Transcripts For CSPAN Deputy Energy Sec. Testifies On Infrastructure Investments 20230212

congress by welcoming our new members, especially including our new member, senator -- he's not here yet. when he comes, we will officially do it again. we will be kicking off this year with a discussion of the department of energy implementation of the bipartisan infrastructure law. the infrastructure investment and jobs act. i'd like to welcome david turk, secretary of the department of energy for appearing before the committee today. in 2020, one congress won a bipartisan way to enact the most significant federal investment and our nations infrastructure in decades, including approximately 100 billion dollars in this committee's jurisdiction alone. between the interior and energy departments. this combined with the energy security investments provided in the inflation reduction act will be game changing for us to become more energy secure through the increased domestic production of energy in the cleanest way possible, leaving the world of innovation and onshore in critical supply chains. this committee considered center voted for amendments and agree to 48 before -- the bill with the bipartisan support. now that the bipartisan infrastructure bill has been law for more than a year, we are here today to discuss how the department of energy is implementing the authorizations and 62 billion dollars we provide them over the next five years. this bill marked a transformation on investment in our energy future and will allow america to be more secure and lead the way on energy innovation for many years to come. the benefits of both the death and the i.r.a. are being felt across the country, including in my home state of west virginia where we've been very happy to have new investment announcements in recent months. the bat finds private projects during all the above energy approach by allowing us to constine you using our fossil fuel resources in the cleanest way possible through new investments and technologies. we doubled down on hydrogen and -- in the i.r.a. with an enhanced tax credits. it also goes and drives new investments to cool countries to support communities where coal mines have closed. both in my home state and senator bosses home state of wyoming. that will provide good jobs and new tax bases. the 62 billion appropriated to d.o.e. through the bipartisan infrastructure law was one of the largest investments in the department they've ever seen. this works hand-in-hand with the inflation reduction act to really boost american innovation, competitiveness, and security. so, we've clearly given the department of energy a lot of work to do. congress has spoken clearly over the last two years. between the energy act, the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and the inflation reduction act, that the united states has above the policy that supports using all of our god giving resources in the cleanest way possible. that's how we short energy security and achieve energy independence but also addressing climate change. it is my intention to make sure that these laws are implemented swiftly, effectively, and in line with that clear congressional intent, which i can assure you this administration doesn't seem to want to do. we were going to make sure they do it. for that reason, and i'm very glad the deputy secretary turk has agreed to be before us today fully support destruction. i want to mention one last thing related to our hearing topic today, gas, i repeat, gas stoves have been in the news lately. i've come out strongly against the consumer product safety commission pursuing any ban of gas stove. in, fact i'm introducing legislation today with senator cruz that would ensure that they don't. separately, sending a letter to the commission with senator lankford for clarification about the commission's sudden desire to conduct an rv on gas stoves. yesterday, d.o.e. published his first ever efficiency standard for cooktop's, including gas stoves. i've always been a proponent of energy efficiency, the draft will proposes levels that d.o.e. says at the highest level, up to 96% of gas stoves don't currently meet. i don't like where i think they're going with this. i can tell you one thing, they are not taking my gas stove out. my wife and i would both be upset. now, i know d.o.e. is required to write a rule on stove top efficiencies, that is the beginning of this process, not a final rule. in light of a broader concern about the administration it truly -- looking to find ways to push out natural gas basically, the rest of the world wishes they had an abundant display. it doesn't make any sense at all. it really does. and i said this before, if the federal government doesn't have any business telling american families how to cook their dinner. if there is technology down the road, as we transition into the new technology, that is fine. basically, retrofitting or removing stoves that people had for years is not going to happen. i don't think it'll happen in any of our states. i would be surprised for senators to be supporting that move. so, i want to thank david for being here today. i appreciate you, we look forward to talking to you. i'm going to go to my friend senator barrasso to give the opening statement. >> thank you for your leadership of this committee, for the productive partnership that we have shared and will continue to share. i'm looking forward to working with you and all the members of the committee. i'd like to welcome senator halle from the great state of missouri. we are excited to have him as a member of the committee. i look forward to his continued advocacy for american energy. sad to see senator marshall and senator lankford leave the committee. but we owe both of them thanks for the work they did in advancing american energy. mister chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing. in november of 2020, when congress passed the 415 billion dollar spending bill. the congressional budget office says the legislation is going to increase our deficit by 256 billion dollars over the next ten years. under this legislation, congress approved over 62 billion to the department of energy. that amount is in addition to the departments annual appropriation of roughly 40 billion. so, on top of the sums, democrats and congress gave another 35 billion to the department in their inflation act. that amount of money that department has received over the last two years is staggering. so, the question is not whether the department is going to waste taxpayer dollars, how to reduce the amount that it will waste. but that, reason i'm glad to have the deputy secretary here today. i've supported his nomination, he came out of this committee unanimously, we appreciate the work you're doing. we are all interested in learning what if any new controls or protocols the department has put in place to reduce any of the waste, fraud, and abuse that is likely to come with that kind of money being spent. last, year the departments inspector general wrote this committee. she explained she doesn't have sufficient resources at the department to monitor the amount of money that is now flying out of the department stores. she stated, this is the departments own inspector general, stated that she anticipates substantial losses due to fraud, waste, and abuse in part because the law expands programs with a history of serious problems. so, i note that the legislation provided nearly 100 million dollars for the department of interiors inspector general. it provided only about half the amount for the department of energy's inspector general. the seems reckless given that the infrastructure act appropriated more than twice the amount to the department of energy. so, i'd like to know whether mr. turk would support redirecting some of the existing appropriations to the office of the inspector general within the department of energy. i'm also interested to learn what if any new controls and protocols the department has put in place to ensure the legislation doesn't fund our nations adversaries like china. one program is already raising concerns. last year, the department of energy provided a 200 million dollar grant to a battery manufacturer called micro -- this company's filings with the exchange commission will feel fairly troubling connections to the communist chinese government. one filing states the peoples republic of china exerts substantial influence over the manner in which we must conduct our business activities and may intervene at anytime and with no notice. the company goes on to state we may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights in the prc. the porters of the legislation said it would help increase america's competitiveness. we now know the department has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to a company that publicly admits it is at the back and call of the chinese government. december 2020, i wrote to secretary granholm asked her for information about the departments review process for grants. the secretary has not yet responded. i know that perhaps she will respond today. finally, i would like the deputy secretary to pledge that funds from the infrastructure act will not be used to ban or restrict the use of natural gas in new buildings. senator manchin already asked the question and raise the issue of natural gas in cook stoves. in 2021, i warned that this legislation would allow the secretary to finance entities that seek to ban the use of natural gas in new buildings. i've offered an amendment to stop this. all ten democrats voted against that amendment in the past. that said, they said it was not an issue. i think the commissioner -- thanks to commissioner trumka, that mask has slept. we know that the biden administration is seeking to restrict the use of natural gas in new buildings. we can't let that happen. i look forward, mister chairman, deputy secretary, to your testimony. thank you. >> we're going to turn to deputy secretary turk for your statement. >> thank you very much, chairman manchin, ranking member barrasso, senator cantwell, cortez masto. i know we will have several others come as well. thank you for this opportunity to provide you all and update on the department of energy's implementation of the bipartisan infrastructure law. the bill, just as you said, chairman, truly is a historic investment in renewing american infrastructure not just for this year or next year but for decades to come. we are together rebuilding american manufacturing and increasing american competitiveness. we are creating millions of lasting good paying jobs all across our country. at the same time, we are reducing energy costs for fellow americans and proving our energy security, promoting energy justice, and tackling climate change head on. the bill is also the culmination of years and years of this committee's excellent work including the critical bipartisan energy act of 2020. i want to particularly call out the senators and staff for all your phenomenal work for all the provisions that are in the bill. on behalf of our entire department, let me thank you sincerely for all your leadership and partnership. through the bipartisan infrastructure law, we have investments of more than 62 billion dollars for the department of energy to administer. the bill launches 60 new programs, 16 new programs, enhancing 12 other programs. of the 62 billion dollars, 90 million is directed toward these new programs, just to give you a sense of the opportunity and scale of responsibility in our department. in the 14 months since biden signed the bill into law, the d.o.e. has been working with a real sense of urgency. we already have 37 billion of the 62 billion dollars available. districts across the country can benefit as quickly as they possibly can. we are also wanting to do this right. we have completed a major realignment of the department to ensure maximum impact but also oversight and integrity and certainly happy -- getting into the details of what we are putting into place to do this right. we have hired now more than 400 new staff with many of them contracting expert and those who can help in the integrity of the process. we are also working hand in hand with our inspector general as you mentioned, senator barrasso. i've spoken many times with terry donaldson. we are supportive of budget increases for her office. let me just give you a few highlights of our work so far. i'm happy to get into any of these in detail. the bill provides historic funding and support for hydrogen. i know it's an issue of interest from any members on this committee. we have developed a new yorker -- we have made seven billion dollars available for regional clean hydrogen hubs. i know that's of interest to many of you at the dais. we have issued announcements for another 750 million for electrolytes are manufacturing research and demonstrations to build out that critical capability in our country. we've issued funding announcements for game changing carbon management programs, two point 25 billion for carbon storage validation and testing, two billion for carbon dioxide transportation projects, and 1.2 billion for regional direct air capture hubs. you put that together with the 45 queue enhanced mints and that's a powerful recipe for cc u.s. taking off in our country. three point line billion so far has been made available to modernize our electrical grid. through billions for weatherization and energy efficiency driving down the cost for consumers across our country. 