Senate Energy and Natural Resources (Murkowski): Hearings to examine S.5402, to extend authorizations for aquatic ecosystem restoration projects, multi-benefit watershed health projects, and WaterSMART grants, S.456, to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expedite geothermal exploration and development in previously studied or developed areas, S.1568, to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to modify standards for general service lamps, S.2644, to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to assess the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Camden Battlefield area in the State of South Carolina as a unit of the National Park System, S.4103 and H.R. 2709, bills to improve the health and resiliency of giant sequoias, S.4116, to advance next-generation geothermal electricity generation demonstration projects in new regions, S.4166, to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to require States to include supporting the physical security, cybersecurity, and resilience of local distribution systems in State energy security plans, S.4023, to establish the America's Living Library Project, S.4489, to authorize the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System in the State of Montana, S.4787, to expedite resolution of certain administrative proceedings at the Department of the Interior, S.4846, to amend the United States-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act to reauthorize the United States-Mexico transboundary aquifer assessment program, S.4870, to amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to reauthorize the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative, S.4955, to amend the Act of May 17, 1954, to revise the boundary of Gateway Arch National Park, S.5048, to amend the Federal Power Act to modernize the hydropower licensing process, S.5101, to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from taking any action to expand the Mid-Continent Limestone Quarry located near Glenwood Springs, Colorado, S.5169, to expand the boundaries of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District, to recognize and enhance the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District partnership model, S.5338, to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing any new or amended energy conservation standards for a product that is not technologically feasible and economically justified, S.5293, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to establish prepositioning protocols for aerial wildfire suppression for early-season fine fuel wildland fires, S.5352, to amend the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act and the Water Desalination Act of 1996 to reauthorize certain desalination programs, S.5359, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to Pennington County, South Dakota, certain National Forest System land, S.5360, to amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to reauthorize the Rural and Municipal Utility Advanced Cybersecurity Grant and Technical Assistance Program, S.5374, to facilitate the conveyance of certain land in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, platted under section 2387 of the Revised Statutes, H.R.900, to direct the Director of the United States Geological Survey to establish a program to map zones that are at greater risk of sinkhole formation, H.R.1682, to amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to provide for lifetime National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Passes for family members of members of the Armed Forces who lost their lives while serving their country.

Committee will come to order. Good morning and welcome to all. Today we'll receive testimony on 24 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 3 witnesses who are Senator Michael Bennet, Alex Fisk-Simmons, the Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Sarah Riker, who's the Associate Director of the Geology, Energy, and Minerals Mission 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 briefly focus on 3 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 10 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 60 categories of household products.

Under current law, the Department of Energy must repeatedly revisit efficiency standards and do so every 6 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 caused— what problems may have been caused along the way. Repair technicians then have to keep up with constantly changing technology, tools, and procedures. And consumers are left in many instances with appliances that may save a little energy or a little water on paper, but can cost more, perform worse, and become harder and more expensive to repair.

And in many instances, a machine that could perform a task in one cycle sometimes will have to be run two or three cycles in order 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 would end the mandatory 6-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 6-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, 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 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, the 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, D.C. does not need to eliminate the alternative, which is effectively what we've done. My bill would remove the incandescent light 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 the Interior can determine whether someone can graze livestock, develop minerals, harvest timber, or 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 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 60 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. The chair now recognizes my friend and colleague, the ranking member, Senator Martin Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. Before I begin to address the bills in today's legislative hearing, I want to raise my deep concern over the Department of the Interior's consideration of trading away national parkland in Yosemite National Park to a private equity-owned development. What is equally alarming is that the department filed a Land and Water Conservation Fund request for $300,000 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 Bennett'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.

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 50 years. Thanks to the Appliance Standards Program, American households save almost $600 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, forgoing significant additional savings for consumers.

The bill would also increase electricity demand by as much as 32 gigawatts in 2040, 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 authorizes. I would ask unanimous consent to submit 3 letters of opposition to S.5338 for the record.

Without objection. 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 7 public health organizations, and the third is from 60 environmental organizations. Additionally, I am concerned by S. 1658, 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 $3 billion— 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.1568 for the record from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the American Lighting Association. Without objection. 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, that 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.5048, 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.5048 would strip protections from reservation lands and treaty resources, including fishing, threaten important cultural sites, undermine water quality for fish and people, and increase litigation.

I share some of the tribe's concerns, and if an appropriate witness from the Department of Interior or the Department 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 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. Thank you to all the witnesses who are here today, and I yield back the rest of my time. Thanks so much, Senator Heinrich.

If any of the members want to 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 2 who want to be added. So we're going to hear from Senator McCormick, then Senator Daines, and anyone else who— okay, I saw hands in order of— let me see the hand. We'll go to Senator Hickenlooper, and then I think Angus beat you by like 10 seconds, Alex. I'm sorry.

So we'll get Hickenlooper, King, and then Padilla. Okay, Hickenlooper, Padilla, then King. Uh, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, Ranking Member Heinrich, and thank you to the witnesses for joining us today. Today the committee is considering S.5360, the Rural and Municipal Utility Cybersecurity Act.

It's bipartisan legislation that I have introduced with Senator Cortez Masto. This bill is important because it reauthorizes the Department of Energy's Rural and Municipal Utility Advanced Cybersecurity Grant and the Technical Assistance Program, and this helps rural and municipal electric utilities protect their system— their systems from cyber threats. Which are sadly growing. This bill comes at a critical time. In 2024 alone, 70% of cyberattacks involved critical infrastructure.

Iranian-affiliated cyberattacks surged 133% in May and June of 2025 compared with the previous 2 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 7 states. Some of those attacks degraded water operations. And these incidents underscore the vulnerability of systems that Americans rely on day to day.

Large utilities may have the resources and dedicated staff 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, cybersecurity funding and technical assistance remains available to eligible utilities that may not have those capabilities in-house. So I'm honored to be able to put this to the committee today, and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for including this bill in today's hearing. Thanks, Senator McCornyn. Senator Daines. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heimerich, thank you.

