Energy Incentives Will Unlock Energy Dominance (The Washington Times)

This op-ed was originally published by The Washington Times on April 28, 2025. Click here to read the entire piece.

The first 100 days of the new Trump administration have reshaped the energy landscape. Reliable, affordable energy is a top priority as the president seeks to unleash a new era of American energy dominance. Lower energy prices can usher in a true golden age for U.S. consumers. Done well, this agenda can also reduce global carbon dioxide emissions.

This dynamic is underscored by the president’s work to recruit new artificial intelligence and data center investments to the U.S. These investments can lead to economic development and will require rapid energy demand growth when paired with an American manufacturing resurgence, increasing U.S. energy demand by as much as 18% over the next decade, according to data from the North American Electric Reliability Council. Energy prices are one of the most important cost drivers in these energy-intensive industries.

A rapid increase in supply is required to maintain affordable costs for all American consumers. The U.S. must rapidly deploy all types of new American power. To effectively deploy these new technologies at speed, the administration will need to break down permitting barriers to accelerate the buildout of new energy infrastructure like pipelines, transmission, and other grid-enhancing technologies.

In addition to streamlining the permitting process to increase and maximize new investments, minimizing the tax burden on developers is another essential part of this equation. Maintaining low corporate rates is certainly going to help, but tax incentives also play an enormous role in minimizing investment risk and keeping prices low. Fortunately, some key incentives will not require drastic policy changes like the green new deal or a heavy-handed government regulation.

Existing incentives authored or supported by Republicans in Congress under current law are critical for American leadership in new, affordable, 24/7 American power. These forms of power include advanced nuclear, geothermal, hydropower, natural gas with carbon capture, and even new breakthroughs in fusion technology. Key incentives, like 48E/45Y technology-neutral electricity credit; the 45X advanced manufacturing credit; the 45Q carbon capture, utilization, and storage credit; and the 45V hydrogen credit, can reduce the costs for American producers and support the manufacturers and the mineral supply chain across the economy. Simply put, consumer prices go up if the U.S. doesn’t lower the tax and energy cost burden for American producers and manufacturers.

Click here to read the full article

Power Demand Explained: Watts, Gigawatts and the Future of Energy

These days, we hear a lot about the rapid increase in global energy demand due to various factors like growing economies, widespread electrification, and the rise of data centers as AI expands. And it’s true. Here in the United States, after 15 years of static growth, our electricity demand is rising at an accelerated rate. Researchers estimate that by 2030, we will need 20% more energy – a total of 5 million gigawatt-hours of electricity each year.

“5 million gigawatt-hours.” That sounds like a lot. But what does that really mean?

Let’s start with the basics. A watt is a measure of power in an instant. For example, the 60-watt light bulb in your lamp at home requires 60 watts of power to turn on. A Watt-hour is a measurement of that power usage over time.

So, let’s say you turn on your lamp to read a book for two hours, you use 120 watt-hours of electricity. Easy enough.

Now, let’s take a look at a few other examples, going in order from smallest to largest. But first a reminder about unit prefixes: there are one thousand watts in a kilowatt, one million in a megawatt, and one billion in a gigawatt.

While you’re reading your book, your lamp might only use 120-watt hours of electricity, but the average American household will use 2.4 kilowatt-hours during that time. That’s your lamp, the AC, the TV playing, and so on. Scaling up – with 150 megawatt-hours – you could power 42,000 American households for three hours while they watch a Sunday afternoon football game… or you could use your 150 megawatt-hours to power the NFL stadium itself. In the same amount of time, a large city like Washington D.C. would consume 25 times that much electricity, almost 4 gigawatt hours.

Currently, the U.S. needs around 4 million of these gigawatt-hours a year – again that’s 4 million billion watt-hours – or 4 with 15 zeros after it – and those needs are met with a mixture of 60% fossil fuels, 30% renewables, and 10% nuclear energy. And to get us 20 percent more energy – up to 5 million gigawatt hours a year – we would need the equivalent of 1,500 Hoover dams in additional generation. That means we are going to need a lot more of ALL of these energy sources to keep up with expected demand.

And, we don’t just need more energy, we need energy that is affordable, reliable and clean. In other words, we need to take a pragmatic, all of the above approach to U.S. energy development. To keep the lights on – at a price that consumers can afford, we need more baseload energy – the 24/7/ 300 and 65 days a year electricity sources that provide clean power. That means things like advanced nuclear, geothermal, and natural gas with carbon capture.

Ultimately, in order to generate and move all this energy around, we are going to need more than 15,000 new energy projects in this decade alone, and every single one of those projects starts with a permit. Unfortunately today in the United States, you can get a college degree faster than you can get a permit to build a clean energy project. That is why we all must work together to streamline federal permitting processes and unleash American energy.

ClearPath’s answer to the power demand challenge? It’s time to Let America Build.

Delivering America First Energy Policy — 5 Priorities for the 119th Congress

The 119th Congress and incoming Administration have a major opportunity: Make America the world innovation leader in clean energy and clean manufacturing. This opportunity builds on the foundation established under the first Trump Administration to unleash American energy projects and build a stronger America.

The incoming Trump administration has nominated leaders to key agencies who have the experience to deliver on these results – Lee Zeldin for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Chris Wright for the Department of Energy (DOE), and former Governor of North Dakota Doug Burgum for the Department of the Interior (DOI).

And Congress is poised to deliver on this too by focusing on innovation over regulation and markets over mandates to advance clean, reliable, and affordable American-made energy.

ClearPath has outlined five policy areas for the 119th Congress to unleash the power of American innovation:

Modernize permitting: Today, it takes longer to get a permit to build an energy project than it does to earn a college degree. Congress has done a lot of work exploring options to expedite permitting and concepts like permit-by-rule could give a clear blueprint for projects to follow in order to receive a permit. This will reduce regulatory burdens and still require compliance with all environmental and safety laws. Without additional critical infrastructure, our future energy independence could be at risk.
Drive deployment of new reliable energy and innovation: America is experiencing massive energy demand growth related to advanced American manufacturing, datacenters, and AI needs. By supporting and streamlining the Department of Energy’s later-stage programs, American energy producers can deploy more new nuclear, carbon capture, geothermal, energy storage, and grid infrastructure to meet the demand. Deploying more energy is the simplest way to keep costs lower for consumers and businesses.

Grow the nuclear order book: The first Trump administration made significant efforts to accelerate new nuclear investments and facilitate American nuclear leadership. Congress could continue to make progress on the nuclear front with policies such as The Accelerating Reliable Capacity (ARC) Act of 2024, which seeks to reduce risk investment and drive strong project management on these innovative and capital-intensive new nuclear design projects. Addressing uncertainty and perceived risk will allow companies to deploy new American nuclear assets and compete globally.

Bring American manufacturing back: American manufacturing is the cleanest in the world with the highest environmental standards. We can restore American manufacturing leadership in industries like steel and concrete by strengthening our own supply chains and supporting new innovative practices to drive competitiveness. Legislation such as the Concrete and Asphalt Innovation Act (CAIA) could support R&D for American-made cement, concrete, and asphalt, reduce red tape by shifting to performance specifications, and scale up domestic manufacturing through market signals such as advanced market commitments (AMCs).
Expand U.S. exports, trade, and direct investment abroad: Expanding into global markets positions the U.S. as a key partner in the future of clean energy and innovation while seizing a valuable trade opportunity. Some estimates suggest that U.S. exports of clean energy technologies could generate approximately $330 billion annually by 2050. By enabling U.S. leadership in the global marketplace, promoting American products, and better utilizing tools like Development Finance Corporation and Export Import Bank, we can reduce global emissions while boosting American products and jobs.

ClearPath’s mission is to accelerate American innovation to reduce global energy emissions. ClearPath therefore supports all-of-the above energy and innovation policies that make America stronger and more secure.

We look forward to advancing policies that will further strengthen America’s leadership role in clean energy and innovation.

Let’s get to work.

The Heat Beneath Our Feet: The U.S. Needs More Geothermal Energy

Hello I’m Matt Mailloux from ClearPath.