2.8 billion for processing component manufacturing, creating more than 5000 permanent jobs. in fact, since the president took office, the u.s. has seen 92 billion dollars of public and private investment in new and expanded battery manufacturing operations. that's a lot of good jobs across our country. we have created a new office of state and community energy programs. skip is the acronym, which is a terrible acronym, i will admit, but we have a lot of those terrible acronyms that deal we. the scep office ensures our build out is driven by and benefits communities across our country. not all knowledge, maybe not that much is in d.c.. we need to listen to communities to support them across the country with funding. as a preview of coming attractions, we will be announcing very soon something i'm particularly excited about, a billion dollars that you all funded for implementing community-driven energy projects across rural and remote america. i could go on and on. the department of energy looks forward to the continued guidance of this committee as we implement the bill and take on this enormous responsibility. this law provides an unparalleled and catalytic investment in our nation's infrastructure and energy security. the department looks forward to working hand in hand with all of you to meet this moment. chairman mentioned, ranking member barrasso, ranking members of the committee, thank you again for interesting the department of energy with this historic responsibility. i use that word very purposefully. to implement the bipartisan infrastructure law. look forward to answer your questions in the session and in the coming days and weeks. thank you. >> thank you, mr. turk. i will start the questioning. my first question, sir, would be concerning the ev battery supply chain. i don't think there's any secret here. my concerns along with a lot of my colleagues on the capture that china has on this market, how do we break that? i understand there are concerns about a company called micro vest. it was awarded a grafter the infrastructure laws battery grant program. what i say that company have to china? i know that microvast received an award from the trump administration. i'm hoping you can alleviate some concerns we have about this particular company and more globally the d.o.e.'s process for vetting applicants to ensure we are not giving our best ideas to china and funding them to be able to take advantage of it in the marketplace along with ours. if you can explain the vetting process and what you know about this company and what you are doing to make sure that is not going in the wrong direction. >> thanks for the question, chairman. i know senator barrasso is interested in this. we just responded to your letter on this they should have inure inbox as well. first of all, i think we have to acknowledge -- chairman, you said this many times more eloquently than i could possibly. our country -- i put all of us in that category. our country has fallen asleep at the switch with some of these key critical technologies -- battery manufacturing, solar tv. the vast majority of that is produced in china. it's not just the mining piece. in fact, where china has a stranglehold on us is processing and those intermediate steps. we are in a hole right now. i feel incredibly proud to be part of the department of energy that has been given tools in our tool belt to really get our act to go there and to have a proactive, robust strategy to onshore, lee shore and reassert u.s. leadership. justice kind of a backdrop of where we're coming from. >> let me say one other thing if i may. i'm concerned about the geopolitical risk that we are not concerned with right now by trying to push more evs out before we are able to supply the evs without depending on china. that is the biggest concern i have. the recent ruling from the treasury, it's still paying 70 $500. it has completely violated the bill that the i.r.a. had to have your procedures out and policies. they avoided that and they cherry-picked it. it's just ridiculous what is going on. we're pushing evs to the point going to continue to rely on china for the supply of these batteries. that's the problem. >> let me make a point on the evs and then get into the microvast and the process that we have. we are providing technical help and expertise to our colleagues to try to help move that process along. it's not a process that we control. what we do have are the tools you have given us through the bipartisan infrastructure legislation to move out as quickly as we possibly could to assert this u.s. leadership, do it as strategically and robustly and urgently as we possibly can. or not in the hole that we are currently in. have to dig ourselves out of the hole as quickly as we can. as i mentioned in my opening, the vast majority of our bill grants are competitive. these are administered by civil servants. they are down that way for a reason, to ensure integrity in the process, to ensure fairness in the process. there is an expensive merits review process where we get experts who know the industry and can provide guidance when we had these competitive grants before us. we are continually improving that process to make sure our civil servants have the geostrategic perspective of what we are trying to do. we have a robust process where we get intelligence officials to be part of that process and make sure that we have all publicly available information as well as privately available information through our extensive intelligence channels. we are also purposely taking advantage of expertise that we have in the department. those of you are familiar with us if he is process that we working on, we have expertise available to help us interpret that intelligence information and make sure we are being able to be smart. i'm going to -- >> we are going to -- we are going to go to seven minutes until we have -- if you keep your answer short -- tell me about microvast. >> this is an issue of interest. these are specific information that we have in place. every one of us, every applicant has to be a domestic entity incorporated in the u.s. with the majority domestic ownership may have a physical place of residence. >> do you look at -- you know our concern with china and the economic war, i think they're going to wage an honest if they haven't already started. are you looking at basically any ties whatsoever? they have ways of camouflaging minority ownership. >> we absolutely do. we are doing it eyes wide open on this. the other specific requirement i wanted to point out for the screen but other grants as well is any person participating -- this is particularly relevant to china but not just china. any person participating in a foreign government talent recruitment program are participated -- broader selected for federal funding, another specific piece. microvast was selected in particular. it was to negotiate an award. there are no taxpayer funds going to microvast or any of the 20 other companies. they were selected to participate in a negotiation for an award. what that triggers for us is a due diligence process where we look in and verify all the accuracy of the information. >> i'm going to jump to another subject. i'm sure -- the 12 billion dollar projects -- okay. we know for us to meet our targets and our goals as far as admissions, this administration continues to wage war on coal. they can say what they want to, i'm from coal country so i know what's happening. all the other things, but with that, to even come close to that, you have the wells that we are talking about, our classics from the epa, we had $12 million to deploy carbon capture on a commercial scale. the infrastructure bill provides 75 million for classic swell permitting providing grants to states to take over the responsibility for permitting these wells. however, only two active class six wells have ever been permitted and 30 applications are pending at the epa. what is that going to do to meet the timetable that we have? >> as i said, we have a phenomenal opportunity -- >> not the way they are moving! >> we are -- senator cassidy and i were talking about this before the hearing. we are trying to work with the epa. >> we're going to bring them in here. >> yes. >> okay, or ringing the epa here. >> i've had several conversations with my counterpart, deputy secretary in the cage. we are engaged with them right now on -- >> you know the problems we are dealing with here. we're never going to meet what we need to do with carbon capture because of the permitting process. >> we understand the urgency. we're trying to work with our interagency colleagues. >> senator barrasso, your question. >> thank you so much, mister chairman. >> thank, you mr. turk. in commenting on the infrastructure act, the office of inspector general of the department of energy said, quote, history is clear when money moves quickly. sodas waste, fraud, and abuse is the department taking enough time to review the grants to reduce the chance of waste and fraud and abuse? >> we are certainly moving urgently. communities need this help. we are also -- with the ig, we are trying to be able to support the ig for the funding on the back and. any lessons learned that they have about setting up these new offices, these new programs in the right way, we are spending an awful lot of time due diligence on that >> there seems to be a value to set those programs out before money starts going out the door. >> we are in the position of trying to move urgently and doing it right. we'll take both of those responsibilities very seriously. we appreciate that 62 billion dollars is a lot of money. i came from a pretty humble background. that's a lot of money. >> a lot of zeroes. >> we're trying to leverage that as best we can. >> as i mentioned in my earlier statement, the department has awarded us $200 million to microvast. the chairman mentioned it as well. in its filings with the securities and exchange commission, and the company states -- it's right here on the board behind me. it's under the substantial influence, the substantial influence of the people's republic of china, the prc. it goes on to say, our success depends on our ability to obtain, maintain, and protect our intellectual property rights. in the very next sentence, we may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights in the prc, the people's republic of china. this term prc, this is the fcc filing, this is the fcc filing. there is a lot