclear.
[1:44:03] And so there's hundreds of millions of dollars of hydro funding in there.
[1:44:07] Do we need to make sure that it's too hydro and hydro doesn't get eclipsed by the oil, the gas, the coal?
[1:44:16] That's that's my concern.
[1:44:18] I just want to make sure hydro is not going to push down to the bottom here.
[1:44:23] I totally agree.
[1:44:24] You know, we do almost no funding for oil.
[1:44:26] Oil doesn't need funding.
[1:44:27] There's some research in that, but it's not there.
[1:44:30] Gas is mostly commercially developed.
[1:44:32] Our baseload funding is really focused on hydro, coal and nuclear.
[1:44:37] Because those are ones where we can move the needle with the funding budgets we have.
[1:44:42] We not just me, but our department is passionate about hydro.
[1:44:47] Audrey Robertson, so I'm sure you met here before.
[1:44:50] She is constantly engaging with hydro developers everywhere.
[1:44:54] Why are these dams going to come down?
[1:44:56] You know, we're afraid to re-permit them.
[1:44:58] It's too expensive.
[1:44:59] It's too long.
[1:45:00] How can we help you?
[1:45:01] We need to get that going.
[1:45:03] We've got some good legislation to that, by the way.
[1:45:06] Exactly.
[1:45:07] We need to work together on that.
[1:45:08] I think hydrogen has lost — I mean, hydro has lost champions.
[1:45:12] You talk about hydropower, but very few people do.
[1:45:16] And I agree with you.
[1:45:18] Hydropower is a critical resource, particularly in remote areas.
[1:45:22] Think of all the water flowing in Alaska.
[1:45:24] There's upside to that.
[1:45:25] We're looking at re-powering.
[1:45:26] How can you take a little 40-megawatt hydro thing and make it into a 50-megawatt hydro thing,
[1:45:32] which is fixing or upgrading the turbines?
[1:45:34] Heck, part of the dialogues we had in Venezuela is they get these huge hydro assets, but the machines are broken.
[1:45:39] It's like the existing infrastructure is there.
[1:45:41] We can get more power out of it.
[1:45:42] So I agree with you.
[1:45:43] Hydro is important.
[1:45:44] Let's follow up on those specific projects you mentioned.
[1:45:47] Because if there's stuff we can do to help hydro, we're all in on it.
[1:45:51] What we really need is just a clear timeline on when these funds can be released so that they don't miss these upcoming construction season.
[1:46:01] As you mentioned, costs are just going up and up.
[1:46:04] So if we can work with you on that.
[1:46:06] So we'll follow up after this hearing.
[1:46:08] Absolutely.
[1:46:09] My much smarter and more competent team is sitting behind me.
[1:46:12] So we've got to get right on that.
[1:46:14] And then in my remaining time, let's talk about Alaska LNG.
[1:46:18] Obviously, with all that's going on in Iran, everyone is looking to where there are further opportunities for US-based LNG.
[1:46:32] We have extraordinary potential up north.
[1:46:35] As you know, you've spent much time there.
[1:46:37] How – just where do you place the Alaska LNG project right now in terms of domestic priorities for advancement?
[1:46:51] Oh, for energy infrastructure, I would say number one.
[1:46:55] Number one.
[1:46:56] This is a gigantic project that, as you know, transforms the state of Alaska.
[1:47:00] Just because where people live in south-central Alaska, we've got an energy problem.
[1:47:04] Although we've got abundant resources nearby.
[1:47:06] And it's awesome for US allies in Asia.
[1:47:09] It's a short run to all of, you know, major LNG consumers in East Asia there.
[1:47:15] No choke point.
[1:47:16] No choke point.
[1:47:17] No choke point.
[1:47:18] I mean, this is – this is really a multi-generational, massive America and ally improving infrastructure project.
[1:47:27] That we are – not a week goes by that I don't have multiple meetings or dialogues about it.