What if I told you one of our best clean energy resources is right under our feet? We take for granted the heat buried in the Earth’s core. But have you ever thought about turning that heat into electricity — or harnessing it to power a heavy manufacturing site?

That’s ok if you haven’t, because at ClearPath, we think about this a lot!

Geothermal is one of the most reliable, zero-emissions energy sources. Even though it provides 24/7 clean reliable power, it is often the most overlooked. The good news is that private companies are now using geothermal to meet our energy needs – powering datacenters, U.S. manufacturing, and affordably keeping the lights on.

Enhanced geothermal projects are ready to go. Using technology from the oil and gas industry to unlock heat in a much wider set of geologic areas.

Some often think of geothermal as a technology prime for the Western U.S., but as these new innovations progress — we could see states all across the country deploying enhanced geothermal. Today geothermal is less than one percent of the U.S. electric grid. But, by 2050 the NREL predicts it could increase to provide up to 60 gigawatts of power added to the grid. That’s the type of energy supply we’ll need to meet ever-growing demand.

First, let’s take a look at two exciting companies putting innovation into action… and then….we’ll look at the policy barriers standing in the way.

Fervo Energy is an enhanced geothermal company based in Houston, that leverages oil and gas technology to get heat. Fervo’s first projects rapidly reduced costs, reaching parity with drilling costs for oil & gas.

Eavor [“Ever”] — Is another company pioneering the future of geothermal energy, using a series of closed loop wells that collect heat through conduction.

These two companies, paired with federal R&D support from the DOE FORGE site… have advanced drilling techniques to make drilling new geothermal wells more predictable, reduce upfront costs, and encourage more private sector investment.

With promising developments like these, let’s talk a little bit about the policy barriers that are holding them back. For starters, out of the $62 billion for demonstration projects at DOE from the IIJA, geothermal received a fraction of that amount.

Think about it this way, Geothermal received just 10 percent of the funding allocated to technologies like energy storage or carbon management. We will need all of these resources to meet energy demand and provide clean, affordable, and reliable energy.

But perhaps the biggest roadblock to geothermal is the permitting process. Geothermal projects can trigger environmental review up to 6 different times during development. Congress can expedite reviews for resource confirmation wells – like regulations for oil & gas development have allowed for two decades. Congress has been working to address these policy challenges in a bipartisan manner.

Expediting environmental reviews and funding demonstration projects could lead to the huge increases in geothermal capacity like I mentioned before. It’s time for Congress to unlock the heat beneath our feet.

CO2 Pipelines Are Safe…and We Need a Lot More

You’ve probably heard about a clean energy technology called Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage – or “CCUS” for short.

This is a method of capturing carbon dioxide or “CO₂” from emissions sources like power plants and industrial facilities. Another method for reducing emissions is called Direct Air Capture, which removes CO₂ that is already in our atmosphere — think a giant vacuum. If we’re serious about global emissions reduction — we need both.

In addition to driving down emissions, captured CO₂ is also a valuable commodity. CO₂ is not only used to make your beer fizz, carbon oxides can be used for everyday products like building materials, fertilizer, and fuels. CO₂ that is not in use can be permanently and safely stored – usually underground – where it resides for thousands of years.

Often, when CO₂ is captured, it’s not located near an available storage or use site and has to be transported to another location. Today, the best and safest way to move CO₂ is through pipelines.

Pipelines are everywhere – often without us even realizing it. They are beneath our highways, run through our cities, and connect our homes. Other essential resources, like natural gas, water, and waste, are all moved by pipelines. That’s because pipelines are the most land-efficient way to transport materials while minimizing environmental impact.

The Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, also known as “PHMSA”, has long regulated the security of this infrastructure. PHMSA provides national standards for pipeline design, construction, maintenance and operation. These ensure that all necessary measures are taken to mitigate risks and safeguard the well-being of your family and the environment.

Now let’s talk about CO₂ pipelines. The U.S. currently has more than 5,000 miles of these pipelines, which have been safely operating across our country for over 50 years. CO₂ is a stable, non flammable gas – we know it’s safe. We breathe it in and out every day – it’s even used in fire extinguishers. Over the last twenty years, there have been zero recorded fatalities associated with the very few CO₂ pipeline incidents that have occurred. A pipeline accident, like we saw in 2020 in Satartia, Mississippi, while concerning, is extremely uncommon and is not representative of the safety performance of this critical infrastructure over the last several decades.

As demand for clean, reliable, and affordable energy grows, so will the demand for effective carbon management technologies. That means, to meet our energy security and global emission reduction goals, the build-out of CO₂ pipeline infrastructure is vital. An estimated 30,000 – 96,000 miles of CO₂ pipelines will be needed by 2050 – that’s roughly 5 to 18 times the length of our existing network.

We get it, some people are uneasy about new infrastructure. But let’s face it, whether you care about climate change or U.S. competitiveness- we need these technologies. By building CO₂ pipeline infrastructure, we are not only building our capacity to reduce emissions and protect our environment, we’re also creating jobs, bolstering local economies, and continuing to use the energy sources that make our country strong. In America, we’re not afraid to build — it’s what we do.

And, through R&D and innovation, we’ll leverage the efficiency and maintain the strong safety record of this vital American infrastructure.

Let America build – A policy path to modernize energy permitting

Our team spends a lot of time on reliable, affordable, clean energy systems that run 24/7. These types of technologies are an integral part of our energy future, but with a growing economy and electricity demand doubling, we need MORE power.

This means building a lot of new nuclear, geothermal, and clean fossil power plants. We’ll also need immense new transmission and pipeline infrastructure to move energy around the country.

But we’ve got a ton of work to do in very little time.

Whether you are motivated by deep emissions reductions, furthering our nation’s energy security, or enabling the next generation of American manufacturing, the coming decades are essential. By many estimates, that means at least 10,000 new clean energy projects this decade alone. And, every one of those projects will require new permits to build.

Unfortunately, the U.S. has a world-class apparatus… for getting in the way.

Let me give you an example. The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, calls for developers to measure the environmental impact of their projects. But NEPA was passed years before we had other laws with strict environmental standards like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or Endangered Species Act.

Each of those are important — but all together … permit reviews can spiral into extremely long efforts, spanning thousands of pages with duplicative analyses and dozens of bureaucrats required to sign off on each individual project. And, this is not even taking into account the time it takes for any local permitting or state regulations. While this system may have made sense 50 years ago, the surge in new energy demand requires a new way.

When we think about how to build tens of thousands of new clean energy projects, and how to balance speed and safety, it’s obvious the U.S. needs a more predictable process.

At ClearPath, we always focus on solutions. Here are two that should be pretty simple:

First, grant immediate approval to projects on a site that have already undergone an environmental review.

Second, we must expedite court challenges so a final decision on projects is made in a timely manner.

Let me simplify both concepts.

Do you remember standing in line at the airport before TSA pre-check? That was brutal! Now, individuals who have proven they are not a risk can move through an expedited line.

Here’s another example.

There are mountains of evidence that some projects have little to no environmental impacts, such as an advanced manufacturing facility that produces parts for clean energy on a brownfield, or converting a retired coal plant to an advanced nuclear facility or siting a new geothermal plant at a depleted oil and gas well. These are the types of projects we should automatically permit to move forward.

Just like random screenings at TSA, we can audit the operators to ensure they’re complying with all environmental laws as we go. So new energy accelerates at no new environmental costs.

And for those projects that do need permits up front, we should ensure reviews are complete within 1 year and resolve any legal disputes within 6 months.

Under the current system, clean energy projects can suffer long delays, sometimes decades, largely because of obstructive litigation practices. We must strike the right balance while halting the never-ending cycle of frivolous lawsuits.

At ClearPath, we believe all of this can be done without rolling back environmental protections or eliminating the public’s opportunity to be involved in the review process. Even with these necessary changes, a project would still be required to comply with environmental laws during its entire lifetime.*

It’s a win-win. Let’s get building.

A Decade of Dedication

The climate debate sure looked different 10 years ago.

When I founded ClearPath in 2014, we looked at global temperatures, sea levels and the so-called “100-year weather events.” We studied the data AND watched the political discourse.