to it. the term prc is mentioned 471 times in the company's violence. the term china's mentioned 110 times in the company's filings. you know, how did the department let this happen? did the department watch the process? i know this is long. did anyone at the d.o.e. actually do their homework? did anyone actually bother to read this? >> again, we are in the stage right now -- no taxpayer funding go into any of these companies it. we are doing a due diligence review. we're making sure everything included in the application was truly represented, any potential award, that's the responsibility that they have on that end. as a broader perspective, we're in a hole right now. unfortunately, most of, the vast majority of manufacturing is in china right now. a lot of that ip is in china right now. we have to have a nice wide open strategy, spending taxpayer funding in the way we all would wanted to be sent, trying to bring as much of that as quickly as we can to the point of chairman manchin here in the u.s.. that's what we're trying to do. >> i mentioned the letter. you said it would be in my inbox. it has come in. it was stated yesterday. it arrived today. it is on taking some of the selections for something like this. the letter says that we do a cicero post selection risk based due diligence review. after selection. you know, it makes you wonder why we don't make those decisions before as opposed to after the decision was made. why wouldn't we assess the risk before making a grand decision on something like this? >> our goal is to be thorough and diligent throughout the process, just to be incredibly clear. before we spend any taxpayer money, we'll go through a due diligence process with these companies that were selected to negotiate an award and do it again, do it again and make sure we are being diligent on that process. we make sure that our intelligence colleagues are part of the process, our other colleagues who have worked these issues for years and years. we do this eyes wide open, looking for our strategic interests. >> i would suggest that eyes wide open would have been before making this election, before making the decision when you have this to this level and this kind of history. i want to move on to something that the chairman also mentioned which were gas stoves. last month in an interview with bloomberg, richard trumka, commissioner for the consumer product safety commission, said any options on the table, products made safe can be banned. in response, the white house said the consumer product safety commission is not been in gas stoves. secretary granholm called the story ridiculous. i have obtained the memo from october 25th, 2022 from commissioner trumka. notice the proposal. ban on gas stoves, ban on gas stoves! here it is. this is the administration. the first seconds of this -- the need for gas stove regulation has reached a boiling point. i would say what has reached a boiling point is anger against the biden administration's insanity of proposing to ban gas stoves. it's astonishing. who is line? is mr. trump ally? is the white house lawn? is secretary line? you're saying different things. >> let me be very clear. the white house has been clear on this. the president does not support manning gas stoves. the department of energy does not support manning gusto. we do efficiency regulations for all sorts of appliances, household appliances. we have some pending right now, some for electric stoves and gas stoves. we treat those separately. what i am told, and we need to make sure we're not talking past each other, chairman, the nugget that you referenced. these rules would come into effect. every major manufacturer already has gassed of models that meet or exceed the level that we are proposing for 2027. if we're walking past each other, let's figure that out to make sure we know we are dealing with. >> my last question, the infrastructure act included six billion dollars for a credit program to prevent existing nuclear reactors from closing prematurely. since the enactment of the bill, existing reactors became eligible for production tax credits. tax credits are more than sufficient to address the economic needs of the existing reactors. the same reactors are now facing a new challenge. that's eliminating their dependency on russian uranium. i believe a portion of the six billion dollars should be used to ensure the availability of u.s. nuclear fuel rather than being dependent on russia. america's nuclear utilities agree. do you support supplying our existing and advanced reactors with u.s. produce nuclear fuel? >> we support both taking care of our existing reactors and we support a very robust aggressive uranium strategy for low enriched uranium -- thank you for your leadership on that for many years. >> just for final unanimous consent to put this -- >> objection. >> senator cantwell. >> thank you, mister chairman. thank you for your statement this morning. thank you for the agency's leadership in implementing these important pieces of legislation. i think you captured it correctly, we are making a record level of investment in the united states to unleash unprecedented level of private sector investment so we can win the innovation and opportunity war of the future. to also make our grid more secure. well we hear a lot of different things here this morning, the bottom line is, i know you were intimately involved in the aftermath of the colonial pipeline. i know you've been on the front lines of this fight. this is about strengthening both our resiliency and building assistance that makes the united states economy more secure. i appreciate your leadership on the. one thing i wanted to ask about, we were able to author and include the 2.5 billion transmission facility program as part of the bipartisan infrastructure bill. that helps support the establishment of microgrids an updating transmission lines. we also -- the forthcoming anchor tenant contract aspect to make sure we are enabling the kinds of development that we think is so essential for a more secure, smarter grid. that's everything on fire, helping us with more intelligent responses to fire. it's helping us, as i said, on moving energy around more effectively. the deadlines for those proposals was just yesterday, february 1st. can you share any initial assessment? do you anticipate a second round of those rfps in 2023? >> let me thank you for your leadership not only for that provision your focused on -- also your leadership in the science committee as well. we have to keep our eye on innovation and science in our national labs. you've been a phenomenal leader. i want to appreciate that. this transmission facilitation program, this is a big, big deal. i'm not sure people appreciate how important that is as part of the important package of what we are doing. part one did close yesterday. we are moving into part two. i am very pleased with how things are moving along that program and i'm happy to get into depth as far as appropriate. you think there will be a second round? >> there will be a second phase of this. a lot of what we are doing here to try to make sure we are spending this money as wisely as far as having a party when it are too similar to what we are doing on the hydrogen hubs where we have a concept paper and then ask for more flesh out information, we're trying to move deliberately along those lines. >> okay. you don't know that 2023 or not is what you're saying? we are moving as quickly as we can. >> i appreciate that. i am just trying to get a picture of how we are doing on that. you like the projects, that's important. you're seeing quality investments. >> we are seeing quality investments i know you understand this. i know a lot of your colleagues do as well. all of the climate benefits we get out of the bill, if we can't improve the rate of transmission build out, we lose 80% of those climate benefits. >> exactly. thank you for making that point. that's exactly why we did it. the transformation needs to include -- i feel make it smart and more capable, you're not going to be able to implement any of it. you can't spend the money on electric vehicles and have agreed that's capable of the intelligence required. let me turn to hydrogen. one of the provisions there in the bill was how we can accelerate the use of hydrogen both as an energy storage medium and to power transportation, particularly more areas that are difficult to the carbonize. one of the provisions was to produce and deploy benefits from green hydrogen. on the production side, our region is blessed with abundant carbon free hydro power. we serve -- we already have several what i would call hydrogen fuel production facilities and more are in the development. i wanted to hear what you were hearing us it relates to -- i mean, this is so important for us in the northwest because we are already a big transportation area. we want to freight a robust free network. we want our maritime ports. we continue to be a big driver. the agricultural sector alone on driving down fertilizer costs like -- the infrastructure bill included eight billion dollars to establish regional clean hubs. one has been produced from renewable energy. what are you guys thinking? what should applicants be thinking about as it relates to this particular program? can you describe how the department is thinking about this issue? >> happy to do it. just as you said, the opportunities for here for us whether it's in any part of our country is just huge. this can be part of not only our solution here in the u.s. to decarbonize but there's also a global race going on to develop hydrogen technologies and to be the manufacturing hub of the world for these technologies as well. as i mentioned in my opening, we have a phenomenal opportunity in front of us, the eight billion dollar hydrogen have, seven billion in a first tranche. we had proposals from all across the country. what we decided to do is have a shorter concept paper. we are now in the stage of encouraging 33 of those applications. we encourage an additional 36 to try to give them an early signal before too much was done. this was meeting the criteria to get most of the overall hydrogen solution. we are going over those more detailed applications. april 7th is when they are due and we will be able to look at them. we're hoping to get the funding. we're going to get the funding by the end of this year. we're moving quite quickly on that front. that's just one part of our hydrogen strategy. we have 750 million. green hydrogen that's part of that seven billion dollars. we also have 750 million to drive the cost of electrolytes years down which are what makes green hydrogen work. we have incredibly potent tax incentives for hydrogen, especially green hydrogen production. that's part of the treasury tax regulations. all of these things work together. >> thank you. i know i'm out of time. if i could just get -- a follow-up with you. i want to talk to you about the advanced nuclear demonstration project in our state. thank you so much. wsb, washing to state university is doing great work on hydrogen. it's amazing what we are going to eilish. thank you. >> senator cassidy? >> thank you, mister chair. one of your coworkers here mr. crane, he and i spoke about the d.o.e. is proposed definition of clean hydrogen that would change the legislative definition from two kilograms of co2 equivalent perky legrand of hydrogen produced at the point of production to a life cycle requirement of four kilograms of co2 equivalent per kilogram of hydrogen. we are told that an all natural gas grid would be counted in the life cycle analysis, without an all renewable grid would not be required to take into account the mining, refining, and manufacturing that went into developing that renewable grid life cycle analysis. we are also told that small producers of natural gas who had received no compensation in the hub would nonetheless be considered contributors to the life legal analysis. this really seems laid -- against natural gas, this war on fossil fuels that the administration seems to be pursuing. let me ask, where are we with this? have we modify those definitions or gone against that which was legislated? >> thank you for your leadership on hydrogen and a number of key technologies for your state and for our country. you are referring to the production standards which is trying to take him on the fence line life cycle analysis, taking into account all the emissions associated with it. that is not a regulatory standard. that is not a barrier to any applicant whether it's the hydrogen hubs or otherwise. we are trying to be true to the legislative intent and trying to make sure that with all of our funding we are taking into account the full range of emissions and being smart about that. >> let me ask, when you say full range, you're not including the life cycle of the renewable grid. if you're talking about solar, you're talking about the mining of lithium, the transportation of it from asia, et cetera, et cetera. it's pretty dirty. we >> need to take into account all of -- >> is it? i know you need to, what is your current life cycle analysis taking into account the upstream on natural gas if it's a natural gas fired plant and not taking into account the mining associated with lithium, et cetera to develop that solar panel farm? >> let me talk for the. you mentioned david crane, brad crabtree our college in charge of the carbon management office. our life cycle analysis should be life cycle analysis and take into account all the emissions throughout the life cycle. >> i don't mean to drill, but it should. that's a subjunctive. is it? >> that's willing to talk to our colleagues on. >> it is still taking into account the small producer of natural gas who has no relationship whatsoever to the hub and yet we were told previously that whatever -- the production of natural gas? >> we appreciate your continued guidance and feedback on the hubs. we are trying this to solicit information, to make sure that we are looking at, the criteria we are looking at, we certainly are being very solicitous, rightfully so, not just looking out for the big players but also -- >> that's beside my point. you mentioned talking past each other. right now, we are told that the average emission profile of the actual cast out would go to the natural gas fired plant, they're taking into account smaller producers which may have not as good a profile. they are lumping it into an average. the folks are not advantaged. in fact, they are being disadvantaged by including those who for whatever reason might not have the same positive rafael. again, i'm asking specifically, does the current rule still include those small producers in an industry average when taking into account the life cycle? >> let me take that back with my colleagues. i'm happy to have further conversations. i don't know the current state on that particular nuance. i will have to take that back. >> i appreciate you coming back with the. let me move on echoing with some of my colleagues have spoken about. the issue of -- you've mentioned you have these different proposals for hydrogen hubs. blue hydrogen, we need to sequester the carbon. louisiana has worked incredibly hard and collaborated with oklahoma and arkansas to put together a proposal. on the blue hydrogen aspect of it, you sequester the carbon. louisiana cannot get primacy. we are told that our application is actually being referred to as a model asked how to get primacy when other states come and say, okay, what format should we use? we are told, and all due respect to my ranking member of wyoming, which is the only state for maybe one of two that has gone privacy, that hours were in a few years after meets more concerns of the federal government? there it was good, ours is better. we still can't get it. it's been held up for years now. if we're going to achieve these goals with all these great kind of, oh my gosh, don't we want to do it, i would check a primacy, i feel like quoting pogo. we've met the enemy and he is us. in this case, it's the federal government. what can the d.o.e. do to actually move -- yeah, we wanted it to happen. >> you have a phenomenal opportunity on cc u.s.. thank you for the tools. we have the tax credit which i think is going to be a game-changer, the 45 queue enhanced wind. we're trying to do whatever we can. i have teams of ours working with colleagues, trying to inform their decision-making process. i'm happy to continue -- >> and the epa stop this by themselves? is there no one over epa that says, listen, you are supposed to give this to us last october. we are now still passed october, not to mention past a year ago, and we still don't know when it's going to happen? >> i'm happy to talk about this with our white house colleagues as well. i will try to make some progress and understand the urgency of what you are saying. i -- will need to make sure whether it's permitting more generally or classic wells, we need to make sure all part of the equation are in place so we can move forward aggressively and ambitiously. i certainly take your point on that. >> i will finish by saying this. part of the goal of the bipartisan infrastructure bill is to leverage bipartisan dollars. it's going to unleash a lot more money one thing that a lot more nuances certainty. the only thing they're getting right now is uncertainty. if the administration actually wants to trigger this, if the president wants to be known for being an environmental president, we have to unleash the capitol and it will not as long as they continue to just kind of mess with people. >> point incredibly well taken. this is why the tax incentives and the inflation reduction act are so important. those are tenure tax incentives and there's a lot more window certainty. there's a lot more planning a rising up there. i take your point. we have to have all parts of the equation moving forward so we have certainty across the front for a private sector developers. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator. we have senator cortez masto. >> thank you. deputy secretary, it's great to see you in. thanks for joining us. you know this, that there are exciting times right now in nevada with the emerging technology because of the economic boon it has to my saying. i want to talk about the battery grant program. i did work with chairman manchin to include the creation of that battery grant program for both manufacturing and recycling. we have to bolster the growth of our supply chains in north america. i do want to associate myself with some of the concerns mentioned today about making sure that the d.o.e. is vigilant about not funding operations with connections to the chinese communist party, specifically within the language. that's why we included a language that related to foreign entity of concern. i appreciate your comments today on that, but can i just clarify what you said today that the money has not been allocated to mike microvast? is that correct? >> that negotiation and that he diligence is going on right now. >> because of what you are learning today, because of what we know, there still a possibility of making sure the money does not go or ensuring that the money does not go to microvast? >> four microvast or any other company, there are 20 total companies as part of the 2.8 billion. >> just verification that as we sit here today, based on your review, what you heard today from my colleagues, there is the possibility based on that new information that we are hearing today that microvast may not get allocated -- >> for any other company, that's the progress we are in right now. there's a reason we do this, selected for negotiating an award so we can do that due diligence. we can make sure we are learning from our intelligence colleagues. we are verifying all the accuracy of the information that was submitted in that first election. >> we're going to follow up. i want to move on here. i absolutely have similar concerns here. please know that and we will be watching as well. i also want to stress what i have underscored with secretary granholm multiple times. there's a lot more interest for federal support and job creation as you know in nevada. domestic enterprises help us ensure that we are -- given the, can you speak to the timeline of rolling out the other half of the battery manufacturer in from the doa? i have in my state -- there are companies like specialty materials and others that can reapply to help drive our economy in southern ibarra. >> thank you for your leadership on this work. that is incredibly well positioned. many of your states are incredibly well positioned to take -- we have the first tranche. i was talking to my colleagues. we're trying to get a second tranche out as quickly as we can. the first tranche of just had a lithium battery qualities. we will make sure that there is additional language and focus to make sure that we are having our eyes wide open and the aperture wide open. we also have to make sure there are battery supply companies across the manufacturing. we don't have -- we are making sure that is right. we're learning lessons from the first tranche and trying to do that as quickly as we can. you know our secretary. she wants to move quickly on these things. >> do it right. critical memory is prone roles are increasingly -- nevada is a key partner in supplying the critical minerals. to prioritize grants it focused on strengthening every stage in our domestic critical mineral supply chain. what can we expect from the forthcoming d.o.e. fiscal year to support this and other critical programs? >> critical minerals are absolutely key. it's a key part. i know that. i know other senators know that as well. we did an extensive analysis of. i think it was 12 reports. they analyze where the critical minerals are right now. it's the processing. just to be very clear about that. we have to have a robust strategy that takes that on. the bill funding is incredibly helpful. we do think there are other things that could be done. we will have significant additional funding to make sure we are moving aggressively in that. it's a domestic strategy, but there are also key partners, whether it's canada -- >> as you move through this process, i would hope that you come back to us. it's another thing to not have the infrastructure at all. i'm hoping you're talking to us about the full supply chain here. >> absolutely. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you, senator. we want to welcome our newest member, senator josh hawley. we want to thank him for gracing us with his appearance here and also being part of this great committee. >> i would also want to welcome senator hawley to the committee. we are delighted to have you representing the great state of missouri. we are excited and look forward to your advocacy for american energy. welcome to the committee. >> thank you very much. thank you, mister chairman. >> if you have any comments, we are glad to have them. >> i just want to say it's going to be here. thank you for evan we. mr. turf, you're familiar with the manhattan project, i assume? >> i am. >> are you familiar with the effect of the manhattan projects radioactive waste on schoolchildren missouri? >> familiar with not only schoolchildren misery but we have projects all across our -- we have an environmental management program, about a billion dollars a year, that works on this effort. let's talk about missouri, if we could. in the hazelwood school district in the st. louis area, i hope that you are aware that radioactive material has been found in cold water creek which runs right near -- are you familiar with this? >> i've had several conversations with our team on this. >> good! you will be aware that there were no actual material has found within 600 feet of the elementary school. cold water creek as long been a site designated with radioactive waste and material. it goes through the school district. there are multiple schools in the hazelwood school district. there was private testing down in the elementary school itself, in the school building itself, paid for by private parties they found radioactive material in the building. on the basis of this, the elementary school is now closed. they took the difficult decision of having him close as well. the students have been sent home. they are now distance learning. as we have learned through covid, it's not much learning at all. we have working parents enough kids at home, not able to learn. i've asked the u.s. army corps of engineers to do additional testing on the elementary school. they've refused. the school district has asked them to do -- they have refused. the school district has written to your department asking the d.o.e. to authorize testing of the elementary and every other school in the hazelwood district. have you seen a letter? >> i have seen their letter. we've talked about it. we're eager to work with you. >> does that mean you will be doing the testing? >> we have had conversations including when the army corps. i don't particularly understand where the army corps coming from. >> neither do i. >> we're having conversations with them in terms of the jurisdictional nature of it. we're happy to have conversations, hoping to do right by citizens in missouri and elsewhere when we deal with the manhattan project implications. >> with all due respect, i'm not particularly interested in the conversations. i'm interested in getting a result here. the spirits have been waiting for years, frankly, years to get some cleanup done. i don't think it's too much to ask that the school districts beginning with -- get proper cleanup done and these kids be able to go to school in a place that doesn't have radioactive waste within 600 feet of their school or maybe in the building itself. what the school districts asked you to do is to authorize testing immediately at the elementary site and every other school building in the hazelwood school district. they're not asking the army corps for that. we've already tried that. they're asking you, the d.o.e.. will you authorize it? >> i'm happy to work with you on that senator. i need to talk to the team understand the particulars of what's involved. i don't understand right now the particular intricacies of jurisdiction from the army corps and what our involvement is. we need to have this statutory ability to get involved in cases along these lines. i need to talk to the team. i'm happy to urgently. >> what does that mean, you need to have statutory ability? >> the way it's been described to me as the army corps has been the principal government agency that has been involved here as far as these issues go. i don't know what our involvement is from the d.o.e. side of things. what is our particular jurisdictional hook? what is our ability to help in this particular situation? that's what i need to go back to our team and get an answer for you. >> let me tell you how the sounds of the parents. how the sounds to the parents as they have for years but asking to have this site cleaned up. they are told that there is radioactive waste in a creek that their kids play along adjacent to their elementary school playground. they are told that another analysis has found radioactive waste in the building. they are told that their school will be closed and their kids are sent home. the parents are wondering, have the kids then expose? the kids are now at home not able to learn. what they hear from the federal government -- the army courses, oh, i'm not sure. you don't know your statutory authorizations are. can we get people in a room together and figure this out so we can get this cool testing in it reopened? if you're sending impatient in my voice, it's because i'm very impatient about this. >> i'm a parent as well -- >> let's do something about it! >> happy to get in a room, happy to do with the army corps. we've got the letter a few weeks ago. we've had several conversations about what is going on. >> if you have eight weeks ago, why is it that you don't have anything for me today? >> i need to go back to our team. the last conversation was a week and a half ago. >> for heaven's sake? >> senator, if i could help you on that, i just got staff -- sam has been here longer and seen most of this legislation. i was told that back where there was another senator back maybe 20 years or more ago, they transfer that authority to the core. >> that's what i was alluding to. >> he's trying to find out. we have to do that here. i agree with you. it should be done. it should be in their hands. he doesn't have the authority right now. i'm understanding that it is still in the course jurisdiction. that's why it's confusing. that should never have happened. >> that may be true, and i appreciate that. it's not so clear to me. it looks like there might be overlapping authority. what i'm trying to do is light a fire. i just on behalf of the parents who -- i just want them to, they have gotten their one around for literally years. i just want to let the record reflects that as we are sitting here chatting about this their kids are at home not getting educated. what i am asking you to do is figure eight out and get me on answer. if we need to do something legislatively, we're going to do it. >> he cannot do that, what you just ask him. we can and we must and we should. if you put your staff with sam fowler, we'll have it ready for you. >> thank you, mister chairman, but i still want an answer from you. the school district has a letter into you. i'd like you to answer that. i want to be copied. i'd like to see a response. >> or more than happy to make this a top priority and work with your staff and try to do whatever we can from our and to be helpful. if there's legislation is needed, great. this is what we do. >> we now have senator kelly. >> mr. turk, thank you for being here again. i want to talk about the bipartisan infrastructure law. it contains a provision that i authored which directs the department to promote the installation of demand response technology. as you know, demand response technology includes smart thermostats and appliances that could save consumers money and also stabilize the electrical grid during those times when we have peak energy demand and demand is too high. the d.o.e. promotes demand a response in federal and commercial buildings already. the infrastructure law, this law explicitly added demand response to the mission and authorizes grants to stake still about this. we've seen this work in arizona. in 2020 in the summer, there was a regional heat wave that spanned 12 western states. it forced california to implement some role in lac outs or brown outs. arizona was able to keep its lights on and the air conditioning running. this is because our utility providers deployed a networked smart thermostat in tens of thousands of homes and buildings. these were remotely adjusted to conserve power. they turn it down or turned off the air conditioning in tens of thousands of homes. if this happened in your house, if you wanted to turn it back on, he would go back over to the thermostat in turn a back on immediately. that saved arizona from a significant problem that summer. this is a good deal. in exchange for voluntary participation, customers car rebate or disco. in some arizona utilities, they were able to sell excess electricity to california and post the revenues as savings to customers monthly bills. this was done during a heat wave. mr. turk, could you provide an update on the implementation of the demand response provisions in the bipartisan infrastructure law and to the extent you can today here but also could you provide us with a more detailed written report of where we are? >> yes. thank you, senator. thanks for your focus fundamental spots. this is a big deal. downright, it could be a winner for everybody involved, saving money, making sure we're using the assets that we have, especially challenging weather situations. we have focused on this for many years, the additional tools that you and other colleagues have provided are going to be incredibly helpful, including -- otherwise as well. we have something called the smart facility accelerator which is going to get this out there even more broadly. our building technology offices a real leader in this area working with state and local communities across the country. this is a big deal. we will leverage those bill resources as much as we can. we are building demand response into a lot of the other tools in the tool belt, looking at ways we can use the loan program to help activators make sure we get the most out of the tools. it's a big deal now and is going to be a big deal even more in the future. thank you for your leadership and arizona's leadership. >> if you can get something in writing about where we are, how many buildings today, if there's been any that it's been implemented in, what the future plans are. >> happy to do that. >> thank you. another subject, as you know, the west has been experiencing its driest period in 1200 years. we are in a drought that has been going on for over two decades. according to delia estimates, the drought has reduced hydro power generation at our federal dams on the collateral lower -- the deal was western area administration and the bureau of reclamation delivered that hydro power to certain public and 80s like irrigation and electrical districts, tribes, local governments. they exchanged these public and 80s -- for the dam and the transmission infrastructure that goes with it. unfortunately, their power contracts require that these public entities pay the operation -- even when the dams can generate electricity. for a lot of us in the west, it doesn't make a lot of sense. additionally, these customers at the same time have to buy more expensive electricity on the open market win of the dams can generate the electricity that they were intending to produce. mr. turk, could you direct the department and wapa to provide my office with an estimate of the amount of funding needed to cover the operations and maintenance obligations of the public entities that receive hydroelectric power from a federal dams on the colorado river? >> absolutely, senator. the drought is a big deal, including on the energy infrastructure, hydro power in particular. we're working with the department of interior and others on this. the estimate i have right on hand, we will get to the full details, as 100 $25 million. we will follow up with a lot more detail on the. i'm happy to work with you and wapa and others. >> i appreciate that and i yield back. >> thank you, mister chairman. thank you very much for visiting hawaii last month to take part in the hawaii clean energy forum hosted by the university of hawaii. i'm glad that you were able to meet people -- part of what hawaii is doing to achieve renewable power by 2045. they are building an economy with net zero carbon emissions by the same day. why is creating a blueprint that others can follow. i'm going to give you a broad question. what do you learn in your trip to hawaii aside from that it is a beautiful place about hawaii's leadership on clean energy? well, it was a pleasure to come and visit your beautiful state. i was there for about 36 hours and then got back on the red eye flight back to d.c.. i had to say came away incredibly impressed. your new governor, governor green, who had a chance to spends over hours with, his new team coming in, he was incredibly impressive. everyone who is involved in energy, especially clean energy -- why has been a leader for many, many, years. including having most of the ambitious goals earlier as any state out there. it seems like the wind was at their back and everyone is working well together. the conversation we've had and haven't following up, all these tools in their tool belt, the expanded to about, how can we bring these to help? whether it is on tv, whether that on when. whether it was offshore or geothermal potential in hawaii. i