Hearings to examine proposed legislation to extend authorizations for aquatic ecosystem restoration

Committee will come to order. Good morning and welcome to all. Today we'll receive testimony on twenty-four bills that have been listed on the notice for today's committee hearing. The bills address a wide range of issues, from public lands to forestry to energy. We're joined by our three witnesses, who are Senator Michael Bennet, uh, Alex Fiss-Simmons, the Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Sarah Reicher, who is the Associate Director of the Geology, Energy and Mineral Emission area at the US Geological Survey. Following my opening statement and that of ranking member Heinrich, we'll hear opening statements from each of our witnesses, followed by questions from each of the senators in attendance. We have a long list of bills in front of us, and I wanted to uh briefly focus on three bills uh on that list that I that I've sponsored, the energy Efficiency Reform Act, the Liberating Incandescent Technologies Act, and the Free-to-Exit Administrative Tribunals Act. We've come to expect that our technology will improve over time. The cell phone in your pocket contains more computing power than all the computers that were used to put a man on the moon. Cars get faster, televisions get thinner and clearer, But if you feel like your refrigerator or your dishwasher or your washing machine doesn't quite stack up to your old one, you're not alone, it's not in your imagination. Today we spend hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars on new appliances and then wonder whether it'll take ten years for them to get the job done. Writing for the New York Times, Rachel Wharton reported that, quote, " Every appliance service technician I spoke to each with decades of experience repairing machines from multiple brands, immediately blamed federal regulations for water and energy efficiency for most frustrations with modern appliances." These regulations are rooted in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, or EPCA. The law now governs standards for roughly sixty categories of household products. Under current law, the Department of Energy must repeatedly revisit efficiency standards, and do so every six years, even when there may be few efficiency gains that can be left to squeeze out of the product after it's already been repeatedly improved. The never-ending barrage of new standards sends manufacturers back to the drawing board, again and again and again, redesigning appliances to meet DOE's latest deadline, with little time to see whether the last update even worked and what cause, what problems may have been caused along the way. Repair technicians then have to keep up with constantly changing technology, with tools and procedures, and consumers are left in many instances with appliances that may save a little energy uh or a little water on paper, but can cost more, perform worse, and become harder and more expensive to repair. And in many instances, uh, a - a machine that could perform a task in one cycle, uh, sometimes will have to be run two or three cycles in order t- to get the job done, that previously could have been done in one cycle with another machine. My Energy Efficiency Reform Act would help to change that. The current statute requires the department to consider whether a new standard is technologically feasible and also whether It's economically justified. My bill would require the secretary to apply the same standard when issuing test procedures for each new covered product standard. It'd end the mandatory six-year review cycle that keeps manufacturers trapped on a regulatory treadmill while preserving the ability of the public and the industry to petition the Department of Energy when a standard actually needs to change. This six-year review cycle, or look-back period, invites litigation by environmental NGOs, which sue the department if it declines to issue a new standard. Without intervention, this process is sprinting towards less consumer choice, uh, less reliable products, and less money in the pockets of everyday Americans. It'd give the secretary of energy greater flexibility when an existing standard simply does not make sense for American consumers. And it would clarify the federal government's authority in issuing new or amended standards. An appliance that uses a little less electricity or a little less water isn't much of a bargain if it costs substantially m- more, doesn't work as well, or has to be replaced sooner, and often requires multiple cycles just to complete the same task, very often obliterating any energy or water savings, uh, that it was designed to achieve. At the end of the day, it's about giving Americans the choice, uh, freedom to choose what works best for them and for their family. If they can afford the upfront costs in exchange for minimal monthly savings then great. But lower income households, seniors, and minority groups may not have that luxury. They may want, they may need more choices, more options. That same principle is behind my Lit Act. The Biden administration effectively eliminated the traditional incandescent light bulbs from store shelves through federal efficiency standards. LED bulbs are a great option for millions of Americans in countless applications. If consumers prefer them, which in many instances they do, they should buy them. But Washington DC does not need to eliminate the alternative, which is effectively what we've done. My bill would remove the incandescent bulbs from these federal efficiency requirements and allow consumers to decide for themselves whether or in what circumstances they want to use incandescent light bulbs. The third bill I want to highlight today is my free-to-exit Administrative Tribunals Act. For Westerners, decisions made by the Department of of the Interior can determine whether someone can graze graze livestock develop minerals harvest timber or more move forward with a project. Yet, challenging one of those decisions can mean literally years of litigating against the department, before the department, that is, before the department's own administrative pri- tribunals, before they ever have the opportunity to litigate the matter in federal court, before a neutral tribunal. My bill would allow certain parties to remove these proceedings uh, from administrative law judge, uh, to federal court within sixty days and receive de novo review. Americans shouldn't have to spend years and years pleading their case to the government before they're allowed to challenge the same government in federal court. With that, I look forward to our hearing and to hearing today from our witnesses about these proposals and the other legislation that's before the committee. today. And the chair now recognizes my friend and colleague, the ranking member, Senator Martin Heinrich.

