Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced Thursday that the United States will boost its liquified natural gas (LNG) exports to 15 billion cubic feet per day by the end of the year, with most of the increase going to European allies attempting to cut their dependence on Russia’s fossil fuels.

The announcement came as Granholm parried attacks from Republican lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy, criticizing President Joe Biden’s clean energy policies and his response to high gasoline prices — and the near-term need to increase natural gas and other fossil fuel production.

Granholm was on Capitol Hill ostensibly to discuss the Department of Energy’s $48.2 billion 2023 budget request, but the Energy and Commerce hearing provided yet another demonstration of the politicization and polarization of energy policy in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and post-COVID-19 inflation.

In her opening statement, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the full committee’s ranking member, called out a recent Granholm statement that “perhaps renewable energy is the greatest peace plan this world will ever know.”

“I cannot overstate how dangerous I believe this statement is for our energy security, our national security, our future as Americans,” Rodgers said. She called on Congress and the administration to “say yes to flipping the switch on domestic production of cleaner oil and natural gas.”

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) was equally confrontational. His first question to Granholm was: “You’re anti-fossil fuels, aren’t you?”

Granholm replied, “I would like to transition away from unabated fossil fuels to a clean energy future.”

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) called on DOE to lead by example by “issuing waivers to streamline the permitting process for LNG export facilities and send the signal that our country will be a stable and reliable supplier of natural gas for many decades to come. Our European allies need more certainty to push back on Russia and build new import facilities and pipeline interconnections.”

Granholm and Democrats on the committee countered with arguments that clean energy would lower prices and the dependence of the U.S. and its allies on fossil fuels from Russia and critical minerals — such as lithium for energy storage batteries — from China.

COVID, Ukraine and the rising number and severity of extreme weather events “tell us that global energy security and energy independence all depend on a shift toward American-made clean energy,” Granholm said in her opening remarks. DOE is “committed to securing the clean energy supply chains needed to reduce our reliance on unabated fossil fuels and increase our energy independence.”

At the same time, Granholm said the administration and DOE are “using every tool at our disposal to increase oil supply,” citing the president’s release of 1 million barrels of oil a day from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserves and DOE’s approval on Wednesday of permits allowing two LNG facilities to increase their capacity.

With the approvals, both facilities, one in Louisiana and the other in Texas, will be able to increase their combined exports by 500 million cubic feet per day, the DOE announcement said. The Texas facility is scheduled to come online in 2024; the Louisiana plant is still in development, the announcement said.

Current export levels are about 12 billion cubic feet per day, DOE said.

“We have permitted completely 30 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas that has not been constructed yet,” Granholm said. “Every molecule of natural gas that can be liquefied at a terminal is being liquefied and exported.”

Echoing Granholm, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), chair of the full committee, argued that natural gas production and LNG exports are at “record highs.”

“Five decades of fossil fuel dependency have left us reliant on volatile commodities that are priced at the whim of global markets,” Pallone said. “If we truly want to lower prices and to reduce our reliance on foreign adversaries, we must invest in renewable energy and domestic supply chains here in America.”

Solar Tariffs and Supply Chain Acceleration

While Democrats on the committee mostly offered Granholm questions that allowed her talk up DOE programs and accomplishments — like Tuesday’s release of new standards for energy-efficient light bulbs — she faced some hard questions from them as well.

Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) raised concerns about the Commerce Department’s investigation of potential import violations of solar manufacturers in Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, and the devastating impact the investigation is already having on the U.S. solar industry. (See SEIA Predicts Severe Fallout from Commerce Probe of Solar Imports.)

“Is the Department of Energy researching how this potential loss in solar deployment could affect energy reliability and our climate goals, and planning what steps the administration needs to take to offset the solar project losses if they decide to impose tariffs?” Peters said.

While the final decision in the case will be “adjudicative,” Granholm said DOE and the White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy share “deep concern” about the case. “It’s safe to say that there is an awful lot of effort around how to address this given that it is an adjudicative proceeding.”

Granholm also pointed to funding in the 2023 budget for a solar manufacturing accelerator that “would help to achieve what the manufacturing processes are that can be accelerated in the solar realm, in addition to research that’s necessary in advanced components. Whether it’s the use of technology, the use of integrated systems, the bottom line is, we have to accelerate,” she said.

House Appropriations Committee

Granholm had an easier time before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Thursday afternoon, where both Democrats and Republicans wanted to talk about the figures and programs outlined in Granholm’s 16-page written testimony.

While both sides of the aisle chided Granholm for not providing them with a more detailed budget justification report, she said a key priority for the 2023 budget will be building on the $62 billion in energy funding contained in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).

That “historic long-term investment … is not on its own sufficient to address the nation’s energy challenge,” Granholm said. “That’s why our request includes base-year funding to complement the infrastructure law and maximize its impact to lower costs, to make us energy secure and to provide us with reliable baseload power.”

For example, a newly created Office of the Undersecretary of Infrastructure will be getting $2.1 billion in total, for a range of programs, including:

• $90 million for the Grid Deployment Office “to catalyze the development of new and upgraded high-capacity electricity and distribution systems nationwide.” The money will also fund two new programs to focus on improving wholesale electricity markets and removing barriers to offshore wind deployment.
• $214 million for the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations for a new program that will “support full-scale and commercial-scale demonstrations that address integration issues of renewable energy in the U.S. transmission and distribution grid. The office also oversees the DOE’s initiative to develop and build two advanced nuclear reactors, one in Washington and one in Wyoming.
• $727 million for state and community energy programs “to reduce energy costs for households and businesses, deploy low-cost clean energy solutions [and] weatherize at least 50,000 homes.”

Republicans on the committee criticized what they called the budget’s skewed priorities, with defense-related spending getting minimal increases versus more substantial increases for non-defense spending.

“The request for the nuclear program is a mere $10 million,” said Rep. Michael Simpson (R-Idaho). “In contrast, the increase for energy efficiency and renewable energy … is more than $1.7 billion, or more than a 54% increase.”

Simpson also criticized the DOE’s programs on rare earth and critical minerals as “scattered and unfocused, not only with the Department of Energy, but with other agencies that have a role to play” in developing those supply chains.

Similarly, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) voiced disappointment that “you’re requesting a mere 3.7% increase for the [National Nuclear Security Administration] compared to 17% nondefense. … That’s a hefty cut when you account for inflation. I’m not sure how anyone can justify [shortchanging] our national security, especially now.”

Calvert was particularly concerned that the DOE has fallen behind on the production of nuclear “pits,” a key component in nuclear warheads. Granholm said the Los Alamos National Laboratory was on schedule to produce 30 pits, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is currently being redesigned to ensure it can also meet its quota of 50 pits, though she could not say when the redesign would be complete.