visited in a grove all cake site. which i think is incredibly exciting. to do the p v but also to grow crops. an incredible potential use in hawaii and elsewhere, as well. i can weigh incredibly impressed. especially in the governor's new term it feels like this is a new window doubled down working with you and with your staff. again, trying to leverage all these tools you have given us through the bipartisan legislator -- the i.r.a., as well. >> we have put in a lot of money to enable states to get on with moving away from the dependence on fossil fuels. why has made incredible progress. we are the most fossil fuel dependence day in the entire country. we paid more for our electricity than any other state. all of the things we are doing far for the purpose of not only environmental issues, but to enable us to pay far less. part of what we need to do is grid modernization. as we move forward with enabling more homes to get the storage, storage units into their homes. get rebates. or others as an incentive. grid modernization to allow homeowners to not only pay zero for their home energy, but also to be able to put energy into the system. the grid has to go to handle all of that. it is pretty complicated. as part of the current tools and resources that we have made available through the various bills that we have enacted going to help hawaii, being able to modernize its grid so all of that can be happening in as rapid a fashion as possible. that way we can meet our 2025 goals. >> the short answer is yes. we have to work deliberately with an urgency and sense of purpose. to look at the tools on the two belt. we have this new head of that office was with me in why to make sure we had that follow-up so we could work hand in hand to follow the league about why he wanted to do. to use these tools to support that. one effort that i reference to the governor, which i think is a pretty impressive tool, this is something our national renewal bull energy -- they worked with los angeles on the secretary down in puerto rico for the puerto rico 100. the idea is to use the technical expertise that we have in the u.s. government, working hand-in-hand not only with the liked officials but local groups and utilities. and to develop a plan going forward. we actually build out a new grid? it is so important, as you mentioned, along those lines. fieldhouse further conversations to see if that broader analysis, to see if that kind of a stakeholder engagement -- they will obviously be hawaii driven and why lead but we are here from the department of energy to support that in any way we can. >> speaking of things like technical assistance -- could you provide an update on what d.o.e. is doing to update the century advisory workforce board? presumably, all of this effort to get us to a renewable situation is going to create different types of jobs. this is an amendment that i offer to the eye iija with senator graham cantwell -- establishing a board of experts to promote and provide explanation to the secretary of energy supporting current and future energy sector workforce needs. can you update me on what is happening with the creation of this workforce? >> first thing, first thank you for your leadership on this with senator cantwell this incredibly important position. the charter of coming out in two weeks. we will have nominations in may. we are trying to work great quickly on this. >> thank you very much. thank you, mister chairman. >> thank you. senator cain? >> thank you, mister chairman. mr. turk, thank you very much for being with us today. i think that the three essential priorities getting us to a clean energy future are storage, number one. number two, storage. in number three, storage. you are a stride a whole series of provisions of the infrastructure bill involving research, development, and third for storage technologies. i think the first thing is to get from you, i hope, a sense of urgency about this. >> there is an absolute sense of urgency on this. not just for the near term storage, battery technology, but longer a shunt energy storage, as well. i think it was our second energy or shop we put out a very aggressive goal to drive down those costs of laundrie's unity storage. we will need to have that in our tool kit, as well. >> long duration -- one of the concerns i have is, there was a bipartisan letter that went out in the last two weeks -- >> i saw. >> we cannot just put all of our eggs in the lithium-ion basket. i hope that there is a diversity of research on other technologies. we had testimony, fascinating testimony about iron oxygen. which i think is happening in west virginia. molten salt, old-fashioned pump storage. i am very much hopeful that the department will have a wide aperture in terms of the technologies you are looking at. >> absolutely. there is a wide variety of really impressive technologies. a lot of them that have been developed in our labs, or in partnership with private companies out there. as you referenced in the letter, thank you very much for that letter, the first 2.8 billion dollars that went out on battery manufacturing did just have lithium. it was open to other types of technology, but those are the ones that our team -- these are civil servants making these decisions, where the most mature for that first tranche. what we've said is let's go back with the second tranche and make sure that that aperture's open wine. but that is just one tool in the two belt. we have a big ev, have any of our other funding streams that are working on a wide variety of other energy resource technology. because it is so important, we need to have a diversified array of potentials. >> one of the potentials that you did not mention, which i think is important, is recycling. in two ways, recycling batteries themselves. but also using afterlife automobile batteries in accumulation to provide longer term grid storage. >> completely agree. one of the best parts of this job are going out to our labs and visiting with entrepreneurs who are working on some of these technologies. some of the technology has the greater potential for recycling. we certainly want to take advantage of all of these. we are building out a better manufacturing here in the u.s.. 92 billion dollars of public and private investment. >> amazing investment in the last -- >> it is just amazing! there is going to be an awful lot of batteries out there. we need to make sure that we have a plan in place to recycle and make the most and resource. >> that leads me to my next question. which is the establishment of standards. there is a provision in the law -- i think it is section four dot one that talks about establishing standards and safety measures. you say an awful lot of batteries. we have to be sure they are safe and effective. i hope that is also a focus that we work. >> absolutely. and a real priority. thank you for flagging that one in particular. >> i think that is very important. this leads us to permitting reform, mister chairman. permitting reform, we are in a race against time here. we have had testimony before this committee that it takes over ten years to permit a pump storage project which is 100-year-old technology. it is very well-established and well-known. we cannot afford that. the same thing goes whether it is acquiring lithium -- i did some research, recently. it turns out that about 70% of the lithium that we use comes from australia. that's good. the problem is 87% of the processed lithium comes from china. we have to develop that kind of technology, as well. that is going to involve being able to do it on a timely and predictable basis because, again, if we want to achieve -- a goal here is clean energy. we cannot allow the permitting process itself -- not standards but the process itself to become barrier to having us achieve that clean energy future. it would be ironic if environmental objections to copper, for example, which we need to expand the grid, ended up compromising or crippling our ability to expand the grid in order to accommodate the cleaner energy future. you follow me? >> completely agree. we have to do a better job. we have to do a better job, across the board, on permitting. it is not just the mining piece it's the processing separating in diversifying the supply chains. working with australia and other partners. a lot of those jobs could be here in the u.s., as well. one area in particular where we are very focused is transmission permitting. >> that was my next question. one of the issues about transmission is, there is this odd incentive structure in the utility business where you get your rate of return based on how much you spend to build the project. but we have got to talk about, transmission, improvements to the existing grid that may be way less expensive the building all new towers and wires but would give us increase capacity. perhaps they should be a discussion with for. i think we really need to develop the technology to increase the grids capacity without starting all over. i think that makes perfect sense. and one of the new officers recreated with the bill funding is the great deployment office. phenomenal leadership in that office. a phenomenal team working on exactly those kinds of things. i think we do need to talk about -- we need to talk with now route and the disincentive to cost effectively update the grid, as opposed to building a whole new -- >> we don't have the time to just let things organically happen. we need to accelerate and connect those -- >> the permitting is a locked easier if you're putting gizmos on existing towers rather than cutting a new path through people's backyards. >> absolutely. >> final just quick point. how are you doing on staffing? what you are stepping into now is a huge undertaking in terms of grants and monitoring, frankly. all of the accounting in all of that. the contract work. i heard recently you are about 1000 people down. there was some hiring back. where did that stand? >> i have been very pleased with the applicant pool, although it is a tightly remarket, when we established our clean energy core, which was a way to build up our staffing to staff all of these new positions, we ended up getting tens of thousands of applications. incredible talent -- >> people who are interested in the mission? >> i think they are interested in the mission. they are interested in doing what we can in the u.s. to save our planet. at the same time an awful lot of jobs and communities benefiting from it. we are at now an additional 400 just over 400 new staff that have come on for the bill and the hiring provisions as, well. we have about another 100 in the pipeline that will be coming on shortly. we will need to staff up further from there. we are trying to do it in a very disciplined way in a very deliberate way but still urgently, as well. some phenomenal talent. i have to say, it is one of my favorite things to meet with some of the new stuff coming on. the mission drive, the excitement to be part of this department of energy at a golden era is really inspiring. >> thank you. doctor hickenlooper. >> thank you for your testimony, you time, in your service. thank you mister chair. the iija. revived a important federal authority to identify important areas that need transition and provided a federal path for siding in some of the federal regulatory commission work started their process for rotation of the backstop citing authority can you update us on that timeline for -- identifying carters of interest? >> we are working, very quickly, on that. we have this grid development office focused on that. i am told the reporter, the meade study, will be out very soon. i don't know, jeremiah, if you have a further update on that. hopefully that is days and weeks? >> days. >> wow! >> that leads to the corridors. >> that's a good answer. i got that. good answer. thank you. >> the bipartisan infrastructure bill and regional hydrogen program is a generational opportunity for a commercializing clean hydrogen across