Thank you, Chairman. Uh, before I begin to address the bills in today's legislative hearing, I want to raise my deep concern over the Department of Interior's consideration of trading away national parkland in Yosemite National Park to a private equity owned development. Um, what is equally alarming is that Department filed a Land and Water Conservation Fund request for three hundred thousand dollars to support the transfer of this park service land. LWCF exists to protect public lands and expand recreational access nationwide for the public benefit, not to enrich private equity. We also don't know what private land would be exchanged for the parcel, which indicates that the exchange is likely not in the public interest. How can it be if we don't even know where it is? The protection of public lands and particularly our national parks is a bipartisan issue, and we will continue to raise our concerns over this proposal and demand that the department provide more transparency. Uh, with that, I would like to address the bills in today's hearing. I'm glad to see a number of bills included on today's agenda, in particular, uh, Senator Bennet's Glenwood Hot Springs Protection Act, would ensure that Glenwood, Colorado's famous hot springs are not threatened by a proposed mine expansion that could disrupt the groundwater hydrology at the springs. This is a great example of locally driven public land management, and I hope that this committee can move this bill forward soon. I'm also glad to see Senator Durbin's Gateway Arch National Park Boundary Revision Act on the agenda. The communities in the St. Louis area have long supported the growth of this park to encompass both sides of the Mississippi River and add new parkland in neighboring Illinois, and this bill would do just that. Uh, I am concerned that we find the Energy Efficiency Reform Act on the agenda today. The chairman's bill would thoroughly dismantle the Department of Energy's Appliance Standards program. This is a successful bipartisan program that has been providing real savings for American families for fifty years. Thanks to the Appliance Standards program, American households save almost six hundred dollars a year on their utility bills, all while having better performing and wide-ranging options of home appliances. The Chairman's bill would make virtually impossible for DOE to set future efficiency standards, foregoing significant additional savings for consumers. The bill would also increase electricity demand by as much as thirty-two gigawatts, in twenty forty, at a time when we desperately need more electrons on the grid. Furthermore, the bill would eliminate several existing standards, and give the administration the authority to cancel standards as it sees fit. This type of backsliding on existing standards has been opposed by industry leaders because it would undermine domestic manufacturing, and allow Chinese products to flood the market. Groups such as the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers have all submitted public comments to the Department of Energy opposing the very backsliding this bill authorized. Uh, I would ask unanimous consent to submit three letters of opposition to S fifty-three thirty-eight for the record.

I've had objection.

Uh, the first letter is from consumer groups, including Consumer Reports. the Consumer Federation of America, and the National Consumer Law Center. The second is from seven public health organizations, and the third is from sixty environmental organizations. Additionally, I am concerned by S sixteen fifty-eight, the Liberating Incandescent Technology Act, or LIT Act, which would repeal energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. Families in New Mexico are not clamoring for incandescent light bulbs. Most people just want to be able to afford their energy bills. The Lit Act claims to walk, aims to walk back a common sense rule that has saved consumers an estimated three billion dollars, billion with a B, and is supported by industry as well. So I would ask for unanimous consent to submit a letter of opposition to S fifteen sixty eight for the record from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the American Lighting Association.

Without objection.

Uh, the letter states that the sole beneficiaries of the Lit Act would be foreign companies positioned to flood American markets with low performance, low quality, and potentially unsafe products. Rather than turning back the clock on progress, I had hoped that this hearing would offer a chance to consider several bipartisan bills to help more families lower their energy bills, through the popular weatherization assistance program. I hope, uh, the chair will work with me to advance weatherization legislation sponsored by Senators Reid, Murkowski, Collins, Shaheen, Coons, and Gallego in the very near term. Uh, lastly, I'm disappointed that we do not have a witness present who can speak to S fifty forty eight, the hydropower licensing affordability act. Intended to streamline hydropower project approvals by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the bill would significantly weaken tribal protections. Chairman Lee and I were copied on a letter from tribal nations and tribal organizations opposed to this bill. The letter details how the provisions of S fifty forty eight would strip protections from reservation lands and treaty resources, including fishing, threaten important cultural sites, undermine water quality for fishing people, and increase litigation. I share some of the tribe's concerns and if an appropriate witness from the Department of Interior or the of Commerce were present today, I would ask them to confirm that the bill would limit tribal rights, including fishing rights, and if the bill wou could lead to an increase in litigation. But there is no one from these agencies today. And FERC only provided written testimony, so I will be submitting these questions for the record to FERC. And I expect to receive answers to them prior to this bill being included on a future business meeting agenda. Uh, thank you to all the witnesses who are here today, and I yield back the rest of my time.