And we were concerned.

At the time, many advocates said we could only solve the climate challenge with 100% renewable energy and by starving the fossil energy industry. They said the government needs to solve the challenge; free-market innovations would be too expensive, and consumers and industry wouldn’t adopt them.

Advocacy for small modular nuclear was limited, few embraced carbon capture as a solution, and other game-changing technologies like long-duration, grid-scale storage were barely a glimmer.

Thankfully, conservatives knew there was a better way.

Over the past 10 years, the ClearPath family of entities has worked with private sector innovators and leaders in Congress to shape conceptual ideas into pragmatic policy, leading to the construction of real projects. These relationships have led to significant clean energy policy wins – from developing the moonshot Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program concept in 2016 to the inception of the 45Q tax incentive in 2018 and the Energy Act of 2020, which culminated with new legislation like the Better Energy Storage Technology (BEST) Act and the Advanced Geothermal Innovation Leadership (AGILE) Act.

Over the last decade, U.S. emissions have decreased by 15%, more than any other nation.

That hasn’t happened by chance, conservative clean energy leaders have catalyzed innovation policies:

Between 2014 and 2024, roughly 20 gigawatts of batteries, geothermal, hydropower, and nuclear, were added to the grid. These facilities generated approximately 36 million megawatt-hours of electricity, enough to power nearly 3.5 million homes annually, avoiding roughly 19 million metric tons of CO2.
In 2018 – A Republican-led Congress updated the tax code, increasing the credit value for carbon capture projects, broadening eligibility thresholds, and allowing DAC eligibility for the incentive. Since, 14 carbon capture and direct air capture projects are operating in the U.S., with 123 under development. Together, those projects could capture 156 million tons of carbon every year.
In 2019 – Congress and the Department of Energy began to focus on building advanced nuclear reactors. Today, we are building two new advanced reactors and at least nine more are on the way in addition to 25 new license applications expected by 2029.
In 2020, conservatives in Congress passed the Energy Act of 2020 – one of the biggest advancements in clean energy and climate policy that has created the clean energy innovation roadmap in over a decade.
In 2021 – Congress enacted the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), funding a wide range of clean energy demonstration programs.

Did I mention that conservatives in Congress led and supported all these victories?

Where is ClearPath today?
The last decade has resulted in significant growth for the ClearPath family – both in size and impact. We’ve seen an 800% personnel increase and expanded our policy portfolio from primarily a nuclear and CCUS advocacy organization to 11 different policy areas. While we remain steadfast in our core technologies, we have added exciting new areas to our portfolio, such as tackling industrial emissions and agriculture and how we can deploy cleaner energy internationally.

In Washington, people and politics drive policy, and policy refines our heavily regulated energy system.

Recent polling conducted by Engagious and Echelon Insights shows 88% of voters believe climate change is happening, 74% want their Member of Congress to focus on clean energy, and 60% of voters believe innovation rather than regulation is the best way to reduce emissions.The leadership driving this seachange is remarkable, and here are just some of the federal lawmakers who are meeting the demand of their constituents and have championed clean energy policy over the last decade.

What’s next?

10 years into this dream, we have covered a lot of ground, but we still have quite the journey ahead. Many of the right policies are in place, but we need to get America building again. We need to get advanced nuclear reactors built, we need to capture carbon directly from the air, and we need to decarbonize heavy industry. Energy demand will double over the next decade, and one of the most important efforts everyone needs to get behind is updating our outdated permitting processes. Because if we continue to invest in novel technologies, and ensure that the projects currently under development are successful, then the U.S. will continue to lead the world in adopting clean energy solutions.

I mentioned that in Washington, D.C., people are policy, so when discussing ClearPath’s future, I must recognize how the organization is searching for the next generation of clean energy champions. ClearPath’s Conservative Climate Leadership Program (CCLP) actively recruits individuals passionate about climate and clean energy policy who want to work on Capitol Hill and drive innovative technologies to reduce global energy emissions.

We all hear a lot of talk about a clean energy future, and we know that success means putting cleaner, more affordable, and more reliable energy on the grid.

If there is one thing you can count on ClearPath doing for the next 10 years: supporting America’s free-market advantage. When American energy works, we all win…

Onward!

Geothermal Innovation Investments Could Help Meet Electricity Demand

Rapid electricity demand growth is no joke. It’s happening much faster than grid planners anticipated and some estimates show a need to double the U.S. grid by 2050. On top of that demand, most large utilities and producers have commitments to make it all clean. Wind developments are hitting headwinds, solar manufacturers have supply chain challenges, some environmental groups are pulling out all stops to make it harder for coal and gas, and there are still some who aren’t yet sold on clean, reliable nuclear energy.

Could geothermal be a big part of the solution that everyone can get behind? We think so.

New firm, flexible clean energy generation is heating up. Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), cutting-edge new generation technologies, could play a major role in achieving the dual goals — increased demand, all clean. The Department of Energy has made its first three awards of $60 million, for the bipartisan geothermal demonstration program Congress has pushed for years to catalyze EGS:

Fervo Energy: Fervo’s innovative technology will advance a project at the Milford Renewable Energy Corridor in Utah that aims to produce more than 90 megawatts in Phase I and as much as 400 megawatts of power by 2028. Beyond this partnership, Fervo recently placed into service a 5-MW site in Nevada to support Google data centers.

Chevron New Energies: The company is looking to prove innovative drilling and stimulation techniques to access resources in an existing geothermal field in Northern California.

Mazama Energy: According to DOE, this project will “demonstrate a first-of-its-kind super-hot EGS (temperatures above 375°C) on the western flank of Newberry Volcano in Oregon.” It is particularly important to test out project operation in extreme heat conditions.

The DOE is expected to also make at least one more initial award for a project east of the Mississippi River, per Congressional direction.

Why it matters: Geothermal is one of the few technologies, including nuclear and fossil generation + carbon capture, that can provide valuable firm, flexible clean power to the grid. Geothermal currently produces more than four gigawatts of power to the U.S. grid, and a recent DOE analysis shows it has the potential to provide upwards of 90 gigawatts by 2050 – enough to power the equivalent of more than 65 million U.S. homes.

How did it happen? These announcements have been years in the making, originating in bipartisan legislation dating back to the 116th Congress. In late 2019, the top Republican and Democrat at the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Frank Lucas (R-OK) and the late Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) teamed up on the Advanced Geothermal Research and Development Act to further geothermal innovation.

At the same time, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and then-Ranking Member Joe Manchin (D-WV) navigated the Advanced Geothermal Innovation Leadership Act through the Senate, with language explicitly calling out a geothermal energy demonstration “earthshot.” Those bills were ultimately reconciled, and key policies, including greenlighting these demonstration programs, were signed into law as part of President Trump’s Energy Act of 2020 in the final days of his first term.

Fast forward a year later, a bipartisan group of policymakers worked to include energy innovation funding in the bipartisan infrastructure bill (Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act – IIJA) and the DOE’s geothermal program received an injection of more than $84 million. Now in 2024, the DOE is moving forward on the innovation effort envisioned nearly five years ago.

What’s next: Permitting reform – Unlocking the commercial scale-up of new geothermal. It is not enough to just prove the technology. Policymakers should get the government out of the way of its takeoff.
Research from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates that each final geothermal well on public land invokes NEPA as much as six times, with each Environmental Assessment taking 10 months. This adds up to an average development timeline of eight years.

There has been an uptick of interest on Capitol Hill to pick up and keep pace. The House Natural Resources Committee recently approved bipartisan legislation from Rep. Michelle Steele (R-CA) and Suzie Lee (D-NV). Other legislation, like Rep. Young Kim (R-CA)’s HEATS Act, Rep. John Curtis (R-UT)’s GEO Act and Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-ID)’s CLEAN Act, all make similar reforms. There is also a cadre of Republican and Democratic Senators eyeing a new bill in the coming months.

Permitting reform remains a hot topic on Capitol Hill – a bipartisan deal could leverage the work energy entrepreneurs like Fervo, Chevron and Mazama are doing, and accelerate geothermal’s contributions to a cleaner and more reliable electricity grid.