sectors. we have to acknowledge that not all and users are created equal. what we're showing here is what michael lee brook, founder of bloomberg, new energy ladder. it is where hydrogen will find the most promising uses taking into account both the attributes of hydrogen and also the contribution it is up against another clean resources. specific predictions aside, what is d.o.e. doing to critically assess the long term promise of different and uses when evaluating different applications for hydrogen hubs? are you thinking about supply or the demand side support measures, as well? >> we are absolutely thinking about both the supply and demand in the pipeline and the way to get the haugen around. michael berke is a frank to mind. i worked with him for years. i find his ladder incredibly interesting and helpful. we are doing our analysis. we are doing our strategy, our hydrogen roadmap. trying to think very comprehensively about this. what tools we have another tool belt. we have a lot more tools now thanks to the leadership on the hydrogen front. the tax credit, which i think will be a real game-changer on hydrogen, as well. it is a very potent tax incentive along those lines. the other thing we have done internally to be coherent in strategic is create 100 in joint strategy team. there are a lot of offices at d.o.e. that have some hydrogen tools in their tool belt. we want to make sure it is part of a comprehensive strategy. this joint strategy team which made up of dozens of people across many offices is working quite well to make sure that we have a coherence in the strategy, just as you are suggesting. >> great. last question even if we stopped emitting all co2 today we will still benefit considerably from removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. in our most recent fiscal year, 2023 appropriation bill, congress included language establishing a pilot program expanding the kinds of carbon dioxide removal technology that could receive federal support from the direct procurement of atmospheric co2. how does the department lana implementing this provision as a compliment to provisions in the iija? >> thank you for your leadership on that. i completely agree we are going to need cost-effective carbon dioxide removal technologies. there is a variety of different technologies that are potentially relevant here. we are going to move out, aggressively, on that. we do have funding on the bill. the direct air capture hubs which we are moving quite clearly on. i appreciate your leadership and your guidance to ensure we are eyes wide open with a wide amateur in terms of the technology space here trying to be smart about that funding. sometimes when you start off in that lower rain you can have your rings dilated. i guess you see more color saturation -- >> one of our earth shots was exactly to try to accelerate compressed timelines and use all tools. including arpa-y and the d.o.e. offices. >> you're either gonna have a great time or you're gonna have a really hard time. >> we have got to work. it no days off. >> you gotta. no choice. yields back to the chair. >> thank, you senator. real quickly on that, when do you expect to make similar announcements on the hydrogen hubs? >> the hydrogen hub timeline, we have done 33 encourage 46 not. april 7th is when the full applications are in. we are going to make selections no later than q4. as you know former secretary she's gonna try to move that timeline up, but do it right. >> gotcha. real quick if i may, a couple questions. the infrastructure bill provided through on 1 million dollars for d.o.e. carbon utilization program, which includes projects to commercialize innovative uses of coal. the chips act also authorized coal innovation projects a d.o.e.. we know that coal have so many values to it. not just for burning, creating fire in making steam to produce energy. as d.o.e. project says shown, coal in ways coal can be used to product graphic batteries. metal composite, feeling material, rare earth elements, and others into products that are going to be needed for the construction, defense, energy industry. more sustainable ways than the traditional mid being used today. however the d.o.e. recently terminated some promising projects to commercialize new uses for cole. it seems like they have a hard time accepting that cole has more values since they want to eliminated. d.o.e. said there is a lack of funding for these projects despite the hundreds of millions of dollars that congress has made available. my question would be, would y'all continue to support commercialization of innovations? uses for coal, including from newly mined coal or from coal waste? we have a commercial project now where earth minerals are being extracted from coal waste. it's already been mined. you don't have to do anything. just clean it up. are you open to ensuring that funding from the infrastructure bill and the chips act would be used, rather than basically saying you're not gonna do it? >> you know, senator, we've been working at the department on this. including our any t l colleagues that you know very well. brian anderson in the teen there we have a whole team of mineral sustainability vision. our fossil energy in carbon management development team is focused on this. what i'm told we have for smaller project pilots out there. there are plans to try to build from that. i'd be happy to talk to you and your staff to be sure we are going forward with that. >> we use all the above energy and all the resources that we have. we have been, for terror too long, out of sight on the mind asking other parts of the world to do what we consider the dirty work that we would do for ourselves. we do it better, cleaner, more environmentally correct than anyplace else in the world. we are just in denial. i would hope -- i would be talking to secretary grant o more about this, in the white house. the other one i have is the white house recently issued guidelines of a greenhouse gas emissions which are considered for nepa reviews one of my concerns for these guidance is it clearly favors -- it really favors renewables over fossil projects. let me be very clear, this administration has misaligned the purpose of the i.r.a.. for energy security. and it's been touted as this administration is strictly an environmental bill. i don't know if people know you can't put a windmill up unless you are extracting. you cannot put a solar form and build up lands unless you are extracting. we need to have fossil fuel in our mix and be fossil fuel independent rather than asking iran to produce more crude oil to bring the party knowing it has a global effect. let's ask iran. the most prolific terror supporter in the world to give them more resources, to do more destruction to humankind. it makes no sense all we've been redoing is fighting that continuously. we are trying to replace our dirty fossil from around the world with a clean fossil from the u.s.. that is a tremendous support of the environment. i would like to think that we take it balanced approach. we got and says agency should accelerate for projects that have no missions or that reduce emissions. the guidance provides only solar and wind projects as an example. you don't even talk about the faucet that can be reduced with carbon capture. how do you look at dnieper views for grants and loans? are you going to give carbon capture the same as you do for renewables? >> thank you for the question, chairman. i should say a big thank certainly on behalf of the department. frankly the american people for all of your leadership. not only on the bill but the i.r.a. -- -- . >> you know how frustrating it is that basically have a piece of legislation that every democrat voted for and to see the administration try to change the implementation of it? you know how frustrating it is to go and fight the way we did? and then have to go back and fight our own administration to do the right thing? >> just to put it on the record for myself in a department the energy security benefits, the affordability benefits, we are seeing benefits, already, from the i.r.a. and the bill all across the country. >> how about the world? if you can talk about this, david, about the interest that the rest of the world has in the united states. we came from last as far as our investments in being responsible that we could do things in a more innovative and creative way to first. because i heard from all of europe. trust me -- i hear it. >> i know you are hearing it. i'm hearing it. i think, frankly, there is a jealousy. that is a good motivator for others to get their act together, as well. we are seeing that in europe with president vandalizing and others. we need to race to the top. you, through your leadership, have put us in the league. >> all of us here. >> all -- thank you. >> bottom line is we remember the european union, yesterday, in my office, i was letting them know that we want to do things. the obvious thing is -- we could not be the superpower of the world that we could not help our european friends, neighbors, and allies quick enough when putin weaponizing energy that he weaponized against them. trying to destroy their economy, harm their citizens. we have to be in the position to help. that's why we said, let's do a piece of legislation that uses the resources that we have in the cleanest fashion to be energy independent using the fossil power we have, investing 369 billion dollars to create the new technology with the carbon, if you will. but also not replacing what we need now until we have the other that will do the job. that's all we're trying to do. i don't know why we are in denial. >> my hope is we are going to have such a cost reductions because of all that you've done -- other committee members have done. that will help us not only in the u.s. but it will help the rest of the world, including the developing countries who need these technology so they can have energy. >> i want to put this on the record. when i was meeting with the europeans i said listen, i didn't fall you when you all went down. he went carbon tracing. it didn't accelerate the innovative and creative spirit it would take to fix this. once the pricing got into the market it was accepted. this is the cost of the product. it was all except in. we took the care and the stick. they used the stick for years. they were not able to mature and accelerate quick enough. we didn't pick energies that were conceptual. we paid images that we knew were already proven. we just never matured them. now we are going to mature hydrogen. they are reactors. the battery storage. all these things that need to be done to do the direction that we want and you go under direction. until the europeans, we are sharing that with you all. we can share it. if you come to innovative and creative opportunities quicker than we do you'll share with us. we did this because we were not able to whom -- i think to be able to perform our responsibility as a superpower of the world. to help all the freedom loving democracy that we have to support. we have taken enough to. that's the reason we have done. please quit fighting us. work with us. >> this is a race to the top. this is how we get it done. i think the dynamic of your leadership and the leadership in the u.s. is playing incredibly helpful role. people may not appreciate that but history will see us very favorably. on ukraine, i'll have to tell the committee we have a second tranche going over on military transport going over right now. electrical equipment going to ukraine. we have a third tranche going over and about a month from now. that is a direct part of what we are trying to do to help our incredibly brave ukrainian friends and colleagues. >> sir, thank you for that. did you have a follow-up? >> first, i just love the image of you giving them hack in davos. >> i was -- frontal attack! i will tell you one thing. i had to convince them that we are still allies and were on the same side. here we are trying to help each