Thanks so much, uh, Senator Heinrich. Um, I, if any of the members wanna speak about any of the bills on today's agenda before we hear from our witnesses they can let us know. I've already heard from two who wanna be added, so we're gonna hear from Senator McCormick, then Senator Daines, and anyone else who, uh, okay, I saw hands in order of me saying the hand, and we will go to Senator Hickenlooper.

Mm-hmm.

And then I thank Angus beat you by like ten seconds, Alex, I'm sorry. So we'll get a Hickenlooper uh King and then Padilla. I'll hold the fire on the side of the road. OK, Hickenlooper, Padilla, then King. Uh, go ahead, Rick.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh, Ranking Member Heinrich, and thank you to the witnesses for joining us today. Today the committee is considering S uh five three six zero, the Rural and Municipal Utility Cybersecurity Act. It's bipartisan legislation that I have introduced with Senator Cortes Masto. This bill is important because it reauthorizes the Department of Energy's rural and municipal utility, advanced cyber security grant, and the technical assistance program. And this helps rural and municipal electric utilities protect their syst- their systems from cyber threats, which are sadly growing. This bill comes at a critical time. In twenty twenty four alone, seventy percent of cyber attacks involved critical infrastructure. Iranian uh affiliated cyber attacks surged a hundred and thirty-three percent in May and June of twenty twenty five compared with the previous two months. And federal agencies have warned that Iranian affiliated actors have targeted vulnerable industrial control systems across America's critical infrastructure. Most recently, in late July, the FBI and EPA reported cyber incidents affecting water and wastewater utilities in at least seven states. Some of those attacks degraded water operations. And these uh incidents underscore the vulnerability of systems that Americans rely on day to day. Large utilities may have the resources dedicated to have to strengthen their cyber defenses. Many smaller and rural utilities do not. That's certainly the case in Pennsylvania. A successful attack on one of these utilities can disrupt essential services and potentially provide an entry point into interconnected infrastructure. The cyber threat to our critical infrastructure is not slowing down, and our smallest, most under-resourced utilities should not be left to face it alone. The Rural and Municipal Utility Cybersecurity Act ensures that federal cyber security funding and technical assistant s- assistance remains available to eligible utilities that may not have those capabilities in-house. So, um, I'm, uh, honored to be able to put this uh to the committee today and i wanna thank you mister chairman and uh ranking member for including this bill in today's hearing

thanks senator mccormick senator daines

chairman lee Rehnke and rohamid thank you um including today's agenda are four of my bills senate bill forty four eighty nine the dry red water regional water authorization act senate bill fifty forty eight the hydropower licensing affordability act senate bill forty one sixteen the geo power act to have with senator hickenlooper and senate bill forty twenty three the america's living library with senator young i'd like unanimous consent to add letters of support i've received for each of these bills in the record

got it roachy

yeah you're welcome roachy

uh the dry red water regional water authorization act will authorize the construction of critical water systems in eastern montana in fact back in twenty twenty congress passed my bill for the bureau of reclamation to complete a feasibility study to bring clean drinking water to Dawson, Garfield, Macomb, Prairie, and Richland counties in Montana, as well as McKenzie County in North Dakota. After five years, Reclamation finished their study and in response, the Montana delegation drafted, introduced Senate Bill forty-four eighty-nine, which will federally authorize this water system and add it to the rural water program. I wanna show my colleagues why this bill is so important. why i have been working on rural water issues in this committee since day one i brought some water samples today from montana it's in macon county now i'm not bringing these samples from a third world country this is literally water coming out of some faucets in macon county in montana you can't see this quite as well the sediments in here shake it up but if if you look at that as closely as i can see it you'd never wanna think about pouring that out of your faucet and taking a sip of water from it.

What did you do to them, Steve? That's terrible.