Included in today's agenda are 4 of my bills: Senate Bill 4489, the Dry Redwater Regional Water Authorization Act; Senate Bill 5048, the Hydropower Licensing Affordability Act; Senate Bill 4116, the Geopower Act, I have with Senator Hickenlooper; and Senate Bill 4023, the America's Living Library, with Senator Young. I'd like unanimous consent to add letters of support I received for each of these bills in the record.

The Dry Redwater Regional Water Authorization Act will authorize the construction of critical water systems in eastern Montana. In fact, back in 2020, Congress passed my bill for the Bureau of Reclamation to complete a feasibility study to bring clean drinking water to Dawson, Garfield, McCone, Prairie, and Richland counties in Montana, as well as McKenzie County in North Dakota. After 5 years, Reclamation finished their study, and in response, the Montana delegation drafted, introduced Senate Bill 4489, which will federally authorize this water system and add it to the Rural Water Program. I want to show my colleagues why this bill is so important and why I have been working on rural water issues in this committee since day one. I brought some water samples today from Montanans in McCone County.

Now, I'm not bringing these samples from a third world country. This is literally water coming out of some faucets in McCone County in Montana. You can't see this one quite as well, the sediments in here. Shake it up, but if you look at that as closely as I can see it, you'd never want to think about pouring that out of your faucet and taking a sip of water from it. What did you do to them, Steve?

It's, uh, it's quite remarkable, Senator. 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 30,000 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 5048, the Hydropower Licensing Affordability Act, would make very targeted changes to Sections 4 and 18 of the Federal Power Act to ensure that federal agencies focus on the direct effects of a project when they are 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 it's resulted in massive project costs and risked 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 5048 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 markup. 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 whitebark 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.

Okay, I've been told that Senators Hickenlooper, Padilla, and King have graciously agreed to let Senator Bennett speak first. He's got another commitment. We'll turn to you next, Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the graciousness of my colleagues. I hope I didn't speak incorrectly for you.

No, no, please retract your graciousness. ¡Y Su Excelencia! Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me today. And to the ranking member, thank you for having me 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 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 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. 3 Years ago, the company proposing the expansion, Rocky Mountain Industrials, cut corners on safety regulations and a major rockslide 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 hardworking families and business owners across the Roaring Fork Valley and Colorado River Valley. This is not how we do things in Colorado, and that is why local elected officials, Senator Hickenlooper, the Southern Ute Tribe, the Glenwood Springs business community, and thousands of community members oppose the quarry's expansion. The Glenwood Hot Springs Protection Act, Mr. 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 behind this legislation, I brought over a dozen letters, 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, Mr. Chairman. I'm especially grateful to Senator Hickenlooper Representative Jeff Hurd and the entire Roaring Fork Valley for their ongoing part— 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 Springs— Glenwood Hot Springs Protection Act. And thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your kindness in allowing me to go first. And thank you to my colleagues. Thanks. Thanks so much.

Okay. Senator Hickenlooper, you're next at bat. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your magnanimity. Magnanimity, magnanimity, or whatever it was.

Thank you, Senator Bennett. I'll echo what he described, and as a recovering geologist, I can speak full well that there's a complex plumbing situation under that allows Glenwood Hot Springs to be continuous, sustainable, that hopefully will last forever, and that large-scale mining would put that at risk. The proposed expansion of a limestone quarry threatens that underground network of plumbing 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.

I want to talk about two other bills very briefly. The Geopower Act, which I lead alongside Senator Dane— Senators Dane, Padilla, and Curtis, aims to accelerate the spread of geothermal electricity at scale. Obviously, geothermal is clean. It balances the need for firm, always-on power with that emissions-free generation. This bill authorizes the Department of Energy to provide innovative financing to projects that will catalyze geothermal in various, uh, in new states.

This is going to help the next generation of geothermal energy move from pilots to commercial scale, unlocking the, the heat beneath our feet. I'm equally excited about Earth MRI Act, which I have the privilege to co-lead with Senator Murkowski. The U.S. Geological Survey's Earth Mapping Resources Initiative, the Earth MRI, helps chart out our critical mineral resources and our geothermal potential, our geological hazards, etc. Goes on quite a bit. Since its launch in 2019, Earth MRI has accelerated project timelines, has lowered costs, has been making fundamental foundational geological information available to everyone.

This is a, I think, again, a rare opportunity. I will defer on further detail and making sure that my— I was going to go more on geothermal, but I realize I have a true expert of the heat beneath us, beneath our feet beside me. So I yield to the senator from California. Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to thank and echo Ranking Member Heinrich's comments about this administration's efforts to sell off a parcel of Yosemite National Park. And since our colleague from Colorado has evoked Teddy Roosevelt, let me quote President Roosevelt about Yosemite. He said, 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. Look, folks, Proposal to sell parcels from Yosemite National Park for real estate ambitions of a private developer is not supported by the people of California. Frankly, we find it pretty offensive.

I want to note that Secretary Burgum 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 flies in the face of everything that the National Park Service and system stand for. So I want to enter into the record a bipartisan and bicameral letter that I co-led that has 157 members of Congress opposing this proposal, Mr. Chairman. Without objection. Thank you.

And, uh, it, uh, also plans to submit questions for the record for the Department of Interior and provide them an opportunity, uh, to finally back away from the proposal. Mr. Chairman, I do want to 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 70 groves across California. However, due to dangerous fuel buildups and increasingly devastating wildfires, nearly 20% of these ancient trees have been lost over the past decade. This bill would enhance interagency coordination, accelerate forest restoration efforts, and provide important resources to land managers to guard these groves from further destruction.

I recognize that Dr. Riker 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 reauthorization for when we get to hear from the witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Okay.

Let's see. Senator King. As you probably have noticed, I have a cold, so I'm going to try to make it through this. If not, I'll submit some comments in in writing. I just wanted to express my opposition to 5338, which is the repe— essential repeal of the energy standards laws.