Growing The Domestic Energy Sector Supply Chain And Manufacturing Base

House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations

Below is my testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations, entitled “Growing The Domestic Energy Sector Supply Chain And Manufacturing Base: Are Federal Efforts Working” on May 23, 2023.

Watch Jeremy’s Opening Remarks
Read Jeremy’s Full Testimony as Seen Below

Good morning Chairman Griffith, Ranking Member Castor, and members of the committee. My name is Jeremy Harrell, and I am the Chief Strategy Officer of ClearPath, a 501(c)(3) organization that develops and advances policies that accelerate innovations to reduce and remove global energy emissions.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for holding this important hearing. The United States faces intense global competition. Adversaries like China and Russia are deploying hundreds of billions of dollars around the world to advance their geostrategic interests in order to dominate the energy sector and connected supply chains.

China and Russia have spent decades investing in the dominant position they now hold in the mining – and perhaps more importantly – in the processing of critical materials. China is responsible for the processing of 90 percent of rare earth elements and 60 to 70 percent of lithium and cobalt, often with poor labor practices and disregard for the environmental impact.1 Similarly for uranium, some projections suggest that by 2030 China and Russia will control roughly 63 percent of global enrichment capacity. Meanwhile, in the U.S. it can take up to a decade just to permit a mine. America is on its heels. From project finance to government permitting, the project development cycle must move faster to have any chance of regaining the supply chains underpinning our energy industrial base and become resource independent.

Large-scale energy innovation often needs to bring together private and public investment in order to scale up deployment and bring down costs. This model worked for solar, wind, natural gas and other clean energy technologies. For example, Texas entrepreneur George Mitchell figured out how to break up shale rocks to release the natural gas stuck inside. This process, called hydraulic fracturing, initially got off the ground with support from the Department of Energy (DOE), which cost-shared R&D and demonstrations in the 1970s and 1990s, as well as tax credits from the 1980s to early 2000s.

Fortunately, the past few years has yielded targeted federal energy innovation policy that, if implemented right, could help bring resource production back to America and help build the next success story similar to American shale gas.

The Energy Act of 2020 (EACT), signed into law by President Trump at the end of the 116th Congress, modernized and refocused the DOE’s research and development programs on some of the most pressing technology challenges identified by the International Energy Agency (IEA) as essential to global energy and climate objectives — scaling up clean energy technologies like advanced nuclear, long-duration energy storage, carbon capture, and enhanced geothermal. Subsequently, the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) invested $62 billion into next-generation technologies, power grid improvement, energy efficiency, and more at the DOE. Importantly, nearly half of that total was slated for the very energy-related research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) programs authorized in the EACT and the relevant infrastructure needed for their broader adoption.

The bipartisan IIJA targeted federal energy research investment, focusing RD&D programs around some of the biggest opportunities to advance U.S. energy security, technological leadership, and global emissions reductions. The DOE is now launching the most aggressive commercial-scale technology demonstration programs in history, with clear permanence and cost goals, to scale up clean energy technologies like the Long-Duration Storage Shot, the Hydrogen Shot, and the Enhanced Geothermal Shot. For example, the storage initiative launched in July of 2021 is oriented around reducing the cost of grid-scale energy storage by 90 percent for systems that deliver 10+ hours of duration within the decade. That specific goal may sound familiar – it mimics the bipartisan authorization from the Better Energy Storage Technologies Act (BEST) enacted in the 116th Congress.

These initiatives present opportunities but also many significant challenges that this Committee is rightly using its oversight authority to explore.

The bipartisan Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act of 2022 was also constructed specifically to go on offense versus China on technological innovation. The package directed $280 billion in investment over the next 10 years, with the majority for scientific R&D and commercialization. Approximately $53 billion is for semiconductor manufacturing, R&D, and workforce development, with another $24 billion worth of tax credits for chip production. The law also added significant new DOE technology transfer authorities, comprehensively reauthorized the DOE Office of Science and established a first-of-a-kind, low-emissions steel manufacturing research program that aims to make American steel production the cleanest and cheapest in the world.

The U.S. has a national security imperative to take on China and Russia in technological innovation and energy exports. A cohesive strategy that syncs our country’s robust research, development and demonstration (RD&D), the American entrepreneurial spirit, targeted free market incentives, and proactive trade policies can leverage the United States’ advantage as one of the most carbon efficient economies in the world. Three examples where the U.S. is leading are natural gas, steel and minerals mining. A life cycle analysis conducted by the DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory on U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports shows that American LNG can be up to 30 percent cleaner than Russian natural gas. While Chinese steel is the third most emitting in the world, American steel is among the cleanest in the world, with the second lowest CO₂-intensity of any country. Emissions from mining support services in China, including many minerals required for deploying clean energy at scale, are over 5 times higher than if those activities were conducted in the United States.

Our nation should double down on the public and private sector momentum to produce more and innovate faster, securing a clean, affordable, resilient energy future reasserting global technology and resources leadership, and furthering global emission reductions.

But simply throwing federal taxpayer resources at the problem is not going to achieve that ambitious goal. For the United States to lead globally while creating jobs in new industries here at home, the United States must maximize public and private sector efforts by taking the following actions:

Strengthen direct investment and foster private investment in U.S. supply chain: The bipartisan Energy Act of 2020, the IIJA, the CHIPS and Science Act, and federal tax incentives must more effectively bolster the U.S. clean energy supply chain and commercialize key technologies. The successful implementation of these programs is critical to ensuring that U.S. companies can demonstrate and deploy their technologies and be able to compete on the world stage. That difficult task means identifying projects that can be delivered on time and on budget, while ensuring the maximum benefit of investment goes to American companies and the industries where the U.S. has a leading edge. To assist with accountability and oversight, ClearPath has developed an interactive dashboard to follow progress across the major demonstration programs led by the DOE from the initial program development stages all the way through to final award selections.
Modernize Permitting: The single largest impediment to private sector investment is regulatory unpredictability. Unnecessary regulatory hurdles that slow down the deployment of innovative technology and necessary infrastructure, including the critical mineral supply chain, threaten the United States’ ability to significantly reduce our emissions and provide low-cost options to the rest of the world on an ambitious timescale. Right now, developers can only build new energy infrastructure as fast as federal, state, and local governments can permit them – and it simply is not fast enough. Reform must flip the permitting paradigm from one that favors stopping a project to one that expedites the approval process for projects that bring net benefits and comply with the legal requirements meant to ensure clean water and clean air. U.S. leadership requires a system that promotes good outcomes – both economic and environmental – so that the country can build at the pace and scale required to meet America’s energy demand and compete with our adversaries.
Foster Global Market Opportunities for American Technologies: The economic opportunity for the U.S. is remarkable. A recent report from Boston Consulting Group estimated the Serviceable Addressable Market (SAM) for six key clean energy technologies (clean steel, hydrogen, long-duration energy storage, geothermal, direct air capture, and new nuclear) to be roughly $16.5 trillion through 2050. Getting our domestic policies right, including in many cases getting the government out of the way, will allow us to scale up our clean technologies and drive down costs to meet the energy demands of the developing world with more price-competitive exports of American solutions. At the same time, the U.S. needs to create better trade and financing frameworks to support our exporters. Our country must prioritize market access abroad through removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers, and better leverage agencies like the U.S. Export-Import Bank and International Development Finance Corporation to compete more effectively against our non-market rivals (e.g. Chinese state-owned enterprises).

Further, the following three American industries serve as examples where U.S. government policies, investor interest, and the regulatory environment are incongruent with what is needed for the U.S. to lead globally.

Carbon Capture

China continues to dominate global coal power development, both at home and abroad. Chinese coal power plant construction and new project announcements accelerated dramatically in 2022, with new permits reaching the highest level since 2015. Many of those projects received expedited permitting and broke ground in a few months. This resulted in six times as many coal plants starting construction in China than the rest of the world combined for a total of 106 GW; the equivalent of two large coal power plants per week. While China recently committed to stop financing new overseas coal financing, over the last 10 years, its Belt and Road Initiative financed over 100 gigawatts of coal in at least 27 countries.