It's, uh, it's quite remarkable, Senator. Uh, obviously, this is water that families in Montana should not be drinking. My bill will finally authorize the dry red water regional water authority system and bring clean drinking water to over thirty thousand Montanans in towns like Glendive, Circle, Ritchie, Jordan and Sidney. I look forward to working with the Bureau of Reclamation and this committee to get this bill to the President's desk and begin construction of this important project. On hydropower, Senate Bill fifty-fourty-eight, the Hydro-Power Licensing and Affordability Act would make very targeted changes to sections four E and eighteen of the Federal Power Act to ensure that federal agencies focus on the direct effects of a project when they're licensing or relicensing a hydropower dam. Federal agencies have weaponized what's called mandatory conditioning, where they can require a hydropower operator to do specific actions before granting a license. We've seen this weaponization repeatedly in Montana and across the West, and has resulted in massive project costs and risk the continuation of solid hydropower projects. For example, in Montana, the Thompson Falls Dam is currently going through relicensing and we're fighting back against unnecessary and unrelated conditions from agencies. This bill would remove the abuse without weakening environmental or endangered species protections or limiting tribal and state consultation. Senate Bill fifty forty-eight simply adds one line to the existing sections of the law ensuring that mandatory conditions are limited to those that quote reasonably mitigate the direct adverse effect of the applicable project. End quote. This is straightforward and should not be a controversial proposal. I look forward to working with the chairman to include this in the permitting package or a future mark-up. Last, save our sequoias. Before I close, I want to flag one more bill that I support. The Save Our Sequoias Act would make important changes to help protect and rehabilitate the giant sequoia including expediting fuels management, thinning, and hazard tree removal projects. I've been working on a similar proposal for Montana's iconic white bark pine. As we work to move our Save Sequoias Act, we should also look at ways we can take this blueprint and apply it to other landscapes. I know that was a lot, Mr. Chairman, thanks for hearing me out today and appreciate your leadership.

Thank you, Senator Daines. Um, okay, I've been told that um Uh, Senators Hickenlooper, Padilla and King have graciously agreed to let Senator Bennett speak first. He's got another commitment. Uh, we'll turn to you next, Senator Bennett.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I appreciate the graciousness of my colleagues. Thank you for

I I hope I didn't speak incorrectly for you.

No, no, you please retract your graciousness. Uh, but and your excellence. Thank you, Mister Chairman, for having me today, and uh, to the ranking member, thank you for uh, your having me. And uh, and for holding this hearing and for giving me the opportunity to speak about our bipartisan bicameral glenwood hot springs protection act glenwood springs is a critical economic driver of colorado's roaring fork valley the region's major hospital is there home builders and regional employers base their companies there students come from across the area to attend colorado mountain college college's major campus and of course the world famous hot springs uh are the are the heart of it all. The region's geothermal network has supplied mineral-rich therapeutic spring water for millions of years and has been intertwined with the cultural tradition of the Ute tribes since time immemorial. But now the hot springs, along with the hundreds of Colorado workers and small business owners whose livelihoods it supports are under threat despite years of public opposition. company is once again proposing to triple the size of a gravel quarry on Bureau of Land Management lands just outside of Glenwood Springs. This expansion would permanently disrupt the limestone form- formation that feeds the hot springs, undermining one part of the Roaring Fork Valley's economy and damaging the region's quality of life. The quarry expansion also poses a real risk to Glenwood Springs' health and safety. Three years ago, the company proposing the expansion. Rocky Mountain Industrial cut corners on safety regulations and a major rock side occurred on the site. Their proposal would also route gravel trucks through a dense residential area, sending heavy-duty commercial vehicles barreling through town. Destroying a one-of-a-kind geothermal resource to mine gravel that can be found literally all across America is a short-sighted and irresponsible decision to make. Any attempt to expand this quarry would only benefit a handful of interests, while risking the safety and well-being of hard-working families and business owners across the Roaring Fork Valley and Colorado River valleys. This is not how we do things in Colorado, and that is why local elected officials, Senator Hickenlooper, the Southern Ute uh Ute Tribe, the Glenwood Springs business community, and thousands of community members oppose the quarry's expansion. The Glenwood Hot Springs Protection Act, Mister Chairman, would protect the economic prosperity of Glenwood Springs and the spectacular public lands just outside the town by stopping the proposed expansion. To underscore the broad coalition uh behind this legislation I've brought over a dozen letter statements and town resolutions of support from local governments, public land users, and the Southern Ute tribe. i ask unanimous consent to enter these documents into the record

without objection

thank you mister chairman i'm especially grateful to senator hickenlooper representative jeff heard and the entire roaring fork valley for their ongoing part uh their ongoing partnership and advocacy in support of this bill on behalf of the people of colorado i urge the committee to advance the glenwood spring glenwood hot springs protection act and thank you again mister chairman for your Um, kindness in allowing me to go first, and thank you to my colleagues.