We've had a great deal of discussion at this committee about two things: the cost of electricity and energy, and the growing demand and the shortage of capacity to meet that demand. And it strikes me, with those two realities staring us in the in the face, this is not the time to be repealing energy efficiency standards.

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 1970s have saved our consumers billions of dollars hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year, and it just strikes me as— I just don't understand the impulse to repeal these standards and make it so that it would be very difficult for them to be reestablished or adopted.

The cheapest kilowatt hour is the one that isn't used, and that's what really what we're talking about here. We have safety standards for cars. People have to have— there are certain things that the automobile makers have to build into their cars in order to make them safe. And it seems to me this is an analogous situation where we're making things more economic for our citizens. And I am concerned that if these standards go away, we're opening the door to imports imported products that will not meet the standards, and it will end up, as I say, increasing demand and increasing cost to our consumers.

So I guess I understand 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 interest of this country, and so I feel We feel that S.5338 is not in the best interest of our consumers, of our citizens, and our country. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Before we go to our second panel, I'll just point out, your points are well taken, I understand. I understand that efficiency standards, 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. I mean, 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, 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, a dishwasher or a clothes washer or a dryer, uh, in each instance, there are trade-offs that sometimes have to be made. 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 water or as much or more electricity if you have to repeat the same cycle 2 or 3 times where you previously could have done it once. There are also different needs that people have with different appliances based on their own individual household demand.

With light bulbs, for instance, there are those who may want a more yellow light, less of a stark white that you tend to get from LED lights. I think consumer choice does matter. But we're not getting rid of these things, we're just building more flexibility into them. With that, let's go to our panel. Our second panel of witnesses is here, and again, it's— we've got 2 witnesses from within the administration.

Um, our first witness on Panel 2 is Mr. Alex Fitzsimmons. He's the Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy. And our second witness on Panel 2 will be Dr. Sarah Riker, Associate Director of the Geology, Energy, and Minerals Mission Area at the U.S. Geological Survey. We'll now hear from each of you. Mr. Fitzsimmons will Uh, start with you and then we'll go to Dr. Reichert.

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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 56 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 cybersecurity and resilience of public power and cooperative utilities. These utilities are targets for cyberattacks, 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 500 eligible utilities to date. In 2026, 29 organizations will receive $54.8 million in funding across 650 distribution utilities to invest in cybersecurity 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 U.S. 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 Hydropower Licensing Affordability Act would streamline 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 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. Chris Simmons.

Dr. Riker. Good morning, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the committee. I am Dr. 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 4 bills impacting the USGS: H.R. 900, Sinkhole Mapping Act of 2025; S. 4023, America's Living Library Act of 2026; S.4846, Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program, or TAP Act, and S.4870, Earth MRI Reauthorization Act of 2026.

Excuse me. H.R. 900, 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.4023, the America's Living Library Act, would create a 10-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 5 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.4023, as it would establish a new significant biological research and data infrastructure mission within the USGS. S.4846, the TAP Act, would reauthorize the Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program through 2036 and expand the program to include additional priority aquifers underlying Arizona as evaluated and designated by the Secretary. Authorized by Congress in 2006, TAP is a binational agreement between the United States and Mexico under which the 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.4870, the Earth MRI Reauthorization Act, would reauthorize the USGS Earth Mapping Resources Initiative through 2031. 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 subsurface resource systems. In addition, the bill would integrate data from the USGS 3D hydrography program into Earth MRI.

The USGS launched Earth MRI in 2019 in response to President Trump's issuance of Executive Order 13817, 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 30% of the nation with magnetic and radiometric geophysical surveys. The program has collected other essential geoscience data and has had broader impacts in energy and groundwater 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.4870 and is committed to ensuring that the United States 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. Thanks for, uh, for your opening statements.

We'll now begin 5-minute rounds of questioning in order of seniority, subject to the early bird rule. By the way, on that front, Republican side, I've got Lee, Daines, then McCormick. The order I've got on the Democrat side: Heinrich, Hickenlooper, Padilla, King, and Cortez Masto. I'll begin. Mr. Fitzsimmons, I'd like to start with you, if that's all right.

As I mentioned earlier, I've got two appliance standard bills before the committee today. One, the LIT Act, stands for the Liberating Incandescent Technology Act, would repeal the standard that has effectively banned the incandescent light bulb from the marketplace in the United States. The other, the Energy Efficiency Reform Act, is a more comprehensive appliance standard reform bill that would help ensure that future products and entire lines of products in some cases aren't just eliminated from the market altogether while also bringing more transparency to the Department of Energy's rulemaking process 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. Obviously— 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 10 years and you only live in your house for 7 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 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.

You've probably heard from people like me who have in fairly recent past purchased new washers, dryers, dishwashers. And when that happens, sometimes I've found myself— I remember when I got a new washer and dryer a couple years ago thinking, these are efficient, these are going to be great. In some ways they are, and yet I sometimes end up feeling guilty afterwards because I know I've consumed twice the amount of energy that the product manufacturer probably thought or represented as the norm because I've had to run the dryer 2 full cycles in order to get a very basic medium-sized load dry. And I think sometimes things like that don't get taken into account. Have you heard from consumers and interested groups similar things regarding modern appliances?

I mean, the bottom line is— they have a term for that. It's called the rebound effect. When you're— 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 all seen it. So yes, I mean, it is a real concern.

And so then there's a question of how much energy and how much water are you actually saving, and you're paying a higher upfront cost. So bottom line is we are in the interest of protecting consumers. If you can't afford the higher cost of a product upfront, you will never see the energy efficiency savings of that product. Now, specifically with respect to the Energy Efficiency Reform Act, you know, again, this one ensures that the process rule that DOE issued earlier this summer will be codified into statute. If finalized before the enactment of the bill.