Policymakers have a choice – bet that the Chinese and their partners shut down their coal-fired power plants at the expense of economic growth; or develop, demonstrate, and deploy affordable U.S.-based emissions control technologies abroad as we have previously done for acid rain and aerosols. That’s where carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies come in.

CCUS is on the rise, with 35 projects in operation and over 250 million metric tons of CO₂/yr of capture capacity currently in development worldwide by 2030. 40 percent of the capacity in development over that timeline is in the U.S., which is currently the global leader on CCUS technology. While the over 100 million metric tons of capacity announced in the U.S. is significant, it is only scratching the surface of this country’s potential. A recent report from the DOE estimates that getting CCUS technologies on track for climate targets in the U.S. would require capacity to capture 400 to 1,800 million tons of CO₂ per year by 2050. This level of development would represent $100 billion of investment by 2030 and $600 billion by 2050. On a global level, reaching net-zero by 2050 likely requires at least 4-7 gigatons of CO₂ captured per year, meaning that we currently only have one-half of one percent of the CCUS capacity needed today.

Current and Proposed U.S. Carbon Capture Infrastructure

Sources include ClearPath analysis, CATF US Carbon Capture Map, Rextag CO₂ Pipelines, and EPA’s Class VI Well Tables as of March 2023

CCUS technologies allow us to mitigate emissions and also support American jobs. Right now, the U.S. truly has the lead on other countries through a combination of engineering expertise, technical leadership, and recently enacted public policy like the 45Q carbon capture utilization and storage tax credit and the Department of Energy’s Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects Program. Going forward, the U.S. needs to find ways to parlay this leadership edge into the potential to export our expertise to support the development of carbon capture technologies in other countries. The services associated with carbon capture can be significantly higher than the physical investment of the technology itself, meaning we will create jobs at home that lead to lower emissions abroad.

Despite our head start, a lot needs to be done to ensure that the massive CCUS scale up in the U.S. occurs. The U.S. is woefully behind on the carbon dioxide transportation and storage infrastructure necessary to give confidence to private sector investors that they will be able to receive a meaningful return on their investment within a reasonable time. A dramatic increase in the number of required Class VI carbon dioxide storage wells, as well as the ability to build out carbon dioxide transportation pipeline systems, is essential. The U.S. currently only has 3 permitted Class VI wells for carbon storage, when we likely need over 600 or more wells to meet long term climate targets.

Beyond that, the U.S. only has 5000 miles of carbon dioxide pipeline. While this is more than anywhere else in the world, it is concentrated in a few geographic regions and is insufficient to meet the needs of a larger scale carbon capture build out. The proposed Heartland Greenway pipeline and Midwest Carbon Express projects, centered around connecting Midwest producers to permitted CO₂ storage sites in Illinois and western North Dakota respectively, are two prime examples.

Without addressing these infrastructure challenges, it’s not possible to see the level of buildout that is needed in the long run. To make this happen, the American supply chain needs significant permitting reform, as well as improvements in the ability of both the EPA and states to authorize pipelines and storage wells. Combining these types of reforms with targeted public-private investments like the DOE Carbon Capture Demonstration Program and the 45Q tax credit is the recipe to ensure U.S. competitiveness, not unrealistic mandates as proposed in new EPA regulations on May 11, 2023. Seizing the moment will deliver energy security, a resilient and reliable U.S. grid, and continue to position the U.S. as the leading supplier of technology for global emissions reductions.

Nuclear Energy

The demand for carbon-free technologies that further energy security has never been higher, and the effects of the war in Ukraine on international energy markets are lasting. This makes the expansion of reliable, secure and affordable nuclear power more important than ever.

The International Energy Agency said that the world needs to double the amount of today’s nuclear energy capacity in order to reach net-zero in 2050. That equates to roughly 25 new 1,000-megawatt reactors per year, every year from 2030 to 2050. While this seems daunting, at least eight U.S.-based companies have publicly announced international partnerships to explore deployment in more than 10 countries, and even more are in the works. In addition, more than 52 countries are projected to have markets for advanced nuclear power in the coming decades, representing a potential ~$380 billion per year market opportunity for the American supply chain.

This increase in global nuclear energy demand has coincided with unprecedented momentum in U.S. industry. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has publicly stated it anticipates at least 13 applications for advanced reactors by 2027. Additionally, American electrical utilities are projecting a need for nearly 90,000 MW of new nuclear power by 2050, essentially doubling the U.S. nuclear energy capacity in the next 30 years.

The nuclear provisions in the EACT and IIJA, as well as the other financial programs like the Loan Programs Office (LPO), can further attract private investment to the sector and accelerate technological innovation that position the American industry to capitalize on a competitive advantage: our abundance of innovative new technologies the global market demands. Today, almost 15 percent of active loan applications at LPO are for nuclear projects. All of these programs prepare the U.S. to be a competitive player in the international market. Concurrently, as we look to develop these new nuclear energy technologies, strong support for the existing fleet is important to energy security today and for the workforce and supply chain of the future.

A robust fuel supply chain and competitive financing will require coordination with our allies. Nevertheless, the market is not uncontested. In fact, over the past two decades, the U.S. and like-minded countries have lost market leadership in this space. Between 2017 and 2022, Russian and Chinese reactor designs captured 87 percent of all new reactor construction globally through their non-market, state-owned enterprises.

Reliance on the Russian nuclear fuel supply chain is particularly troubling. This year, Russia will supply almost 25 percent of our nation’s enriched uranium. While the U.S. and our allies have sanctioned and significantly reduced consumption of Russian oil and gas post-Ukraine evasion, the Russian nuclear industry has largely dodged sanctions due to the Russian bottleneck in the uranium supply chain. Uranium is a global commodity and when looking at the global uranium supply chain, 38 percent of conversion capacity and 46 percent of enrichment capacity are controlled by Russia. Securing the nuclear fuel supply chain will require domestic and allied capabilities to both source and process uranium.

With the growing global market for nuclear energy, the U.S. must seize this moment and prove itself as a competitive alternative to Russian and Chinese energy exports. Key strategic allies like Poland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom are hoping to partner with American vendors rather than those competitors. Romania is a great example. Against a backdrop of growing mistrust of Chinese investments in Europe in 2020, the Romanian government broke a financing agreement with the China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN). Since then, Romania has penned a roughly $9 billion deal to build two new reactors in Cernavoda with a $3 billion loan being provided by the U.S. Export Import Bank.

New and Forthcoming Nuclear Reactors Worldwide

The challenge ahead is project delivery. Recently enacted federal policies, like the clean electricity tax credit, NRC modernization legislation, and new public-private partnerships with the DOE, boost the confidence of investors and end-users needed to commercially scale up reactors domestically and internationally.

To go from building a handful of American reactors to building hundreds of reactors, a few critical barriers to lift off must be addressed.

First, the nuclear fuel supply chain must be secured for both the existing fleet and our next generation of reactors. Industry, the DOE, and Congress must work together to enable a private-industry-led, domestic High-Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) supply chain. HALEU is essential to the success of many advanced reactor projects, including the two recipients of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP). Today, Russia is the only source of large volumes of HALEU. Concurrently, the U.S. and its allies must also ensure its demand for Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) for our current fleet and future light water reactors can be met without any reliance on Russia. Ensuring fuel security is paramount to American nuclear expansion.

Second, regulatory modernization is critically important as it is the necessary step between the development of these new designs and commercialization. If America is not proactive with licensing the next generation of designs, the U.S. could fail to meet its clean energy needs and continue to lose ground to China and Russia on innovation. While the NRC is working to modernize, attract new talent, and further its technical understanding of new technologies – efforts that I commend them for – the Commission admits it will still struggle to review these new applications in a timely manner. Understandably so – 13 new applications in the next five years is unprecedented. To lead, the NRC must be structured and incentivized to license the next generation of new reactors differently than they have licensed traditional reactors. The review process can be more efficient, effective and not unduly burdensome without any reduction in safety.