Thanks so m- thanks so much. OK, uh, Senator Hickenlooper, y- you're next at back. Uh,

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

thanks for your, uh, magnanimity, uh

Magnanimity, magnanimity, or whatever it was. Thank you, Senator Bennett.

Thank you, yes.

Um, I'll echo, um, what he described, and as a recovering geologist, I can speak full well that there's a complex plumbing, uh, situation under, uh, the that allows Glenwood Hot Springs to be continuous, sustainable, uh, that hopefully will last forever, and that large-scale mining would put that at risk. Um, the proposed expansion of a limestone quarry threatens that underground network of, of plumbing, uh, that fuels the hot springs, and again, this is one of Teddy Roosevelt's favorite places he visited many times, and I think the local community is nearly unanimous in opposing it. Uh, I want to talk about two other bills very briefly, the Geopower Act, which I lead alongside Senator Da- Senators Dain, Padilla, and Curtis, aims to accelerate the spread of geothermal electricity uh at scale. Uh, obviously geothermal is clean, uh, it balances the need for firm, always-on power with that emissions-free generation. Um, this bill authorizes the Department of Energy to provide innovative financing to projects that will catalyze geothermal in various uh, and new states. Um, this is gonna help the next generation of geothermal energy move from pilots to commercial scale unlocking the the heat beneath our feet. Um, I'm equally excited about Earth MRI Act, which I have the privilege to co-lead with Senator Murkowski. Uh, the US Geological Survey's Earth Mapping Resources Initiative, the Earth MRI, helps chart out our critical mineral resources and our geothermal potential, our geo- geog- geological hazards, et cetera, goes on quite a bit. Uh, since its launch in two thousand nineteen, Earth MRI has accelerated, project timelines has lowered costs, um, has been making fundamental foundational geological information uh available to everyone. Um, this is a, uh, I think, uh, again, a rare opportunity. Uh, I will defer on further detail in making sure that my I was gonna go more on geothermal, but I realize I have a a true expert of the heat beneath us beneath our feet, uh beside me, so I yield to the senator from California. Senator Padilla.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, first I wanna thank, uh, uh, an echo. Uh, it's ranking member Heinrich's comments about this administration's efforts to sell off a parcel of Yosemite National Park and, since our caller from Colorado has evoked Teddy Roosevelt, Let me quote President Roosevelt's uh about Yosemite. He said it was quote, it was like lying in a great solemn cathedral, far vaster and more beautiful than any built by the hand of man. Former President Roosevelt. Uh, look folks, the uh uh proposal to sell parcels from Yosemite National Park for real estate ambitions of a private developer uh is not supported by the people of california frankly we find it pretty offensive i wanna note that secretary bergham has submitted this project to congress as an agency priority for the land and water conservation fund without providing any demonstrated public purpose or identifying any land to be exchanged for conservation the proposal finds in the face of everything that the national park service and system stand for so i wanna enter into the record a bipartisan and bicameral letter that i co-led that has one hundred and fifty seven members of congress opposing this proposal mr. chairman

without objection

thank you and uh it um uh also plan to submit questions for the record for the department of interior and provide them an opportunity uh to uh finally back away from the proposal uh mr. chairman i i do wanna uh acknowledge you and thank you for including my save our sequoias act on today's agenda. Giant sequoias are one of the most iconic species in the world and are only found in roughly seventy groves across california however due to dangerous fuel build-ups and increasingly devastating wildfires nearly twenty percent of these ancient trees have been lost over the past decade this build would enhance inter-agency coordination accelerate forest restoration and provide important resources to land managers to guard these grows from further destruction i recognize that doctor reicher is uh does not have jurisdiction over this bill so i'll be submitting questions for the record regarding implementation efforts and funding needed to complete these management and restoration projects and i'll withhold my questions on the america's living library act and the desalinization uh reauthorization for when we get to uh hear from the witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. OK, um let's see, Senator King.