Do you have an anticipated timeline for when the process rule might be finalized, and tell us a little bit about how it might change from the prior administration's rule? Yeah, on timing, we are working on it as hard and fast as we can, because we recognize that this is an important priority, and it's important to reverse what the previous administration had done and put rational rules in place that are balancing energy efficiency and, like, technological feasibility and, and making sure that they're still economically justified. And so that's the balance that's been lost. We have to set affordability and energy savings thresholds so that we make sure that the significant energy savings that we've seen in the past will be continued, and that is not necessarily the case. It is not always the case that a stronger standard is a better standard, right?

That may have been historically true over decades, but these products are now incredibly energy efficient. And so we need to be taking a closer look— a closer look than ever at whether the incremental improvements in any particular product are worth the additional added cost on consumers. If they are, if they meet that cost-benefit test, then we'll move forward with a new standard. If they don't, then we will not. Thank you.

Senator Hendry.

Dr. Riker, the, uh, the Land and Water Conservation Fund exists to acquire land for public conservation recreational purposes. It was not authorized to facilitate private commercial development, yet the Department of Interior is currently considering this land trade within Yosemite National Park using funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to facilitate commercial development. Can you share with this committee the department's reasoning behind why they would move forward with this? Ranking member, thank you for the question. Um, I do not oversee or participate in those decisions by the department, but I'll be happy to take your question back for response by the department.

I, I would appreciate that. I would love to hear from Secretary Burgum some rationale for this. I know the secretary hasn't been in front of this committee for a number of months, but I think that both myself and the California delegation have very serious concerns about if this is an appropriate use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and if this is just good for Yosemite National Park. A national parks—. National park.

It is one of our iconic national parks, and we should think very carefully about transferring land from a national park unit like this to commercial developers. Mr. Fitzsimmons, one of the concerns that has been raised to us repeatedly from industry groups is that rolling back some of these efficiency rules will facilitate facilitate an advantage for Chinese manufacturers, uh, cheaper, more poorly made manufacturing, uh, goods. Is, is that something that the administration is considering, and do you have concerns about that line of reasoning?

Senator, we would say that trade issues should be addressed through trade remedies and trade policies that are in the jurisdiction of other agencies, not the Appliance Standards Program. The Appliance Standards Program is designed to increase energy efficiency and also balance, in our view, balance consumer choice. And so our guiding principle here is consumer choice. And if those groups are concerned about trade issues, there are other avenues to address the trade aspects. But if the, if the net effect is to make a Chinese heat pump, for example, mini-split, dominant in the market at the expense of American manufacturing.

Shouldn't that be something that Department of Energy is also concerned with? The net effect for us is making sure that products are— that consumers want to buy are not regulated out of the market, that they have the choice to choose which products they want. Trade issues, as I said, should be addressed through trade policies, not the Appliance Standards Program. Well, I want to make it very clear that members of this committee think that American manufacturing is something that the Department of Energy should be thinking about each and every day. Mr. Fitzsimmons, in a House Energy and Commerce hearing earlier this year, you were asked directly whether political retribution was a factor in the $8 billion of funding that DOE canceled in grant cancellations And at that time you responded, "It is certainly not a factor." Those were your words.

More recently, DOE's own lawyers have now testified in court that cancellations were, quote, "based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient's state." Do you stand by your earlier testimony? I do. And so why would DOE's lawyers make that statement? I can tell you about the process that we use. The process does not involve politics.

Well, I would, I would, uh, just tell you that I find that not credible. Uh, New Mexico saw $135 million in projects canceled, 10 different projects. And, uh, I, I think based on the testimony in court, uh, the impression of the people of New Mexico is those projects were canceled because the state of New Mexico uh, did not vote for the current president of the United States. You have a question? Yeah, why is your testimony in contradiction of the DOE's own lawyers?

It is not in contradiction at all. You're conflating two different issues between the timing of announcements and the process that we use to make decisions. We make decisions based on what is technologically feasible and economically viable, based on physics and math not on politics. I find your testimony completely uncredible.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks.

Okay, let's see. Next, we are going to go to Senator Hickenlooper. As we do that, I do want to point out the, um, an argument that was just made. There is another reason why my bill, uh, S.5338, is essential because it protects against a concern that you identified by preventing the introduction into our home appliance market new products that come from manufacturers from China or that have substantial ties to the Chinese government. So I actually see this as a feature of the bill, as a selling point.

Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fitzsimmons, I got a question, maybe with a easier question, a less controversial question. DOE just opened the Geothermal Center of Excellence at the National Laboratory of the Rockies up in Golden, Colorado. And Colorado, like a lot of states it turns out, has strong heat gradients and a regulatory framework that I think is eager to go forward. But there's no next-gen geothermal power projects on the books. So how would the department use the authorities in the Geopower Act and the Center of Excellence to bring, let's say, the first commercial, you know, at-scale EGS project to states like Colorado?

It's a great question, Senator, and thank you for your leadership on the Geopower Act. You will know as a geologist that there are tremendous geothermal resources across the country, but particularly in Colorado, particularly at our National Lab of the Rockies. And the problem historically with geothermal has been you've got great technical resources at the national labs who have been working on geothermal R&D for decades now. You've got great technical resources in the industry who have also been working on solving geothermal drilling challenges to bring the time and cost of geothermal down. But these two groups have historically not worked together.

And so the principle behind the center of excellence was that you, you create an environment where the experts at the National Lab of the Rockies, DOE expertise, can be combined with that of the private sector to move faster and accelerate technological advancement in geothermal faster together than we could separately with some of the best geological formations in the country. And so The Geopower Act would build on the technical expertise that is being developed at the Geothermal Center of Excellence to continue to drive down the time and cost of drilling and make geothermal more economically competitive so that— and we've estimated that we can get hundreds of gigawatts of at-scale geothermal power all across the country. We just have to solve these remaining technical challenges, and that's what the Geopower Act and the Center of Excellence would do. Right. Well, I certainly salute that application of, you know, using the research in applications that allow us to harvest some of the innovations that are out there.