And lastly, the U.S. government and industry must work together to aggressively promote orders for our cutting-edge technologies abroad. Recent actions by countries in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia have shown that advanced nuclear deployment is highly desired. Nations want clean, reliable, and secure energy. The U.S. and its allies should be the ones to establish these new, 100-year international partnerships in place of our adversaries. The U.S. government must develop a robust and effective interagency strategy to proactively build and enhance relationships with partner nations, as well as create competitive financing and technology packages to offset the growing influence of Russia and China.

There are many new American nuclear projects in the pipeline today, and the robust U.S. supply chain that supports it and existing nuclear operations employs nearly half a million Americans. On average, a person working in the nuclear energy industry makes a higher median wage than any other energy industry and twice the national median wage. Concurrently, there is a 30 billion dollar crossover benefit to our national security between the civilian nuclear industry and the U.S. military, focused on shared research infrastructure, workforce, and supply chain diversity. Fostering the growth of the domestic supply chain and going on offense in the global marketplace could yield tens of thousands of more high-paying, stable jobs as the industry grows.

Critical Minerals

It is difficult to overstate China’s dominance and America’s dependence on foreign supply chains when it comes to critical minerals. According to the 2023 U.S. Geological Survey’s Mineral Commodities Summary, the United States was 100 percent net import reliant for 12 of the 50 individually listed critical minerals and more than 50 percent net import reliant for an additional 31 critical mineral commodities; meanwhile, China was the leading producer for 30 of the 50 critical minerals. Rising demand for minerals will place major stress on global supply chains and undermine the United States’ ability to deploy more clean energy.

In a recent report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that by 2040, demand for energy-related minerals like lithium, cobalt, graphite, and nickel could grow by 20-40 times.

Regardless of where the minerals are mined, China exerts dominant control over the refining process for each of these critical minerals. According to the IEA, the production of critical minerals used for clean energy technologies is highly concentrated geographically, raising concerns about security of supplies. The Democratic Republic of Congo supplies 70 percent of cobalt today; China supplies 60 percent of rare earth elements; and Indonesia supplies 40 percent of nickel.

Perhaps even more concerning is the fact that the processing of these minerals is even more concentrated. China is responsible for a large majority of the refining of rare earth elements and has demonstrated a willingness to leverage its influence to pursue political objectives. The concentration of mineral supply chains creates risks of disruption from political or environmental events, poor transparency and traceability, and sacrifices the expertise necessary for value-adding innovation and jobs.

While the current Administration has convened a Minerals Security Partnership, along with other regional and multilateral clean energy dialogues with friendly nations such as Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea and others to address these challenges, both the public and private sector need to do more, faster to ensure reliable and responsible clean technology supply chains.

Absent a clear, predictable, and streamlined process, the U.S. will continue to rely on critical minerals sourced from overseas. These include countries that pose national security risks or those that lack basic environmental and human rights protections. The choice should be clear: producing American resources here at home creates jobs, promotes innovation, increases energy security, and leads to better global environmental outcomes.

Yet, the U.S. struggles to permit projects to unlock these critical minerals. Recent data from Goldman Sachs shows that regulatory approvals for mines have fallen to the lowest level in a decade. This should be the exact opposite because of the substantial demand growth for electric vehicles and other renewable applications. While the Administration has announced awardee selections with a combined total of nearly $5 billion for critical minerals demonstration projects funded by the IIJA or through the Loan Programs Office, there remains one glaring omission in the critical minerals supply chain: only one of these selected projects address our inability to extract new materials domestically.

The House has rightly put permitting reform front and center this year, passing with bipartisan support its signature energy package, the Lower Energy Costs Act, as H.R.1. Provisions in the bill recognize the current system undercuts America’s ability to deploy domestically abundant resources and compete on the world stage. There is real opportunity for this Congress to work on a bipartisan basis to modernize the permitting process and solve this problem.

Conclusion

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. ClearPath is eager to assist the Committee in developing innovative policy solutions to ensure a robust domestic energy supply chain in order to ensure a clean, reliable, and affordable domestic energy sector.

We applaud the Committee for taking on this important task to help ensure U.S. leadership of these efforts, including target investments and permit reform here at home that advance innovative technologies to provide clean, reliable, and necessary energy to our nation and the world.

Administration’s Action Has Impact on American Energy Independence

House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Below is my testimony before the House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, entitled “The Biden Administration’s Executive Overreach and its Impact on American Energy Independence” on May 11, 2023.

Watch Jeremy’s Opening Remarks
Read Jeremy’s Full Testimony as Seen Below

Good afternoon Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury and members of the Committee. My name is Jeremy Harrell, and I am the Chief Strategy Officer of ClearPath, a 501(c)(3) organization that develops and advances policies that accelerate innovations to reduce and remove global energy emissions.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for holding this important hearing. America’s energy demands are rapidly increasing. Some estimates say the U.S. will need to double the capacity of the grid by 2050 to meet expected clean energy demand. To support that grid modernization and U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, America will simultaneously need to construct tens of thousands of miles of new pipelines carrying natural gas, hydrogen, and captured carbon dioxide from power plants and industrial facilities.

Financing and building enough energy infrastructure projects to meet our nation’s need for reliable, affordable cleaner energy is an immense challenge. Recent projections show that 1,300 gigawatts of new clean energy would need to be added by 2035. This would more than double the grid’s current capacity within the next 12 years. But under the current regulatory environment, this pace of deployment is procedurally impossible.

Never has the phrase “time is money” been more appropriate. Regulatory delays that can last nearly a decade are making projects more expensive, and impeding the U.S.’ ability to deploy billions of dollars of capital that would create American jobs, enhance U.S. energy security, keep consumer costs affordable, and reduce emissions.

The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) own data shows that on average it takes agencies 4.5 years to issue a Record of Decision for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). But the average belies the real challenge. In reality, 10 percent of projects took 10 years or more to reach a Record of Decision. The projects most likely to be held up in permitting purgatory are those that have the potential to offer the greatest benefits to the United States, including reduced energy costs, enhanced energy independence, increased economic opportunity, and lower global emissions.

The current system is broken. The structures in place are overwhelmingly titled toward those who seek to delay or block projects as opposed to those who seek to build. While that dynamic may have made sense four decades ago when policymakers enacted these laws as a response to environmental disasters, today, those laws are being used to block projects that will reduce emissions and improve environmental quality. We need a system that promotes good outcomes – both economic and environmental. The pace and scale necessary to build clean energy infrastructure projects to reliably meet America’s energy demand and reduce emissions is not something the authors of the 1970s environmental laws could have imagined.

The energy infrastructure we need today is simply not getting built fast enough, and throwing federal money at the projects or the agencies reviewing them is not going to substantially change that problem. The combination of permitting delays and “ping-ponged” decisions from Administrations past and present have disrupted the U.S. ability to build to fulfill needs. As a result, it can now take six years to permit carbon dioxide storage locations needed to store billions of tons captured from industrial sites, 16 years to permit an offshore wind farm in Massachusetts, and up to 15 years for a new transmission line from Wyoming to Utah.,, Another important example is the need for timely approval of a new LNG terminal as well as any necessary interstate natural gas pipelines to supply these new terminals. These are just a few of the hundreds of projects held up by the status quo of the current system.

Fortunately, fixing this outdated, broken system is at the top of the agenda this Congress. This Committee has rightly put permitting reform front and center this year, passing with bipartisan support its signature energy package, the Lower Energy Costs Act, as H.R.1.

This bill addresses bottlenecks that make the current system a quagmire: unnecessary duplication, a morass of reviews across multiple agencies, and superfluous legal action. Solving these challenges will reduce emissions, increase production and boost U.S. energy security, all while providing safety and environmental protection for local communities.

Project developers are ready to build today. There is real opportunity for this Congress to work on a bipartisan basis to modernize the permitting process. The important thing is policymakers keep an eye on the prize. Senate action cannot simply water down H.R.1 into something milquetoast that fails to fundamentally change the current regulatory regime.

This is underscored by recent proposals released this month, as leaders in the key Senate committees on both sides of the aisle have put forward their own proposals, including many concepts that match themes included in H.R.1.

As the permitting reform effort continues in both the U.S. House and Senate, I will highlight three key solutions that have been identified by project developers, former federal officials, academics and environmental non-governmental organizations.