other. we think we can do it quicker. >> i have this picture of you in my mind. i would've loved to have been a fly on the wall. >> you would've enjoyed. it, i'm sure. >> chancellor scholz, myself, macron, it was something. >> i dare say they have never seen anything like you. [laughs] >> i won't comment on that. mr. turk, we've been talking about large projects, and it is storage, batteries, all those kind of things. i hope that there is attention being paid, also, to smaller individual things. i have an app on my phone that control is my furnace at home. i can turn the temperate around 65 or 66 during the day when i'm not there. an hour before i go home and turn it up to 72 or 70. i got a message from the company that makes the thermostat. it's a mean 29% of my energy bill last year. all over america and we are heating speaks where nobody is. we are cooking water that no one needs that particular moment. i think that there is a huge opportunity for using personal technology -- the other factor is providing people with information about their energy use. a simple dashboard that people can look at to see what they are using in their home heating and electricity. there is something called the previous effect. they find that people that drive automobiles that tell them how much energy they are using tend to use less energy. forget about the technology of the automobile. if you ever hear about me running into a tree it'll probably be because i'm looking at that charge trying to get an extra tenth of the mile out of the mileage. what i'm suggesting is, think small as well as big. think about these technologies. there is enormous potential in this device for energy control. using energy much more efficiently. the cheapest and cleanest kilowatt hour is the one that is never used. i believe there is still room for conservation and creative use of energy, as opposed to the profit heat the house all day although no one is there. thoughts? >> i couldn't agree more with you, senator. just another nugget on there. i think the potential in huge. frankly, some of our i.t. companies are not doing what they should be doing. this is a great way to leverage their business resource and be a helpful corporate partner, as well. google and google maps had a new feature -- been out for maybe a year or so. it has a little leaf when you plot what course you want to go. that leaf is powered by and rail and our analysis. our national labs are putting information in there to allow google maps to say this is more energy efficient. you may consider doing this and it might be only one minute longer than the other route. >> people often make, or usually make the right decision, if they have the data. >> if they have the data and you make it easy for them. to senator hickenlooper's question slot response and automating it. people can override it, right? if they're in nast thermostat is doing something they don't want, override it. but you save an awful lot of money if you are smart about it. we need to have the incentives in place for the aggregator's, the i.t. companies, to leverage that. i could not agree more. >> i hope you have a small bureau, a small office, of cool stuff. >> we will call it the cool stuff office. >> people who are thinking about the non huge big multi million billion dollar projects. thinking about these kinds of apps and technologies that can be used to conserve and save energy which, as i say, keeping clean is the one that is not used. >> i was talking to cast sunscreen, some folks may know. he helped the department of homeland security. he called it the default effect. if you are able to use technologies. to get people to use less energy as a default, they can still override, it is save an awful lot of energy if you do it in a small -- i'll take it back and see what we can do to be even more helpful in the space. >> thank you. >> any follow-up's senator hickenlooper? >> no, i think this is a great conversation to have. as always, we'll put together. really appreciate you putting together with the staff being really well together giving answers very quickly. giving encouraging, you know, ambitious answers. that's what we need to do. >> let me just say, david, thank you. you tell the interest that everyone here has an all that. but truly the position we are in right now is enviable for the whole world. we never thought we would get here. it has been very trying in hard time we get here. we have a balanced approach. that is all we are saying. the united states of america should not happen on any other nation to be a supply of the energy we need to defend ourselves and how brands. that is it. but we should do is continue to be a leader. if you want to be a superpower you'd better to be energy independent and secure. that is what we are trying to do. please share this with my dear friend the energy secretary that we are all in on this together we will make it happen. i can tell you that you have the support from this committee. but that being said members will have until the close of business tomorrow to submit any additional questions you may have for the record. the committee stands adjourned. we all should be concerned. yes, that's our intention. china does not have a benchers to somehow. they are good competitors, we are good competitors. we should be able to work in this global market. not to work with subsidizing. not to take advantage of american taxpayers to subsidize. it that's not what our infrastructure -- are some of the park to onshore some of these jobs. to bring them back from china and if they are back in china. >> you can say the intention of the ev battery. i just said, this administration was moving quicker than what we have the ability to supply. we are gonna be dependent on foreign supply chains and not from the from these countries that wanted to survive. that could be heard on us from the transportation. i've said this many times, we have never done. that we've always been able to take care -- decentralized connally of this society relies on the move to be a leader in the world. when you are dependent on someone sending you the batteries and doing all the processing, we aren't doing hardly any of the. we don't have any pathway. we use the incentives in the i.r.a. bill. fine, you want 70 $500 a credit, here is how you're going to greta. 30 7:50 on critical minerals that we need. sourcing them in north america, or country we have a free trade agreement with. we don't have a free trade agreement with russia or china or any of them. that would stimulate things and keep things happening. and now manufacturing of the batteries which will be used in the american model cars. i don't think that where a lot of the european countries thinking occurs assad jump-start. they use the stick -- you heard me say carbon tax, cap and trade, all the things that i would never ever agree to. it does not incentivize and fix the problem. we use the incentives, basically, the carrot approach. that's why we are going to get more investments here. we will accelerate immaturity's industries much quicker. how didn't gonna be tremendous. battery storage, will be that. with the small ole reactor is not a new technology the emerging technology we just don't want to throw money at something that was conceptual and never proven. >> your family owns a company that profits from coal waste. why is it appropriate for you to pressure and ministry -- >> basically what we do is service. we weren't. we have people who work. we've done that since the 90s. i live in coal country. if you not working for country you don't work in west virginia, usually. 50 out of 55 counties. that's just our way of life. someone begrudging you doing this and not, we want that basically using coal waste. beating it in back in the 80s i think the administration -- whoever the administration was at the time said, if you clean up those compounds and waste and burn. you use when you don't know is the byproduct of that is also high of nine. which is used for water purification. it has a dual purpose. we have been doing it for quite awhile. >> micro basked. were you satisfied with the deputy secretary's response? are they doing enough? >> dave is extremely confident -- extremely complex. we are gonna get to the bottom of this to find out. they probably have, on paper, the requirement saying they are a minority, this in that. i'm saying that basically any interest -- they can camouflage their interests and what the percentage would be. 49, 50. you are in the majority. certain access to markets. that is all it's four. we have to find out about that, what is being done. if there -- if you will, a little maneuver of taking ran into the american taxpayers supporting their technology. >> you are still doubling this financing out, when picking your company, how much a relationship, with china, is too much in your view? where is the line here? >> china has basically prospect from innovation created in this country. i think we all know that and we have seen that over the years. we sure as heck don't need to give them more money from the taxpayers harder money investing to make sure that the united states of america's energy independent. that's all. >> the answers you've got when it came to evs -- for the administration is doing everything on evs and jen allen is a friend of mine. i respect her immensely. we just have a difference -- we respectfully disagree. she is not following the law. this administration is cherry-picking. you saw. the used -- here is the thing about. it every american company had already maxed out 200,000 vehicles. if they had done nothing, if there was never a bill -- the irie bill, the only people that would've benefited if that law had taken effect safe 100 dollar credit, there is no limit on what the price of the vehicle be. there's no limit on what your income would be where you qualified for 7500. they chose the ones we put in in the i.r.a. they chose the 4 to 5000 on sedans and 85,000 on trucks, you know? they chose those, they liked that, but then they went ahead and they want to give the 70 $500 out because they said, well, it will take too long for the united states to be more energy independent to where we are producing more of our own critical minerals how the bill said you had to do it. and processing. they thought that would take too long. i said, come on. they said it would take five years to get a vaccine. we got it in nine months. trust me. they are moving in and direction to accelerate that. with the administration jumping in and trying to soft pedal people, there's no rush. it's just wrong. >> we assurance you have in the administration is not trying to ban or restrict the sale of gaston's? will you satisfied with that in throwing gas stoves? were you satisfied? >> the gas dose. here is the thing about it. their intention is how do we basically stop using any fossil fuels? the world is not moving in this direction at the time that we want to do thing here and to put extra burden on the american public where the purchases of the consumers in america is wrong. the bottom line is, if there is better technology -- if it is feasible that it is reasonable. if it's not feasible than it's not reasonable. we don't have the technology. you're putting technology before the benchmark we need to meet it it's not reasonable. not reasonable at all. >> it seems like the law left a lot of wiggle room -- >> it basically says have that done by december 31st. rosa regulations, are you gonna operate with public input. we haven't done any of that. they didn't need. they just pick a choose and say, okay. we can still use 30 $500. that's

Related Keywords

Arkansas ,United States ,Louisiana ,Australia ,Nevada ,Missouri ,Iran ,Hazelwood School ,China ,California ,Virginia ,Togo ,Canada ,Russia ,Ukraine ,West Virginia ,Puerto Rico ,Arizona ,Turkey ,Hawaii ,Americans ,America ,Turk ,Chinese ,Russian ,American ,Los Angeles ,Michael Berke ,Richard Trumka ,Graham Cantwell ,Cortez Masto ,Brian Anderson ,Josh Hawley ,