Dr. Riker, federal support to advance science in one form or another really does fuel our economy. I think by any measure, creates jobs, it maintains U.S. leadership in all sorts of industries. This is why Senator McCormick and I the other day launched the Senate Science and Innovation Caucus. It's also why Senator Murkowski and I introduced the Earth MRI Reauthorization Act. The U.S. Geological Survey's Earth MRI helps us see the global trends in all kinds of geological issues, critical minerals being a high priority, but also opportunities for geo— geothermal power, as we were discussing, and even potential hazards that are, that are underground.

Can you speak to how Earth MRI can help the U.S. boost our energy production by providing information to the critical minerals and geothermal communities? Senator, thank you for the question. Absolutely. As you note, the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative, Earth MRI, is already actively in use by the mineral industries, by the energy industries, including geothermal, as well as startups evaluating the potential for naturally occurring geologic hydrogen for many purposes. In fact, we are also collaborating with the Department of Energy to evaluate the potential for co-production of geothermal energy and heating and cooling alongside critical mineral resources in a number of parts of the nation.

The, the nature of the data collected by Earth MRI is— I think you used the word foundational earlier. We, we like that word. By it we mean that these are data everyone needs for every purpose. This country has been under-mapped and under-invested in mapping for decades, but Earth MRI is, with all of your support, helping us catch up. Other nations have made similar investments in remapping their nation's subsurface resources and are seeing tremendous returns on investment in the mineral industries and the energy industries.

They're seeing 5-to-1 and 7-to-1 returns on investment. Great. We believe we're on the same path. I appreciate that, and I'm out of time, but I do want to also recognize that I think this country has underfunded the Geological Survey for an awful long time. As a young research-minded geologist in the 1970s, I was continually frustrated that the mining companies in the volcanic rocks I looked at had all this data and all this information and everything was what they called tight hold.

It was kept separate from any of the government resources. And I think that bringing industry closer together with the government and sharing the basic fundamental science is what you're describing and talking about. I think that is again foundational to the success of our country. Thank you. I yield back to the chair.

Thank you. Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for putting so many important bills on the calendar this morning, and timing is everything. It was good to walk in to hear you, Senator Hickenlooper, talk about the importance of our Earth MRI bill and what that's going to mean.

Dr. Riker, I couldn't agree more. In terms of how we are so deficient yet with our mapping and making these investments in our resources are so, so very, very important. You know, this reauthorization or the current authorization of Earth MRI expires at the end of this fiscal year, and I'm looking at everything that we have in play right now, and so continued investment in geologic mapping, greater transparency around priority projects, helping— doing everything that we can to help attract private investment, strengthen domestic mineral production. We've got great resources in the state of Alaska, certainly in Colorado. And as you point out, we've got gaps in our geologic and our geophysical data.

Question is, is whether or not USGS can realistically complete this mapping mission. You've got this goal goal of 2031. Can you do that without a reauthorization?

I guess what I'd like you to say is why it's so important that we reauthorize this. Senator, thank you for your support, and thank you for the question. First, is it realistic to complete the job given to us under FMRI? It is realistic. Earth MRI is making tremendous progress.

The nation was—. Had only 7% coverage of the two dominant forms of geophysical surveys that are the workhorse geophysical surveys we need for everything when Earth MRI began. We have quadrupled that number, and in fact, by the end of this year, we expect to have completed coverage of 50% of the areas of the country known to have critical mineral potential. There's a lot more to do. With Earth MRI data collection, we've identified additional previously unknown areas of critical mineral potential.

In addition, the List of Critical Minerals 2025 has added 10 more minerals to the list, and we are currently evaluating whether some of those specific mineral commodities and the terrains that they occur in, the depths at which they occur, require more specialized geophysical survey techniques So there is a lot to do. And we have in fact already produced the nation's first map of potential for critical minerals. So we have taken an enormous step forward. We will be able to deliver what we were asked for, the— that initial national map by 2031. We are refining it.

We are collecting the Earth MRI data according to that map to validate and quantify resources in those areas. Yes, I believe we are on track to deliver authorization. We want you to be able to do that. We think that the reauthorization is going to be key to that, particularly given some of the contours that we have included within our, within our bill. Thank you, Senator.

And I, I agree that reauthorization is important. For one thing, critical minerals are an administration-wide priority, and the statement of our role and our responsibility in this area would be very much appreciated as we collaborate across the government. But in addition, on a practical note, a longer-term authorization would be a strong signal to our collaborators—states, industry, tribes, universities—to continue co-investing with us to accelerate our remapping of the nation. Which is really important. Appreciate you mentioning that.

I want to ask Mr. Fitzsimmons a question today. This relates to the work that I've been doing with Senator Cortez Masto on the Next Generation Geothermal Research and Development Act. We look at this and see extraordinary potential to provide for reliable firm power as we're facing the growing electricity demand and and the need to continue investing in, in R&D and the data to bring the technologies. You know about our bill. It gives DOE a clear framework for advancing the full range of next-gen geothermal technologies, ensuring federal resources are targeted towards the most important barriers to commercialization.

So I appreciate what the committee is doing and the interest in advancing this bipartisan legislation, and Look forward to working with colleagues to move S4406 forward. Question I wanted to ask you, Mr. Fitzsimmons, was related to the launch just last week out of DOE of the Geothermal Center of Excellence to bring together the capabilities of the national labs as well as the DOE to accelerate geothermal research, resource discovery, and commercial development. So we've included a center of excellence in our next Next-Gen Geothermal R&D Act. How do you see the new center fitting into the broader research and development framework that we envision in the legislation? And are there areas that we can build on that DOE has already started to support next-generation geothermal technologies?

Thank you for this question, Senator, and thank you for your leadership on this issue. As you know, geothermal is one of one of the most reliable, firm sources of electricity that we have today, and we have the potential to unlock hundreds of utilities— gigawatts— hundreds of gigawatts of utility-scale geothermal in the coming years and decades. The primary challenges have been applying practices from the oil and gas industry to drive down the time and cost of drilling. There's been tremendous progress made On both of those fronts, investment is coming into the sector. DOE recently published $174 million funding opportunity for geothermal drilling projects, the largest single competitive funding opportunity for geothermal that DOE has ever issued.