Restore predictability to the system;
Provide more streamlined litigation; and
Improve coordination between and among federal, state and local governments.

American entrepreneurs have the wind at their backs to deploy more energy projects now. Congress has come together in a bipartisan manner, with bills like the CHIPS and Science Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), to bring new technologies to the market and invest in American supply chains. 2022 saw record industry investment in energy, with the largest boost in recent years coming from the power sector.

But again, simply spending more money on new projects will not necessarily make them a reality. Without meaningful permitting reform, there is a real risk that these major investments in technologies that the globe needs, such as carbon capture, advanced nuclear, and geothermal will go unrealized. And the U.S. will miss out on an opportunity to lead a global energy transformation.

While these challenges are numerous, Republican and Democratic policymakers have never been more closely aligned on the need for significant permitting reform. Whether the motivation is climate, economic growth, more energy production, or energy supply chain security, it is well-past time to fix what is broken, as America’s energy, environmental, and economic future depends on sweeping reform.

Restore Predictability to the System

Reform must flip the permitting paradigm from one that favors stopping a project to one that expedites the approval process for projects that bring net benefits and comply with the legal requirements meant to ensure clean water and clean air. This approach would rely on a three-pronged approach that automatically advances projects with significant net benefits, focuses environmental and permit review on uniquely local conditions of a project on an accelerated timeline review, and keeps the relevant agencies within the boundaries of the laws Congress has enacted. Many of these concepts were included in H.R.1, and it is important a final bill doubles down on the concept and maximizes their impact.

First, projects that do not have an environmental impact should be granted immediate approval. For example, replacing a retiring power plant with a zero-emissions advanced nuclear generator at an existing site or building a solar project on a brownfield site should not require a yearslong permitting process. Advancing these types of projects without delay is a win-win. The economic and environmental benefits of these projects should not be delayed by unnecessary bureaucracy.

There should be criteria to prequalify technologies that are proven to have minimal environmental impacts and immense positive outcomes – similar to “permit-by-rule” concepts some states have implemented. In other words, there should be a presumption of project approval so long as the specifics of a project satisfy certain predefined criteria. In many cases, this would alleviate the requirement to do unnecessary boilerplate re-analysis.

One starting point could be to automatically advance projects that have nationally significant outcomes, like enhancing resilience of the grid or a significant reduction of global emissions, where the environmental impacts of development are well known. For example, a carbon capture retrofit of an existing facility, the modernization of a grid substation, or powering of a non-powered dam. H.R.1 took a similar tack for energy storage projects at existing facilities and maintenance or upgrades to existing transmission and distribution infrastructure.

Similarly, designating a list of prequalified geographic areas to encourage project sponsors to seek out specific locations, would go a long way towards accelerating projects with the lowest impact. Such areas could include previously disturbed locations or well categorized sites, such as brownfield sites that present opportunities to use existing electrical or mechanical infrastructure or former military bases. The environmental impacts to these locations related to energy deployment are minimal, and in many cases these locations are in or near communities that need the redevelopment most urgently. Congress could also consider regulatory incentives to direct investment toward areas where impacts are already well understood.

Another opportunity could be to pair existing financial incentives, such as the “Opportunity Zones” or “Energy Communities” classifications established by Congress, with a streamlined permitting process to further boost investment. Both Opportunity Zones and Energy Communities were established by Congress to drive investment in distressed areas and communities that would benefit the most from new energy investments. Matching financial incentives with regulatory certainty will create a clear signal to project developers during the site selection process. Coordinated incentives like these can help drive investment to previously underserved areas and ensure the benefits of clean energy reach these communities without unnecessary delays.

Some of the most egregious problems of our broken system would be solved by this type of reform. For example, nonsensical approaches to geothermal exploration inhibit our ability of scaling baseload clean energy at scale. The Department of Energy estimates that geothermal generation could double by 2035 if our immense potential was unleashed. But concurrently, the Department found that “because additional steps and NEPA analyses are required, confirming the resource is more costly and risky,” translating to permitting timelines of 5–7-years, rather than a 1–3 year period that would otherwise be available with a categorical exclusion.

Geothermal energy uses similar technology as oil and gas exploration and drilling activities. When oil and gas uses this technology, these resource confirmation (e.g. exploration) activities benefit from statutory authority enacted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that expedites five types of development activities. However, when the same mechanisms are used to confirm a geothermal energy resource, the expedited pathway does not apply. As a result, two very similar methods to test for resource feasibility must undergo substantially different permitting reviews despite both having negligible environmental impact. The Bureau of Land Management has the authority to administratively grant this same expedited pathway for geothermal energy resources, yet has wrung its hands for years rather than simply updating its regulatory guidance. This system is clearly broken.

Further, departments should proactively consult with other agencies to identify existing NEPA categorical exclusions available to accelerate development of energy infrastructure projects. DOE’s recent Request for Information (RFI) to adopt new Categorical Exclusions is a model that should be replicated across other federal agencies.

Second, reform must streamline the approval process for projects where there are unique environmental impacts. In these cases, the review process could focus specifically on issues of the highest impact, resulting in more efficient timelines that still ensure compliance with existing environmental laws.

There are several provisions that have earned broad bipartisan support, including applying the “One Federal Decision” framework to energy projects. Similar support exists to reuse existing environmental review documents when a project will have substantially similar impacts as one previously studied. These provisions are both included in H.R.1 and other proposals that have been recently made public. Those principles should be expanded upon.

One immense opportunity that could be fostered by reforms like this is in new nuclear technologies. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has publicly stated it anticipates at least 13 applications for advanced reactors by 2027, technologies that could bring safe, flexible, and reliable clean energy to our energy system. Decades of operation have shown that nuclear energy has a minimal environmental impact. Future designs hold the same promise.

Since the dawn of the nuclear age in the 1950s, nuclear reactors have been supplying Americans with clean, reliable, and affordable energy. On a bipartisan basis in the 115th, 116th, and 117th Congresses, legislation has been passed that strengthens the U.S. nuclear industry. However, except for the Vogtle Unit 3 reactor that recently came online in Georgia, the vast majority of nuclear plants in the United States were constructed over 40 years ago.

That is changing today. The advanced reactor market is at an inflection point. Investors and potential end-users are closely watching first-of-a-kind utility-scale projects eyeing the late 2020s and early 2030s for commercial operation. American electric utilities are projecting a need for 90 GW of new nuclear power by 2050, nearly doubling our nuclear energy capacity in the next 30 years. Simplifying the permitting for projects like TerraPower’s flagship project in Kemmerer, Wyoming, which is leveraging the infrastructure at a retiring coal plant, is a no brainer. A nuclear facility is different from a coal-fired power plant, but many of the environmental factors that must be considered are similar. Additionally, many advanced reactors are looking to develop alongside industrial facilities or existing nuclear sites, where previous environmental analysis and community engagement has been extensive. A rational permitting system would leverage that work to accelerate exciting projects, not force needless duplication.

Third, federal action can no longer vacillate according to political whims, particularly when the Congress has acted. Given long development timelines needed to bring a project from financing to construction, project developers need to be able to rely on regulatory certainty from one Administration to the next. This need is perhaps most acute for projects that seek to unlock critical minerals.

While the Administration has announced award selections worth a combined total of nearly $5 billion for critical minerals demonstration projects funded by the bipartisan infrastructure bill and other new programs, there remains one glaring omission in the critical minerals supply chain: none of these selected projects addresses our inability to extract new materials domestically. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that demand for energy-related minerals like lithium, cobalt, graphite, and nickel could grow by 20-40 times by 2040. The U.S. will not be able to recycle its way out of this demand for critical minerals.

It is difficult to overstate the U.S. dependence on foreign supply chains, including reliance on China. According to the 2023 U.S. Geological Survey’s Mineral Commodities Summary, the U.S. was 100 percent net import reliant for 12 of the 50 individually listed critical minerals and was more than 50 percent net import reliant for an additional 31 critical mineral commodities. Meanwhile, China was the leading producing nation for 30 of the 50 critical minerals. Regardless of where the minerals are mined, China exerts dominant control over the refining process for many of these critical minerals. Rising demand for minerals will place major stress on global supply chains and undermine the ability of the U.S. to deploy more clean energy.