Uh, as as you probably have noticed, I have a cold, so I'm gonna try to make it through this, if not I'll submit some comments in in writing. Um, I just wanted to express my opposition to five three three eight, which is the repea essential repeal of the energy standards laws. Um, we've had a great deal of discussion at this committee about two things, cost of electricity and energy and the growing uh demand and the shortage of capacity to meet that demand and it strikes me with those two realities staring us in the face this is not the time to be repealing energy efficiency standards. Um I understand the argument that people should be able to make those decisions for themselves, but this is not something that they can really assess, the information isn't necessarily available to them. And the energy efficiency standards which have been in place since the nineteen seventies have saved our consumers billions of dollars, hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year, and uh it just strikes me as uh I I just don't understand the the impulse to uh uh to repeal these standards and make it so that it would be very difficult for them to be re-established or or adopted. Um, the cheapest kilowatt hour is the one that isn't used. And that's what really what we're talking about here. Uh, we have safety standards for cars. Uh, people have to have, uh, there are certain things they, the uh, automobile makers have to build into their cars in order to, to make them safe. And it seems to me this is an analogous situation where uh, we're making things uh, uh, more economic for our uh, for our citizens. And I am concerned that these standards go away we're opening the door to uh imported products uh that will not meet the standards and uh it will end up as I say increasing demand and increasing cost to our consumers so um uh I guess I understand the the ideological idea that the government shouldn't be making these kinds of rules but I think this is a case where it makes sense both economic and in terms of the long-term energy uh uh interest of this country And so I feel that S five three three eight is not in the best interest of our, of our consumers, of our citizens, and our country. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Um, uh, before we go to our second panel, I'll just, um, point out I, uh, your points are, are well taken. I understand. I understand that the efficiency standards and, uh, improvements by way of efficiency, facilitated in part by this and other laws, have brought about energy savings. and they've done some good things, but nobody's trying to take those away, nobody's trying to do away with them. But there is a balance that needs to be achieved between uh, uh on the one hand consumer choice, on the other hand the drive for more improvements. Um, whether you're dealing with something like a uh, um, a dishwasher, or a clothes washer, or a dryer, um, in each instance, uh, there are trade-offs that sometimes have to be made. Um, you you lose you may lose one thing in order to gain something else, and in some cases you may end up using as much or more uh, water or as much or more electricity if you have to repeat the same cycle two or three times where you previously could have done it once. Uh, there are also different needs that people have with different appliances based on their own individual household demand. Uh, uh, with light bulbs for instance, uh, there are those who may want a more yellow light Uh, th- th- less of a stark white that you tend to get from LED lights. I - I think consumer choice does matter. Um, but we're not getting rid of these things. We're just building more flexibility into them. With that, let's, uh, let's go to our panel. Uh, um, our second panel of witnesses, uh, is here. Uh, and again it's, uh, we've got two witnesses from within the administration. Um, our first witness on panel two is Mister Alex Fitz- Fitzsimmons. He's the Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy and our second uh witness on panel two. It will be Doctor Jarrah uh Doctor Sarah Reicher, Associate Director of the Geology, Energy and Minerals Mission area at the US Geological Survey. We'll now hear from each of you. Mr. Simmons, we'll uh start with you and then we'll go to Doctor Reicher.

Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and distinguished members of the committee. It is an honor to testify before you today as a representative of the US Department of Energy. Under President Trump and Secretary Wright's leadership, the Department of Energy has been hard at work implementing President Trump's agenda of restoring American energy dominance, lowering energy costs for Americans, and strengthening our national security. The Secure Grid Act would strengthen our energy security by hardening US electric grid infrastructure. The Trump administration is committed to empowering state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to play a more active role in energy resilience and preparedness. All fifty-six states and territories have completed a state energy security plan. This legislation formalizes the inclusion of additional data in these plans, particularly in the risk assessment section. It requires states to consider threats and vulnerabilities, including risks posed to local facilities, the electric distribution network, increasing grid demands, and the potential for human error. Americans need a reliable, resilient, and secure electric grid. In an increasingly complex cyber and physical threat landscape, we must continue to collaborate and create a federal policy that keeps the lights on for all Americans. The Rural and Municipal Utility Cybersecurity Act would help strengthen the cyber security and resilience of public power and cooperative utilities. These utilities are targets for cyber attacks, and many of them struggle to defend against the advanced capabilities of nation-state adversaries, often due to a lack of funding and personnel. DOE's Rural and Municipal Utility Cybersecurity program has assisted more than five hundred eligible utilities to date. In twenty twenty six, Twenty-nine organizations will receive fifty-four point eight million in funding across six hundred and fifty distribution utilities to invest in cyber security technologies and strengthen staff skills and utility policies. Sophisticated attacks on rural utilities illustrate the critical need to accelerate improvements in cyber readiness while closing the rural resources gap. We look forward to solving this problem with the help of the committee. The Lit Act would provide US consumers with greater access to incandescent lights, which were largely phased out by the Biden administration. DOE supports greater consumer choice, period. This legislation removes incandescent lamps from the list of covered products subject to DOE's efficiency regulations, eliminates the statutory standards applicable to these lamps, and terminates final rules published during the Biden administration that adopted additional requirements for general service lamps. The Energy Efficiency Reform Act would protect consumer choice and reduce costs to consumers. The act would compel DOE to finalize a proposal that would require future DOE energy conservation standards to meet specific affordability thresholds while providing more certainty to regulated parties. The act would also ensure that any future regulations lead to significant savings instead of burdensome minor incremental improvements. The act would ensure product availability, including consumer access to gas-burning products compatible with existing venting types and clarify how DOE considers product features when establishing new standards. The act would undo rules published under the Biden administration that established new energy conservation standards for consumer furnaces and commercial water heaters and would prevent DOE from adopting future energy conservation standards for distribution transformers. The Hydro-Power Licensing Affordability Act would streamline the how- the hydropower licensing process. It amends the Federal Power Act to ensure federal agencies limit environmental and fishway mandates to the direct impacts of the facility being licensed. By focusing on project-specific effects, the bill eliminates out-of-scope regulatory demands and streamlines the licensing process. These amendments provide regulatory certainty and lower licensing barriers. This enables additional resources for hydropower assets and technology upgrades. The Geopower Act would advance next generation geothermal generation by establishing a milestone-based geothermal demonstration program that will help accelerate commercialization and attract private investment. DOE's Office of Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy is advancing next generation geothermal pilot projects and exploration drilling initiatives, to spur innovation and expand geothermal technologies nationwide. DOE's support is focused on identifying promising new development opportunities and gathering data to reduce risks and encourage development in new regions. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, and I look forward to working with you so that we can continue to ensure affordable, reliable, and secure energy for all American families and businesses. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Fitzsimmons. Uh, uh, Dr. Riker.

Good morning, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the committee. I am Doctor Sarah Riker, the Associate Director for Geology, Energy and Minerals at the United States Geological Survey. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior's views on four bills impacting the USGS H R nine hundred, sinkhole mapping act of two thousand twenty five, S four zero two three, America's living library act, Act of two thousand twenty six, S four eight four six, Trans Boundary Aquifer Assessment Programme or TAP Act, and S four eight seven zero, Earth MRI Reauthorization Act of two thousand twenty six. Excuse me. H R nine hundred, the Sinkhole Mapping Act, directs the USGS to establish a program to study the short and long-term mechanisms that cause sinkholes and to develop and regularly revise maps that show zones at greater risk of sinkhole formation. Sinkholes are highly localized geologic processes that are dependent on local geology. And state geological surveys provide local expertise in this issue. The USGS recognizes the interest in evaluating and mapping sinkhole risk, but does not support the bill, as it would require an expanded and sustained effort using resources already committed to USGS core mission priorities. S four zero two three, the America's Living Library Act, would create a ten year pilot program led by the USGS, to collect, preserve and sequence the genomes of plants, animals, fungi and microbes found in units of the National Park System. The bill would authorize five years of funding for implementation of the program, including for USGS program oversight, genomic sampling and sequencing, while also establishing new responsibilities for genomic data management and long-term biological sample storage. The department does not support S four zero two three, as it would establish a new significant biological research and data S four eight four six the tap act would reauthorize the transboundary aquifer assessment program through two thousand thirty six and expand the program to include additional priority aquifers underlying arizona as evaluated and designated by the secretary authorized by congress in two thousand six tap is a binational agreement between the united states and mexico under which the two countries jointly study aquifers The department does not support reauthorization of TAP as the USGS is focusing its efforts on higher priority operational responsibilities. S four eight seven zero, the Earth MRI reauthorization act would reauthorize the USGS Earth Mapping Resources Initiative through two thousand thirty one. The bill also specifies that mapping provided by Earth MRI may include data derived from modern sensing technologies to improve the characterization of critical mineral geothermal natural hydrogen and other In addition, the bill would integrate data from the USGS three D hydrography program into Earth MRI. The USGS launched Earth MRI in two thousand nineteen in response to President Trump's issuance of executive order one three eight one seven, which called for modernizing geological, geophysical, and topographic mapping in areas with potential deposits of critical mineral resources. Earth MRI's partnerships with state geological surveys, other federal agencies, including the Department of Energy, and the private sector have led directly to the first national map of areas with critical mineral potential. This helps the USGS prioritize new national, new data collection efforts needed to quantify mineral resource potential and provide stakeholders a shared understanding of the potential distribution of critical mineral resources. Earth MRI has covered nearly thirty percent of the nation with magnetic and radiometric geophysical surveys. The program has collected other essential geoscience data and has had broader impact in energy and ground water resources, hazards and infrastructure. However, much of the country still lacks the geological data necessary to locate and quantify critical mineral resources. The department supports S four eight seven zero and is committed to ensuring that the United States is the leading producer and processor of critical minerals in order to create jobs and prosperity at home, strengthen domestic supply chains, and reduce the global influence of adversarial states. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Thanks so much. Uh, thanks for uh, for your opening statements. We'll now begin five minute rounds of questioning, in order of seniority subject to the early bird rule. Um, uh, by the way, on that front um, the Republican side I've got Lee, Daines, then McCormick. In the order I've got on the Democrat side, Heinrich, Hickenlo- Hickenlooper, Padilla, King, and Cortes-Masto. Um, I'll begin. Uh, Mister F- uh, Fitzsimmons, I'd like to start with you, if that's alright. Um, as I mentioned earlier, I've got, uh, two applied standard bills before the committee today. One, the, uh, the LIT Act, uh, stands for the Deliberating Incandescent, uh, uh, Technology Act, would repeal the standard that has effectively banned the, um, the incandescent light bulb from the marketplace in the United States. The other, the Energy Efficiency Reform Act, is a more comprehensive, uh, a- appliance uh, standard reform bill that would help ensure that future products, entire lines of products in some cases, aren't just eliminated uh from the market altogether, while also bringing more transparency to the Department of Energy's rulemaking process uh to protect consumers. Can you discuss some of what the Department of Energy is doing in its recent efforts that may be aligned with these bills?