And so we see those resources collaborating, complementing the efforts of the Geothermal Center of Excellence because The basic premise of the center is that you have lab experts who have been working on solving these remaining engineering challenges with geothermal for decades and the private industry that now wants to get involved. Those two sides have generally not worked together. This brings them together under one roof at the National Lab of the Rockies that has an incredible technical expertise, decades of expertise in geothermal to move faster together than they otherwise could separately. So we see all of these different programs working together, and we think that the next decade is going to be the decade for geothermal. I'm excited.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Both of you two should be really excited about geothermal. Always. Very much so.

Very much so. It's a way of the future. Okay, Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski. I echo the excitement about geothermal.

Absolutely. As a reminder, colleagues, I've had the opportunity to serve as a commissioner on the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, and through the work there, I'm even more awed by America's national parks and our public lands, which contain an array of biological diversity. Part of the reasons why we protect these lands, and much of it though remains uncataloged, but it has the potential, if we're able to unlock this data, to translate into breakthroughs in medicine and agriculture and more. In April 2025, the commission assessed that biological data lie at the heart of emerging biotechnologies. In response to that, and through the work, my fellow commissioner, Senator Young from Indiana, and I introduced the American— America's Living Library Act.

Which would establish a national sequencing effort across national parks to spur this biotechnology innovation. Now I want to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter that provides a long list of endorsing organizations for these efforts. Uh, so my question is for Dr. Riker. How would such a national effort provide us with greater insights and understanding in protecting the rich biological assets that exist across our national parks?

Senator, thank you for the question. As I understand it, the America's Living Library Act would touch multiple parts of the Department of the Interior, including the USGS and the National Park Service. So I cannot speak for the entirety of the act, but I will reiterate that because the act would create a significant new responsibility and role for the USGS in biological sample collection and data infrastructure, the department does not support the act. The department does not support the act. I mean, you disagree then that this would bolster our competitiveness in scientific research and innovation as we're in a global race here?

Senator, thank you for the follow-up. I am going to ask to take your question back to the department for their response. Please do, and we'll be following up with you you to get a response. Let me try a question, a different topic then. Dr. Reichers, you know there's many barriers to meeting our water needs in the West.

Senator Cornyn and I have introduced the Desalination Reauthorization Act, which tries to tackle at least the, the time challenge for these types of projects. Right now, even when we know we need these projects and technology is proven, the process for authorization and funding can take not just years, sometimes a decade or more. So our bill streamlines the process by reauthorizing and expanding programmatic approvals for the Bureau of Reclamation water supply projects instead of requiring project-by-project authorization through Congress. We can provide a predictable, transparent pathway for authorizing and for funding. So, Dr. Reichard, do you agree that programmatic authorizations in this bill, and similar in bills by Senator Cortez Masto, Senator Curtis, and Senator Gallego and others, can help deliver much-needed water infrastructure improvements sooner rather than later?

Senator, thank you for the question. I will defer to the department statement for the record on this bill. I do not oversee the Bureau of Reclamation's programs, but as As stated in the department's written statement, the department supports desalination as one tool for addressing drought and strengthening water supplies across the West. I'll defer to Reclamation's technical experts on its desalination programs and the legislation that you've raised. So, Mr. Chairman, in future hearings, my request that we have witnesses that are prepared and willing to be more responsive and substantive to the questions from the committee.

Thank you.

OK. Up next, we'll go to Senator King.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to reiterate what everyone else has said, and that is the importance of geothermal. And I want to thank the department for their efforts, and I think it's a tremendous untapped asset that can really make a difference in our country. Mr. Fitzsimmons, I was struck— you were talking about the incandescent light bulb, and you You use the term affordability benefit. What's the affordability benefit of an incandescent light bulb?

Has a cheaper upfront cost. How long does a typical incandescent light bulb burn— last? How long does it what? Sorry, sir? How long does it last?

How long before it burns out? It lasts less than an LED, but that's the trade-off. You pay less and it lasts less. It lasts a lot less. It lasts about 1,000 hours.

An LED lasts about 20,000 hours. So the upfront cost is actually significantly different. An LED, about $3. An incandescent bulb, $1. So the incandescent— the savings is not— there's no savings to an incandescent because of the— you've got to look at the number of hours.

The other thing is the difference in price you recover in about a month of energy use. So to say there's an affordability benefit to incandescent bulbs is just nonsense. I mean, in terms of the cost per kilowatt hour, the difference is 60 watts, let's say, a 60-watt bulb versus 8 or 9 watts for an equivalent LED. And you mentioned the color. I've learned you go to the hardware store, you pick out the bulb, you look at an LED, and if it's 2700 Kelvin, that gives you essentially the same color as an incandescent.

So What you're really doing by repealing this rule is imposing an enormous cost on the American people. And you didn't know the difference in cost, and I don't think many consumers would know. You might say, well, it's $3 less, but it's 20 times less productive over the life. So I just find this effort to move toward incandescent— back to incandescent bulbs How do you feel about buggy whips? Should we go back to the buggy whip industry?

I mean, this is ridiculous. Give me some rational justification. Well, first of all, I didn't mention color. The chairman did. But look, if you are looking at products on the shelf, you can make a decision.

Do you want the $1 bulb or the $3 bulb? We happen to think that consumers are smart enough to make informed decisions on their own, and if incandescent lights are as bad as you think they are, then no one will buy them. You didn't know—. You didn't know how long a bulb lasts. You didn't know how—.

You didn't ask me how long they last. No, no. I said it lasts longer. Yeah. Yeah, longer.

Did you know it was 20 times longer? No, I didn't know it was 20 times longer. Okay. I consider you a fairly sophisticated person. Sure.

Yeah. It lasts longer. Look, these are choices that people have to make. You weigh the upfront cost of a product versus the energy efficiency gains of a product. What is— We are not afraid of consumer choice.