One of the most prominent examples of America’s inability to permit mines is Resolution Copper, which Congress explicitly authorized when the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act was enacted into law with the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291). Once approved, the proposed mine is expected to become the largest copper mine in North America, capable of producing up to 25 percent of U.S. copper demand each year. The proposal received a final EIS in January 2021, only to have it unpublished by the Biden Administration two months later. The Administration is explicitly subverting Congressional intent with this project. These unnecessary delays precede a decade of construction before operations can begin, bringing the project timeline to at least two full decades from its inception.

This back and forth regulatory review is far too common. The Resolution Copper Mine is just one of many examples. And the regulatory overreach deters investors, increases capital costs, and delays the energy security benefits of developing a robust domestic supply chain for clean energy and related infrastructure.

Absent a clear, predictable, and streamlined process, America will continue to rely on critical minerals sourced from overseas, including from countries that pose national security risks or those that lack basic environmental and human rights protections. The choice should be clear: producing American resources here at home creates jobs, promotes innovation, increases energy security, and leads to better global environmental outcomes.

Provide more streamlined litigation

Once a project is approved, any further adjudications should be addressed as expeditiously as possible to ensure that protracted litigation does not undermine project viability. Judicial review is the biggest wildcard in the current permitting system, and H.R.1 appropriately recognized it as an area that could have the most meaningful impact towards efficient project deliverability. Establishing requirements where any legal disputes must be resolved in less than one year would meaningfully address this uncertainty.

In the spirit of the current system rewarding those who seek to delay rather than those who seek to build, litigation under NEPA has become the favored tool of those who seek to indefinitely delay projects through procedural lawsuits. Such prominent examples include the saga of the proposed Cape Wind project off the coast of Massachusetts, where protracted litigation, including more than 20 administrative and judicial challenges to both federal and state reviews, ultimately led utilities to cancel power purchase agreements, effectively killing the project. While no single suit ever specifically terminated the project, the purposeful delay tactics requiring evermore environmental analysis ultimately led investors to pull the plug. This same playbook is now being used to protest the approval for the Vineyard Wind project, despite new state laws that mandate utilities to procure offshore wind energy.

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) is another prime example in which legal uncertainty contributed to an untenable business environment leading project developers to cancel the project and take a loss. ACP was intended to bring natural gas access to residential, commercial, defense, and industrial customers in Virginia and North Carolina, but legal challenges to federal and state permits contributed to more than three years of delays and increased project costs from $8 billion from an original estimate of $5 billion.

Additionally ,the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) from northwestern West Virginia to southern Virginia has also attracted extensive Congressional attention because of similar uncertainty. No doubt, the expected build out of gas, hydrogen, and CO2 pipelines needed to meet our future system demands requires a more predictable process for the private sector to deliver on these projects.

As more clean energy projects enter the permitting process, clean energy projects will increasingly find themselves subject to these delay tactics. Such actions too often delay significant economic and environmental benefits, like new clean energy generation from that wind farm or the net reduction in global emissions from the use of lower emissions U.S. gas relative to dirtier Russian supplies in Europe. These increases in emissions or environmental harm are the very outcomes that NEPA was enacted to avoid and prevent.

Any changes to judicial review must balance a plaintiff’s right to have his or her day in court with the goal of reaching finality on a more predictable timeline. One such proposal would be to immediately elevate any legal challenge under NEPA to the federal appellate court where the project is to be constructed or alternatively the DC Circuit. This would be similar to the process already used to challenge agency decisions, including those made by FERC.

Improve Coordination with State and Local Governments

Finally, it is important to recognize and address, to the maximum extent practicable, challenging permitting projects at the state and local level – without trampling on federalism.

An example of an unpredictable regulatory environment is the prolonged delay to review and approve permits for Class VI underground injection control wells needed to permanently sequester carbon dioxide. Class VI wells are a necessary part of the carbon capture equation of preventing more emissions and are the only authorized method permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to sequester carbon dioxide in permanent geologic storage.

While many states have long held primary enforcement authority for other well classes, only North Dakota and Wyoming have received primacy for this newest well class established in 2010. Congress rightly included provisions in the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act and the IIJA directing the EPA to support states applying for Class VI primacy and to actively improve the Class VI permitting review process.

The advantages of state primacy for Class VI wells are readily apparent in North Dakota. Whereas the EPA has taken an average of three years to permit Class VI wells, it took North Dakota only five months. The EPA currently has more than 70 pending applications across eight states awaiting regulatory approval.

This backlog is a prime example of where this Administration is working against its own priorities. The Department of Energy is investing billions of dollars to deploy new carbon capture technologies now, while the EPA muddles through reviews of storage sites at a palatial pace and the Department of the Interior stands in the way of related infrastructure projects across regions prime for commercial scale up.

The most egregious example may be in Louisiana. After years of delay, the Administration finally issued the draft rule necessary to approve Louisiana’s request for Class VI primacy earlier this month. This initiates a 60-day comment period and a subsequent EPA response period that historically can take upwards of a year for a state to be granted final authority. Once final, the decision is likely to have an immediate impact as 10 of the current outstanding Class VI permits are located in the state, which could unlock up to 6 million tons of carbon dioxide per year in Louisiana alone. If Republican and Democratic policy makers did not lean into the federal agencies in recent oversight hearings, this rule would likely still be stuck in the bureaucracy.

It is clear that the time to transfer Class VI authority should be improved for the other states looking to obtain primacy such as Pennsylvania, Arizona, Texas, and West Virginia, which are preparing applications for Class VI primacy. To date, primacy is the number one tool to get these projects permitted quickly, while preserving the safety of local communities. Additionally, this would allow federal agencies to focus their energies on permits in states not-yet equipped to take on permitting primacy or accelerate review of storage opportunities on federal lands or the Outer Continental Shelf, which have immense potential to contribute to our long-term energy future.

Similar barriers exist for proposed transmission lines that can better connect both new and existing generation assets to load as timelines to get new transmission projects developed now routinely stretch to over a decade.

One example is the SunZia line, designed to move power from New Mexico to California. The 550 mile line required cooperation from 10 federal agencies, 5 state agencies, and 9 local authorities while incorporating input from a host of additional state, local, and federal stakeholders. Projected to come online in 2025, the 3.5 GW project, which would provide power for millions of customers, will have taken over 17 years from proposal to completion. These timelines, complicated by the intersection of different requirements from federal, state, tribal, and local regulators, impede the ability of new projects to interconnect to the grid.

According to the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, there are 2000 GW of electricity and storage waiting in the interconnection queue to be connected to the grid. While not all of these projects will be built, this figure is nearly double the current system capacity as it exists today. This backlog is especially relevant as hundreds of gigawatts of clean energy projects spend years stuck in the interconnection process, awaiting evaluation by transmission providers to determine their impact on the broader system. An average completion rate of 21% and queue wait time of 4 years makes meeting any target for a reliable and affordable clean energy system infeasible. It is also important to note that analysis recently conducted by the regional transmission organization (RTO) PJM estimates that 40 GW of baseload generation, more than 21 percent of current installed capacity, is at risk of retirement by 2030 without reliable generation lined up to replace it and keep up with demand growth.

While there is no silver bullet to rapidly and reliably modernize the grid, a combination of process improvements, permitting reforms, and technological innovation will help avoid clean energy deployment from hitting a wall.

Conclusion

The current permitting system stymies clean energy resources and broadly delays the highest impact projects from delivering benefits. It is imperative that Congress address both aspects of the permitting process to maximize public and private sector investments and put steel in the ground. These pillars of pre-qualification to expedite review, more streamlined litigation, and improved coordination with state and local governments are priorities that merit consideration as the process to reach a permitting deal moves forward.

These reforms are ambitious by design as half measures have failed to move the needle for more than two decades. Anything less will only prolong the inability of the U.S. to build big things.

We look forward to working with this Committee to both further legislative action on regulatory reform and to reign in Executive Branch overreach. I look forward to today’s discussion.