[1:47:32] It has proven tricky.
[1:47:33] I wish we were up there right now breaking ground.
[1:47:36] And the problem is the pipeline's hard to finance, and you've got to build the pipeline first.
[1:47:42] The LNG export terminal's not hard to finance, but we can't finance that without financing the pipeline.
[1:47:47] So we are just working every avenue as we can.
[1:47:51] But a growing amount of our team is on it.
[1:47:54] It's important for our country.
[1:47:55] It's critical for Alaska.
[1:47:57] We will not rest until we have that project completed.
[1:48:00] Thank you.
[1:48:01] Thank you for that commitment.
[1:48:02] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:48:03] Thank you, Senator.
[1:48:04] That concludes today's hearing.
[1:48:06] I want to thank –
[1:48:07] Mr. Chairman, just –
[1:48:08] Yeah.
[1:48:09] Yeah.
[1:48:10] If I could.
[1:48:11] Sure.
[1:48:12] Thank you.
[1:48:13] As a former hydro developer, I was delighted to hear you refer to hydro as baseload.
[1:48:17] Interestingly, run-of-the-river hydro, the capacity factor is about 35 to 50 percent.
[1:48:23] Wind is 40 to 55 percent.
[1:48:25] Offshore wind is 55 to 60 percent.
[1:48:27] So if hydro you consider baseload, how come you don't consider wind baseload?
[1:48:33] Same capacity factor.
[1:48:35] Because the other 50 percent of hydro, the large-scale hydro, has storage and is dispatchable.
[1:48:41] You're right.
[1:48:42] Run-of-the-river hydro is not baseload.
[1:48:44] But the other 50 percent of hydro resources has storage and is dispatchable.
[1:48:49] So when you talk about hydro being baseload, you're only talking about storage projects.
[1:48:53] No, no, I'm talking about both.
[1:48:54] I'm talking about both.
[1:48:55] I'm talking about both.
[1:48:56] I'm talking about both.
[1:48:57] But I'm just saying there is a significant component of hydro that is dispatchable.
[1:49:02] And, Senator King, as you know, we want to see better storage development.
[1:49:06] We want to see solar and wind turn into more dispatchable.
[1:49:09] Well, storage is important for the grid generally.
[1:49:12] Whether – I mean, it certainly can be the backup for solar and wind.
[1:49:15] But it also – grid stabilization, demand response, saving expenses of new lines when you could do storage.
[1:49:23] You agree with that, I trust?
[1:49:25] Absolutely.
[1:49:26] We need to see storage grow.
[1:49:28] Exactly.
[1:49:29] And the problem is it's nowhere near at the scale today to really firm wind and solar.
[1:49:34] But it plays a grid management role.
[1:49:36] And the more we can make storage more effective and therefore more cost-effective and therefore more scalable, the broader role it can play.
[1:49:44] And as you know, in Texas and California, there's been a gigantic build-out of storage which is firming up solar and wind.
[1:49:53] You know that.
[1:49:55] I wouldn't say effectively firming up, but you can shift solar demand in the summertime from late in the day to the peak demand a couple hours later.
[1:50:05] And so that's helpful.
[1:50:06] You can deal with the duck curve.
[1:50:07] It's helpful with the duck curve.
[1:50:09] Yes.
[1:50:10] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:50:11] Thank you.
[1:50:13] I want to thank all of my colleagues on the committee for participating today.
[1:50:18] We've had great participation.
[1:50:20] I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming here.
[1:50:23] Members of the committee are free to submit questions for the record until 6 p.m. tomorrow.
[1:50:30] And the deadline for submitting statements for the record of today's hearing will be a week from today, April 28th, also at 6 p.m.
[1:50:42] Thanks again, Mr. Secretary, for being here and for your service.
[1:50:45] The committee stands adjourned.
Transcribe Any Video or Podcast — Free
Paste a URL and get a full AI-powered transcript in minutes. Try ScribeHawk →