What is so scary about giving consumers the right to make their own decisions over their lives? Because we're facing a real crisis in this country of energy, and the energy demand is increasing 2% a year. If you compound that, that's 30% over 10 years. That's a significant challenge that this committee has discussed many times, and you're talking about retreating to a technology that's grossly inefficient. Compared with an available technology that meets all the standards of what people need for light in their homes.

There are factors at play here other than simply consumer choice. I understand consumer choice, but this is a— you're talking about— multiply the number of light bulbs in America and you're talking about a significant amount of energy, and at a time when we need all the energy we can get, and not be wasting it on incandescent light bulbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Uh, Senator Cortez Masto.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Fitzsimmons, let me, let me start with you. As we are all aware, um, our electric grid is experiencing constant threats, and that's why, um, the Secure Grid Act, uh, S. 4166, and the Rural Municipal Utility Cybersecurity Act, 5360, seek to help empower states and municipalities in their efforts to fully assess and combat those risks to the grid, such as extreme weather, cyber threats, vulnerabilities. As systems get smarter and we work to address growing electricity demand, can you speak to some of the benefits that grid partnerships and coordination can provide? Absolutely.

It's a great question, Senator. So the U.S. Department of Energy is the sector risk management agency for the energy sector, which means we have a responsibility to coordinate proactively with the energy industry to address what is an increasingly sophisticated cyber and physical threat landscape, as you pointed out. And so we have extensive partnerships that are, that are focused especially on small rural and municipal cooperatives that are at particular risk, that because they are under-resourced, but they face the same sorts of threats that more sophisticated utilities have. So they have fewer resources. They might have one person working on IT, not even on cybersecurity full-time, but they're expected to defend their networks against nation-state threat actors like any other critical infrastructure.

Sector would. And so the, the RMUC program is one of the most important programs that we have at DOE because it allows us to get a lot of bang for the buck on the investments that we make. We can help these utilities even institute basic cyber hygiene practices that can solve 80% of the cyber problems that you see, like multi-factor authentication, uh, network segmentation, These are basic issues that can solve a lot of problems that require a minimal amount of investment but have a high impact. And so one of the things that we're doing through the RMUC program is we have this— what we call this ACT Shack. It's a mobile trailer where we can take it from utility to utility.

We sit down with them for an entire week. We get their whole team involved, not just the people that work on IT, but the people who work in human resources, 'cause they're at the tip of the spear for phishing attacks, the CEO, the CFO, everybody that's involved in allocating resources, making decisions, responding to events, sit them down, we can architect their entire IT and OT systems over the course of a week, and then give them specific feedback on where their vulnerabilities are and how to fix them. That's the kind of technical assistance that we're delivering with RMUC and that we— look to continue to do. And thank you. And for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for the Secure Grid Act from the National Association of State Energy Officials and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association be included in the record for this hearing.

Thank you. Appreciate your response. Um, Ms. Riker— or Dr. Riker, excuse me— um, let me ask you this. Since the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, The oil and gas industry has been able to fast-track energy exploration and development on previously disturbed or studied public lands. My bipartisan STEAM Act with Senators Murkowski, Daines, and Hoeven would extend this flexibility to geothermal projects.

If enacted, do you see the STEAM Act complementing other geothermal initiatives to cut through red tape and get power to the grid faster while still upholding community engagement and protocols?

Senator, thank you for the question. I can't speak to the permitting side, but certainly the Department of the Interior considers geothermal energy a priority, and in fact, USGS work on geothermal resources of all kinds has been accelerated in recent years. So let me ask you this. As permitting reform and related bills continue to be discussed in Congress, and I them. How is USGS working to ensure it is adequately staffed to review the project proposals in a timely manner?

The USGS has received direction in the Energy Act of 2020 and more recently in report language to accelerate our geothermal work, and we are being creative in our adoption of artificial intelligence techniques, so as well as emerging geoscience modeling techniques to evaluate, to use new Earth MRI data and to evaluate both known and newly discovered potential geothermal resources. We are also partnering internally with the Bureau of Land Management on a number of these resourcing issues. So we are bringing a lot of internal resources to bear on these priority issues. So you will, as we are looking to the permitting reform and we are trying to get these projects through the oversight of your agency. You are telling me that you believe the USGS is adequately staffed to review those proposals in a timely manner?

Well, Senator, I have not seen the volume of proposals, but whenever the Bureau of Land Management makes a request of us, we will find a way to— Are you adequately staffed now? Sorry? Are you adequately staffed now? We have had a number of long-term staffing gaps that we are working to address. So I would never say that Geology, Energy, and Minerals is the best-staffed part of the USGS.

These fields are notoriously difficult to staff. The geoscience STEM pipelines are weak in a number of our key fields. So no, we have staffing struggles, but we are working with departmental support to recruit and to come to creative solutions to those staffing issues. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. Thank you. I think that wraps up today's hearing. Most of the remaining questions that I've got have now been asked by others. I do want to make one final observation before we gamble out, though.

I haven't seen the study that Senator King referred to, referring to the LED lights lasting for 20,000 hours. Although the point is consistent with what I've heard from many, which is that you have a really long lifespan with the LED lights. But I want to comment on those in a couple of ways and then maybe just see if you've got any reaction to that, Mr. Fitzsimmons. Number one, in my own anecdotal experience, I've got LED lights all over my house.

I know for a fact that they do not last for 20,000 hours or 10,000 hours or anything close to that. I'm actually surprised at how often I have to change them. Some of them I find myself changing more frequently than I did tungsten filament incandescent light bulbs. Kind of a pain because the light bulbs are way more expensive than the other ones were. But regardless, I do like the fact that they're efficient.

I think my electric power bill is lower because of them, and it's a nice feature. But there are differences. Now, over time, when you make an LED light bulb, we have continued to see improvements. The cost has gone down somewhat, and they've gotten better and better at redesigning them so that they can project a softer light. Senator Heinrich and I were talking about this moment ago when he showed me pictures of some that I've seen out there that do project a softer, warmer light.