Certainly, I'd be happy to, Senator. I mean, first of all, the Lit Act is a fantastic name, but it contains an even more important principle, which is, as you pointed out, consumer choice. And that is what has guided DOE's Appliance Standards program under the Trump administration, consumer choice. So obviously, and and that has a direct affordability benefit as well. As you know, we are required to consider what is technologically feasible and economically justified. I feel like all too often we forget about the economically justified part. As you pointed out, there have been significant energy savings from the appliance standards program over time. What we are talking about doing going forward is making sure that, as we assess continued standards, that they still meet the threshold for significant energy savings and are not imposing undue burdens in the form of significantly higher upfront costs. And we want to let consumers make those decisions. So if you have, for example, a water heater, that has a payback period of ten years, and you only live in your house for seven years, you won't see, even though it's a more energy efficient product, it has a higher upfront cost, and, and you won't see the energy savings get paid back over the life of that product. These are the decisions that we think people are smart enough to make. They're smart enough to make informed decisions about what products and appliances they want in their lives and so w- at DOE, under the Trump administration, We are not in the business of regulating any products out of the market that consumers want. We are for giving consumers the choice to choose what best meets their needs.

I assume in reaching that conclusion you've heard from a lot of people in the industry, and you've probably heard from a number of consumers. Uh, you've probably heard from people like me who have in fairly recent past purchased uh new washers dryers uh dishwashers uh and when that happens, sometimes I've found myself uh I remember when I got new washer and dryer a couple years ago, thinking these are efficient, uh, these are gonna be great. And in some ways they are. And yet, I sometimes end up feeling guilty afterwards, cuz I know I've consumed twice the amount of energy that the product manufacturer probably thought or represented, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, as the norm, because I've had to run the dryer two full cycles in order to get a very basic, um, medium-sized load dry. And I I I think sometimes things like that don't get taken into account. You heard from consumers and and interested groups of similar things regarding modern appliances.

I mean, the the the the bottom line is, I mean, they have a term for that, it's called the rebound effect. Right? When you're you're in in the interest of energy efficiency, you have to cycle products multiple times to clean your dishes or dry your clothes. I mean, we've we've all seen it. So, yes, I mean, it is a it is a real concern, and so then there's a

Now, uh, specifically with respect to the Energy Efficiency Reform Act, um, you know, th- it, again, this one ensures that the process rule that DOE issued earlier this summer will be codified into statute, uh, if finalized, uh, before the enactment of the bill. Do you have an anticipated timeline for when the process rule might be finalized? And - and tell us a little bit about how, uh, h- how it might change, uh, from the prior administration's rule.