They're still not quite the same as incandescent, but I suspect over time there will continue to be improvements that will make them both more cost comparable and more aesthetically pleasing. It's also the case that for many people, particularly with certain residential interior lighting needs. They may have some lights that they tend to use perhaps in lamps used for a few hours a day where they really care a lot about the color, about the warmth of that light. If you can't get that with an LED, you ought to have other options. In fact, the competition LED light manufacturers would face from this might actually help make even more improvements to them, and over time I suspect you'll see even more demand for LED lights, which will continually be improving.

In any event, we've got these lights that are a lot more expensive, that right now can't perform all the same functions that an incandescent light bulb can make. So the, the debate here is not about whether there are good things that can happen from LED lights— there are. It's not about whether we should have efficient light bulbs— we should, and we do, and I'm grateful that we have them. The question is about whether they're right for every job, so much so that the federal government should feel just and confident that we've done the right thing by just banning the incandescent light bulb. I don't think we're there.

In fact, I'm pretty darn sure that we're not. I wanted to find out if you've got any data. I haven't seen the study that Senator King cited, but I know it's consistent with what people say generally about how long they can last. Have you seen any research on the average length of these? I mean, maybe I'm just buying the wrong kind, although I've bought them from a number of different manufacturers, a number of different stores, and I still have to replace them way more often than I was promised I would have to do so.

Senator, I'd be happy to take that back and follow up with your team on specific studies, but this just gets to the broader point that we've all been talking about our individual experiences with lighting technology. You think about all the myriad use cases for lighting and all the uncertainty around this topic, that why would we try to centrally plan which lighting technologies people can, can use? Now, yes, we should in general have more efficient technologies, but our principle has been if that comes at the expense of regulating a product out of the market that some consumers want, Then that, that we don't support. We support consumer choice. And if incandescent light bulbs are really as terrible as the senator from Maine said, then manufacturers won't make them and people won't buy them.

But what is— why are we so afraid of giving people the choice to make their own decisions? Right. And for a family, particularly a family that's living paycheck to paycheck, to force them to buy the more expensive light bulb regardless of how long they're going to be there, regardless of the use of that light bulb, how many hours it'll be on a day, seems really insensitive, seems really overbearing in a way that's not kind to the citizenry. Consumers ought to be able to make their own choices. I still believe that in time, that the long arc of history will likely be very favorable toward widespread deployment, use, adaptation of the LED light for the reasons that we've discussed.

But to simply insulate them from competition, from the incandescent light bulb market, is profoundly un-American and I believe profoundly harmful to consumers. Not just for economic reasons, not just for aesthetic reasons, but for a whole host of reasons. Uh, uh, Senator Heinrich, you want to make any closing statement or ask more questions? Uh, what I find aesthetically pleasing is low energy bills. Uh, Mr. Chairman, may I ask a follow-up question?

Um, and I appreciate the, the conversation around this, um, but let me ask you, it's just a practical matter. Just so for my edification, my understanding that the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the American Lighting Association, um, have basically said that the infrastructure needed to manufacture these incandescent light bulbs has been dismantled, repurposed, and restarting that production would not make economic sense. So how have we looked at that, or how are in If we're giving— which I don't oppose giving Americans choices— but if there's not the choice available to them, what are we trying to achieve here? So have we looked at that and studied that, the manufacture of these incandescents, and what does that mean? Is the DOE looking at that?

Senator, they have the subject matter expertise, so if they're saying that, I would take them at their word. But the fact of the matter then would be, if that is true, then we have nothing to worry about, then we're not going to have incandescent lights. Well, we do, because if we don't have manufacturing here, then where does it come from? Are we then getting these from China? And then we're opening the door to China manufacturing of incandescents, and that's where we're actually now going to be giving choices to when we have actually been trying to bring manufacturing back here, close that door, and be a competitor here.

So that's where I'm concerned is if we're not doing them here, if they're not available here, they're going to come from somewhere. And will that be China? So that's my question, is, has DOI looked at that? Has anybody really studied this to see? Well, I mean, certainly understand that concern.

We support domestic manufacturing as well. And if there are unfair trade practices, if foreign countries are dumping cheap product in the market, violating trade rules, then there are remedies to address that that impose tariffs. Yeah, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the fact that if these light bulbs, which we're giving choices to, which I'm for, are not available, And, and now the consumer has that opportunity. Are— where are we going to get them if they're not manufactured here?

And that's my question. Is it going to be China? I don't know. That's my question. And it looks like it needs to be studied, or at least I would like some analysis of that.

I, I guess I would add to that, number one, I, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that no U.S. manufacturer, once having made incandescent light bulbs, would seize the opportunity to do so again if the opportunity arose. Can't guarantee that. It's not our, our place to compel that. Certainly wouldn't want to try. I'd be surprised if you didn't see US incandescent light bulb manufacturers resuming.

A lot of these companies operate in a lot of countries around the world, including in our own hemisphere, and are undoubtedly still producing them and selling them in many other countries where they haven't been banned. Regardless, I would die of shock if you didn't see some US manufacturers resume production of them in the United States. As for the possibility of imports, if we end up accidentally empowering the Chinese economy and we end up getting bulbs from China, that's gonna present all sorts of additional problems. And we've got means by which to restrict that through tariff authority, import bans and so forth. So, um, in any event, I, I don't see the fact that production of the incandescent light bulb, because of the federal government's own prohibition of them, the, the— I, I don't see the fact that the production here has halted as a reason for us to not give options to consumers and manufacturers here.

If they end up not using it, then so be it, but I would be shocked if that were the case.

With that, we will stand adjourned. We want to thank both of our witnesses and Senator Bennet, who joined us today to testify. I want to thank Ranking Member Heinrich and the members of the committee. Questions for the record of today's hearing are due by 6:00 PM today, Wednesday, September 16th. The record of the hearing will remain open for statements until 6:00 PM this coming Wednesday, September 23rd.

We stand adjourned. Thanks. Thanks, Mark.